HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2007.06.13TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
AGENDA
June 13.2007
7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 10,2007
CHAIR'S PROLOGUE
CONSENT
Those items included under Consent are items not expected to require discussion before action. All items
will be enacted in one motion. lf discussion is desired by any Commissioner on any item, the item should be
identified and removed from the Consent agenda for separate action.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of
the Commission. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State-Local Agency Open Meeting Law) prohibits the
Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a
"Request To Speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Commission
Chairperson may limit speakers to three minutes each.
9. CURRENT BUSINESS
9.1 Request from Commissioner Bohnert to have the issue of the Hillside
Drive/Balboa Avenue crosswalks remanded back to the Commission for
further evaluation.
9.2 Discussion of Critical Minimum Street Width Policy for Managing Street
Tree lmpacts in the Roadway.
9.3 Commission consideration of the repeal of the Overnight Parking Permit
ordinance.
9.4 Commission consideration of a Residential Permit Parking program
1 O. STAFF REPORTS
10.1 Traffic Engineer's Repod
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
11
12
14
COMMUNICATIONS
Report by Staff or CommissioneG of citizen concems or complaints regarding traffic, safety and parking
issues thal are wilhin the Commassion's jurisdiclion.
10.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report
ITEMS REMOVED FROIVI CONSENT
PENDING ITEMS
'13.1 Letter from Jacqueline Cooke Haggarty regarding concerns over speeding
on Grove Avenue at Laguna Avenue.
13.2 Letter from Jennifer Pfaff regarding concerns over obscured pedestrian
crossing sign on Peninsula Drive at Stanley Road.
13.3 Letter from Jennifer Pfaff regarding City Parking Lot V
'13.5 Copies of revised TSPC meeting minutes for March 8, 2007 and April 12,
2007.
COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
14.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee
14.2 Biannual Commission Report
ADJOURNI\,IENT
Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission - Ag€nda
June 13,2007
Paga 2
13.4 Communication Sharon Menicucci regarding TSPC establishing an annual
Traffic Safety Awareness Program (TSAP).
PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES - ITEM 5
The City of Burlingame
cALtFORNtA 94010-3997
www. burlingame.org
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, May 10,2007
Commissioners Present:Victor James, Chair
Dan Conway, Vice Chair
Michael Bohnert
Mark Noworolski
Stephen Warden
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present:Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works
Sgt. Dean Williams, Police Department
Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works
Visitors:Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive
Farris Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive
Wendy Gale, 1301 MillsAvenue
Craig Horak, 1032 Paloma Avenue
Diana Mason, 1451 Balboa Drive
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Drive
1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 5 Commissioners present. Commissioner Noworolski arrived at7:25 pm
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -
Motion: To accept the minutes of April 12,2007 with the following corrections:
Page I of7
Chair's Prologue, paragraph 4. Replace "idea'with "concept":
"Chair James stated that the concepf behind Quad Maps is to take government to the
citizens."
Chair's Prologue, paragraph 5. Chair James asked that this paragraph be revised to
provide more detail on the discussion of commission and staff roles, that neither could
dictate to the other. He referred staff to listen to the audio tapes and submit a revised
version of the paragraph.
Commissioner Bohnert asked that statement under 9.1, paragraph 23 read:
"Commissioner Bohnert states thal as on Broadway we have over used signage as a way to
compensate for lack of enforcement."
Chair James' statement under 9.1 paragraph 27. Replace "ClP" with "Capital lmprovement
Projects":
"Chair James asked for confirmation that dealing with speeding was difficult due to Capital
lmprovement Projecfs and personnel expenses."
Chair James asked that statement under 9.'l paragraph, 30 be revised to not reflect a
linkage between speeding and crosswalks. He referred staff to listen to the audio tapes and
submit a revised version of the paragraph.
Chair James' statement under 10 .2 parugraph 2. Replace "remove" with "repeal":
"Chair James stated that part of the process lo repeal an ordinance was to open it for public
input and make TSPC aware of what staff was considering."
M/S/C: Warden, Conway;41011 (Commissioner Noworolski not present at the time)
6. CHAIR'S PROLOGUE
Chair James thanked Commissioner Conway for his report for Council, and said he would
like to get everyone's report before the last week of May so they can be compiled and
brought back to the Commission officially before given to the Council.
Chair James revisited the process for speaking - which was a round amongst the
Commissioners. lt had been brought to his aftention that staff felt they were not given the
opportunity to rebut or respond to ilems after Commission or public discussion. Chair James
said that in the future, after the round of Commissioner input, the Commission would ask for
further comment from staff before taking a vote.
Chair James reported that he received a letter from lvls. Hagerty, which he assumed that
staff received a copy also, and questioned whether this was foMarded to the commissioner
of the Ouad. Commissioner Warden stated that he received a letter via email which he
responded to and invited the Ms. Hagerty to call him. Chair James requested that this item
be listed on next month's agenda under Communications.
Page 2 of '7
7. CONSENT
No discussion
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Horak spoke as a representative of the Broadway Area Merchants Association,
specifically representing the President, Ross Bruce. He said the Broadway Merchants were
very pleased with the activities to date on grant item #6, in-pavement lights on Broadway.
He said it was their understanding that the $40,000 grant would be included in the next
fiscal year, starting in July. Mr. Horak said that the system would potentially improve safety
at this intersection. He added that he would like to request that Mr. Chou include a status
report at each monthly TSPC meeting until the system is operational.
Ms. Mason expressed her appreciation for the concern this commission showed regarding
the safety of the Balboa Avenue/Hillside Drive intersection. She also requested that another
safety measure be considered - installation of reflective pedestrian signs in the middle of
the road to caution drivers of pedestrians.
Ms. Giorni suggested that staff put a note out via the email List Serve that Thursday, May
''l7th is Bike to Work Day. Ms. Giorni stated that she was not sure if the Burlingame Station
would be an energizer station, but that she was fairly sure Millbrae and San Mateo stations
would be, and perhaps next year Burlingame could be made an energizer station.
Commissioner Warden asks that agenda item 13.2 be moved forward to accommodate the
requesting resident, who had young children present.
'13.2 Letter from Wendy Gale regarding speeding on Mills Avenue.
Ms. Gale expressed her appreciation of the responsiveness that she received
regarding her letter. She said that the general concern of these few, short blocks
between El Camino Real and California Drive was the speed of the drivers. She said
it was excessive at times. Ms. Gale said that this block has a lot of young children,
and the neighbors wanted to know if anything could be done for this situation.
Commissioner Warden asked that this block be added to the selective enforcement
list. Sergeant Williams responded that it should be consider as done.
9, CURRENT BUSINESS
No discussion.
Page 3 of 7
10, STAFF REPORTS
10.'l Traffic Engineer's Report
Mr. Chou reported that staff will be going to Council on May 21sr to have a resolution
approved to request MTC to allocate funds for our TDA grants as a final step to get
the funds. The approved resolution would then be foMarded to the City & County
Association of Governments, who would in turn issue the letters back to the qualified
cities. He said that after that, the design work could begin and staff hours billed.
Commissioner Bohnert questioned what the estimated lead time might be in regards
to beginning design work and implementation. Mr. Chou said that staff would like to
see the project in the ground around October. He said this depended on when the
City were to get the authorization letter. He said once the letter was received, design
could take approximately one month, dependent on where power could be drawn and
how long it would take to contact PG&E.
Mr. Chou reported that there was a recent joint Council/Commission meeting; and,
that Council had requested some issues be brought to the public forum through the
Commission. These issues are the overnight parking permit program and a
residential parking permit program. Mr. Chou advised that this needed to be
coordinated with the Police Department. He said that these issues would be brought
up at the June meeting with staff reports that provide more background information.
Chair James asked if this would be the public hearing. He said that the reason he
was asking was because of the repealing process. He said the Commission must
determine how they would deal with this -whether they hold a public hearing or take it
as a normal course duly noted.
Mr. Chou stated that there were two approaches. ln a normal course of discussion,
the item would be agendized as a current business item with due notifications. The
other option would be to hold a dedicated meeting on a different night. Mr. Chou
suggested that if the issues appeared to be controversial, then the commission could
consider holding a separate meeting. Otherwise, the first meeting could be an item
on the agenda as a specific business item to be discussed openly with the public.
Commissioner Warden asked if the Easton tree issue might come back to the
commission. Mr. Chou stated that he had not heard that it would be coming back yet.
10.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report
None.
1 l.ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
No discussion
Page 4 of7
12, PENDING ITEMS
13, COMMUNICATIONS
Commission Warden said that it was brought up at the Joint Council/Commission meeting
that storage containers were being parked on streets such as Edgehill Drive/Paloma
Avenue and Palm/Paloma Avenues. He asked if the City could now go after the ones that
were there.
Mr. Chou stated that he would speak with the Public Works inspectors and determine where
to go with some action. He said that the policy on this matter was recently formalized such
that the City would not be issuing permits for such use.
Commissioner Warden stated that he recently learned of a situation in Millbrae where their
red light running photo enforcement had only one "Photo Enforced" sign at the intersection,
and when a person wanted to appeal a ticket (in this case for stopping over the white line),
the City of Millbrae requires a $1,500 bond to appeal the ticket. Commissioner Warden
asked Mr. Chou to follow-up with Red Flex to ensure that this type of situation would not
occur with Burlingame's photo enforced program.
Commissioner Noworolski asked if Burlingame was going to install red light cameras.
Sergeant Williams confirmed that the northbound El Camino Real direction at Broadway
would have one camera system.
Commissioner Conway asked if the Peninsula lnterchange area falls under Caltrans
jurisdiction. Mr. Chou replied that all the interchange ramps belong to Caltrans. He added
that the surrounding area by the interchange was county property which now falls under
San Mateo jurisdiction.
Commissioner Bohnert inquired about how to place back on the agenda, for open
discussion, the previously decided matter of the Hillside Drive/Balboa Avenue intersection.
Chair James responded that as a Commissioner an item that has been voted on by the
commission cannot be revisited. Chair James stated that something similar to this came up
a year ago. Discussion was permitted on this but as far as taking action, action is done. He
said that people could take it up with the Council, but as a Commission it is now at Council
level.
Mr. Chou stated that he would consult this with the City Attorney. Commissioner Warden
suggests that Commissioner Bohnert state what his concern was.
Commissioner Bohnert said that after a conversation with Mr. Chou, he realized that the
citizens were requesting a crosswalk at Balboa Avenue/Hillside Drive. He added that the
assumption of the Commission was for four crosswalks. Commissioner Bohnert asked
Page 5 of7
No discussion.
whether or not installing one set of crosswalks across Hillside Drive would have sufficed
Commissioner Nowolrolski stated that his recollection was that the Commission was merely
voting for the crosswalk. He said that the decision as to how many was made hastily
towards the end of that vote.
Chair James stated that whether the process was hastily made or however it was made, the
question was whether or not was there fairness and due process. He asked if there was
oppo(unity for people to speak and be heard and to discuss. He said this matter was
debated thoroughly for two months, and the vote was taken and that it should stand as far
as this Commission was concerned. He added that at the Council level there was a process
to accept, repeal, reject, amend or remand back to the Commission for consideration.
Commissioner Warden stated that the Commission made its decision; however, as an
individual citizen, a person had the right to go to Council to express their concerns. He said
even a commissioner acting as a private citizen could express concern that perhaps a
mistake was made.
Commission Noworolski noted that the motion read to install red curbing on approaching
corners, and install crosswalks at the intersection. He said it did not say how many.
Mr. Chou responded by saying that he thought the inference was for four crosswalks - that
this was how the Commission understood it during the vote. Mr. Chou stated again that he
would check with the City Attorney, but that the next course of action would typically be an
appeal with City Council.
Commissioner Bohnert asked how matters were brought to Council. Were they presented
by the Public Works staff or by the Ci9 Manager's staff.
Mr. Chou said that if an item were to go to Council, it would always be presented in a staff
report. He said the staff report would specify the recommendation by the commission and
staff, and clearly state a recommendation of what to do next. Mr. Chou stated that in this
case, the matter really does not need to go to Council for approval, however since there
was a difference in statf opinion on this matter, it would go to Council.
Commissioner Bohnert stated that a re-visit of the issue highlights how staff and some of the
commissioners might be able to reflect on Commission comments at the end, and offer
suggestions as mentioned in Chair James' prologue this evening.
Chair James agreed and said that the last two meetings had exhausted this matter. He
noted that Commissioners Bohnert, Conway and Noworolski questioned staff a long time,
Page 6 of7
Chair James stated that the Commission discussed this matter for two months. He said that
he was aware that staff had some problems with the final outcome of the vote, but that was
part of democracy. He said that at this point, this matter would not be revisited because it
was at Council level. lf staff or someone did not like the decision of this Commission, the
process was now with the Council.
and that staff had many "bites of the pie". Chair James said that to eliminate any confusion
or misunderstanding in the future prior to voting on matters, he would turn to staff to seek
any further comments.
13.1 Letter from Elisa Marcaletti regarding speed control and/or stop signs on Carmelita
Aven ue.
Mr. Chou stated that he would be coordinating with Commissioner Bohnert and
Commissioner Warden to determine the approach to handling this concern - either at
a staff level or brought to the commission.
13.2 Letter from Wendy Gale regarding speeding on Mills Avenue
Discussed under item number 6 - Pubic Comment
l4,COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
'l 4.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Commissioner Bohnert announced that Craig Horak, a citizen member of the B/PAC,
was just awarded the "2007 San Mateo County Bicycle Commuter of the Year"
award.
He added that the B/PAC has some really exciting things going on with good people
involved such as Craig Horak and Pat Giorni. Commissioner Bohnert reported that in
two weeks the committee would be conducting an on-site walk of Burlingame Avenue
to determine locations for the bike racks. He said they would also be visiting Cadillac
Way at Rollins Road to look at the bike auxiliary overpass for bikes and wheelchairs.
Commissioner Bohnert hoped to come back at the next meeting with more details on
the bike racks along Burlingame Avenue.
Finally, Commissioner Bohnert reported that next month they would be working on
making Burlingame a "Bicycle Friendly Community", which would involve an
application process.
Chair James said on behalf of the Commission, they commend the Horak family and
their son.
l5.ADJOURNMENT 7:52p.m
PageT of7
CURRENT BUSINESS - ITEM 9.2
NGAME
Meeting
Date: June 13,2007
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 9.2
SUBMITTED
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
June 8, 2007
Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer
Critical Minimum Street Width Policy for Managing Street Tree lmpacts in the
Roadway
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission conduct discussions, receive public
comments, and provide its input regarding the draft policy.
BACKGROUND: On June 4,2007 the City Council directed Parks and Recreation staff to work on
preparing a draft version of the Burlingame Urban Tree Management Plan. Council also directed
Public Works staff to develop a policy section on minimum street widths and
encroachmenUintrusion of obstructions. This policy section will be part of the overall Urban Tree
Management Plan.
As part of the development process, Parks staff and Public Works staff will be working with their
respective commissions (Beautification Commission and Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission)
to elicit public and commission comments to incorporate into the final policy documents. Council
has scheduled the August 20,2007 Council meeting to review and/or accept the policy.
DISCUSSION: As a normal function of its duties, the Public Works Department develops various
policies governing related work and procedures. The City of Burlingame currently does not have a
policy or set of criteria regarding minimum street widths and how obstructions within the public right-
of-way should be handled. Burlingame, along with many other cities in the state, follows the design
guidelines as outlined by the Caltrans Highway Design Manual on street width designs.
The current situation with the eucalyptus tree on Easton Drive has made it evident that a specific
policy must be established to deal more effectively with future problems involving roadway
obstructions such as large, overgrown trees and tree roots.
While the Parks staff is developing standards regarding reforestation and types of replacement
trees, Public Works staff is developing standards dealing with minimum roadway widths, conditions
and procedures for evaluating if/when obstructions such as encroaching trees require removal.
Possible alternative measures to maintain safety while preserving trees will also be incorporated
into the overall document.
Staff is asking that the Commission review the attached draft policy document and provide input or
comment which may be incorporated into the final version of the Burlingame Urban Tree
Management Plan.
Page 1 of 1
S:\A Public Works Dirsclory\TsP Commission\Staff Reports\2oo7\TsPC Staff Report-Minimum Roadway Width.doc
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Critical Minimum Street Width Policv
for Manaqinq Street Tree lmpacts in the Roadwav
The City of Burlingame has jurisdiction and responsibility over four types of roadway
within its city limits. These are classified as: local streets, collector streets, arteria!
streets, and highways. A fifth classification, freeways, falls with the jurisdiction of the
State of California (Caltrans)
Local Street - Limited width and limited vehicular volu
widths varying between 10 feet and 12 teet, resulti
greater than 24 feet when on-street parking is proh
access for homes and residents. The ave
street is no more than 2,000 vehicles per day
a
I street has travel lane
e street width no
serves as direct
ume of a local
exceeds 40 feet
per day. Lane
street parking.
Collector Street - A collector street has travel n 12 feet per lane,
with a total roadway width of 24 feet when o ng is prohibited. The collector
street serves to "collect" residential c from one local streets and channels
them through the city in a more effi er. The lume for a collector street
is no more than 15,000 vehicles per
Arteria! Street and Highway - Serves to move large numbers of
vehicles through the from col are fed into the arterial
streets and hig v of an al street or highway usually
acco traffic volumes above 15,000 vehicles
from to four-lanes with and without on-
F m roadway corridor that facilitates large-scale vehicle
m metropolitan centers. Within the boundaries of
Bu
a
u ion and responsibility of Caltrans.
easily exceed 50,000 vehicles per day. This
type of
The City of Burl has made great efforts to promote "quality of Iife" matters to
benefit its citizens. The planting and preservation of street trees have been one of the
more successful efforts. Street trees are typically planted within the parking strips of
residential and collector streets. !n some cases, the trees have grown such that their
trunks, roots or root systems now encroach and intrude into the roadway causing
damage to sidewalks, curbs and gutters, as well as the roadway surfaces. This
intrusion and encroachment also pose safety problems in the form of diminished sight-
visibility at intersections.
This policy provides minimum roadway widths, as well as a set of criteria and a process
to deal with impacts caused by tree roots, tree trunks or other physical features that
I
r
, and
n
ADT volu
between
is under
present safety hazards to the vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic, and genera! public.
This policy will also provide conditions to determine whether obstructions and
encroaching street trees need to be removed.
Local street without parking - The minimum lane width for local streets without
parking shall be ten (10) feet wide per lane of through-traffic. Therefore, two-lane
roadways will have a total minimum roadway width of twenty (20) feet, as
measured from curb face to curb face.
a
a
a
o
a
a
Local street with parking - lf on-street parking is al!on a local street, a
parking lane width of 6 feet per Iane will be used. This in a total minimum
desirable roadway width of thirty-two (32\ feet ne local street
assuming parking on both sides. However, due g conditions of narrow
road width and parking demand, the width cou to no less than 30
feet.
Collector street without parking - The um lane width streets
traffic.without parking will be twelve (1
Therefore, two-lane roadways shal
lane of
nimum y width of
twenty-four (24) feet; and, four-lane sha have a I minimum
roadway width of forty-eight (feet, as from curb face to curb face
Collector street with parking -
a parking lane width of 6 feet
parking on a collector street,
used,Iting in a tota! minimum
roadway width of thirty-six (36)street; or, sixty (60)
feet for four-lane r streets ng pa on both sides.
There shall t into the roadway that reduced the
travel lane n ten (10)twenty (20) feet for two-lane roads
The no vertical displacement or encroachment
tn des roadway width. A vertical displacement
lan in a parking lane, may not pose as a hazard.
clu tree stumps, trunk roots, branches, pedestals, or
ight-visibility and affects calculated safe-stopping distances
(as Itrans Roadway Design Manual) will be considered for
removal
!f a tree has directly over a utility line (such as water line, sewer line, gas
line, electric line or storm drain line), or its roots have intruded into a utility pipe
system; and, is causing damage to the utility, the tree will be considered for
removal.
r
a
2
ide of the
in th
a
Before there is any consideration of tree removal, alternate actions such as those
outlined below will be examined first.
o Installation of warning signso Root grinding. Removal of on-street parkingo Street re-alignment
PROACTIVE TREE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT PROG
City staff will also conduct proactive measures listed AS to address
Annual tree inspections
Annual street surveys
ldentification of trees and streets that app um width ndition
a
a
a
. Fieldr Conso Reco
Parki. Final
inspections by Parks and P
ultation with arborists
m
E
ng
e City
A ched into a 20-foot wide local roadway and has raised the
road
determi or
a course based on the arborist's recommendation. lf the arborist
believes that ding/trimming the roots would de-stabilize the tree or adversely
affect the h Ith of the tree, staff would present these findings to the Traffic,
Safety and Parking Commission and the Beautification Commission to request
concurrence from both commissions for removal and replacement of the tree.
Bea Com ion and the Traffic, Safety &
n 2 inches. Staff would consult the city arborist to
roots can be ground down. Staff would then proceed with
Example #2
A 6-foot fence, mature tree, or other large obstruction is situated near the corner
of an intersection between two streets. lf the obstruction is located such that its
placement causes a sight-visibility problem or severely reduces the safe
approach speeds for vehicles entering into the intersection, the obstruction would
J
has en
more
ALTERNATES TO TREE REMOVAL
potentia! tree root issues.
PROCESS OUTLINE
be considered for removal or modification to improve the sight-visibility at that
location. Staff would present these findings to the Traffic, Safety and Parking
Commission and the Beautification Commission to request concurrence from
both commissions for remova! or modification of the obstruction.
Example #3
Example #4
A tree has grown completely over a utility line, encasing the line with its root
system. The tree would be considered for removal an placement, and staff
would present its findings to the Traffic, Safety and P mission and the
Beautification Commission to request concurrence b commissions for
removal and replacement of the tree.
A tree is situated near, but not di the line. lts
are into the "pipe zone", but do n to dam aged
would work with the city arborist to develop
ensuring the protection of
protection is not feasible,
Safety and Parking Commissi
concurrence from both comm
tng roots
Staff
the pro lem while still
and its the arborist believes that root
ld then p se findings to the Traffic,
Beautifi
I and
mmission to request
,Inert of the tree.
4
APPROVED BYSINGLE THRU-LANE CONFIGURATION
(w/o ON-STREET PARKING)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE
5/?9/07 TR.5
DRAWNG
NO.
Local & Collector Street t\4inimum Width
c/L
0
PARKING Mln.
THRU LANE
Mln.
THRU LANE PARKING
LANE fo*'-T
+I
+I
+t I
I
c/L
PARI(ING
Mln.
THRU
11 in.
LANE LANE
c/L
@
+
PARKING
LANE
Local & Collector Street tMinimum Width
0
Min.
THRU TANE
Mln.
THRU LANE
c/L
c/L
Mln.
TH RU LANELANE
Mln.
THRU
+t
c/L
I
APPROVED BYSINGLE THRU-LATE CONFIGURATION
(do ON-STREET PARKING)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBL]C WORKS
DATE
5/?9/07 TR-5
DRAWNG
NO.@
I
MAX. ALLOWABLE
HORIZONTAL
DISPLACEMENT
MAX. ALLOWABLE VERTICAL
DISPLACEMENT
c/L
00
c
\
\"x
t
2"
I-
APPROVED BY
OEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE
5/?9/07
DRAWNG
NO.@
+
MAX ALLOWABLE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL DISPACEMENT
TR.5
Page 1 of I
PWENG-Murtuza, Syed
From: e-news@burlingame.org
Sent: Monday, June 04,2007 11:21 PM
To: PWENG-I4urtuza, Syed
Subiect: City of Burlingame CA: Next Steps Re: 1800 Easton Drve Tree
Next Steps Rer 18OO Easton Drv€ T166
Po3ted Date:
The tree in front of the Easton Branch Library has been a maior subject of controversy in Burling.me in recent months, but the topic isn't
a new one. Burlingame residents have been arguing about what to do about tall eucalyptus trees for the past aentury. We hope to resolve
this issue once and for all, so that we don't have to go through the same stormy debate again. Towirds thet end we would like to adopt
w.llthought-out critcria for dealing with trees as they age. become unhealthy and impact our infr.structure.
In fact, our city has a variety of docum.nts already in plac€ that describe our practices with regard to trees, including policies end
procedures for planting and replacing trees. Burlingame is vridely admired by other cities for its tree pr.ctices, but we've never before
codified them in one document. Parks and Recreation Director Randy Schwartz and his st.ff have now combined them into one document,
called the "Burlingame Urban Tree Management Pla h," which is still in draft form. During the next aouple of months, our commissions will
help complete the plan by adding a list of approved replacement trees for Easton and criteria for tree replacement due to ro.dtyey
impacts. The plan will be complete in August and at that time the council is scheduled to make a final decision regarding the tree an front
of the Easton Library.
Here is th€ schedule for completing the proc€ss:
June 13 - 7:00 p.m. City Hall - Traftic, S.fety and Parking Commission will host public meeting to review criteria for managinq trees th.t
imp.ct the ro.dway.
lune 18 - 6 p.m.. Conference Room A, City Hall - loint meeting between City Council and Beautification Cohmission
Jun. 18 - 7 p.m,, Courcil Chambers, City H.ll - City Council mc.ting. Draft of Burlingame Urban Tree M.nagement Pl.n will be present€d
to the council for feedback.
June 28 - 7 p.m. at First Presbyterian Chur ch. Room 204 - Beautification Commission wiil host public meeting to review replacement tree
list for Easton.
August 20 - 7 p.m,, Council Chambers, City Hall - City Council meeting. Council rrill review/approve replac€ment tree list for Easton as
recommended by Beautification Commission and criteri. for removing trees due to ro.dw.y impacts as recommended by Tr.ffic, Safety
end Parking Commission. the fin.l sections of the Trce Management Plan. Council vrill then vote on adoption of the Tree Management
To change your esubscriptions preflrenccs, click the following link:
lllLU2QLLq.Lq7-55[nC!x.erl|xLoeS-e=21&5!bssrjLergliC=Ce !35e5c-4c73-4350-8cd8-267f4825q&dl
i To unsubscribe from all City of Burling.me CA eSubscriptions, please.lick the followinq link:
I WD:.11299.._1?-LOZ55landex. a spx?oage=21&su bscriberg u id =daa35e5c-4c73-4350-8cd8-267f48258 8_d5&un sub5cribe= 1
61512007
CURRENT BUSINESS - ITEIVI 9.3
TO:
STAFF REPORT
AGEI\DA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE _l_t_
Traffic Safetv and Parkins Commission SUBMITTED
DATE: 0511412007
APPROVED
FROM: Sst. Dean Williams. Director of Traffic
suBJECr: The Traffic Safety and Parking Commission should hold a public hearing on the repeal of
municipal ordinance 13.32.080 (Overnight parking) and offer direction to staffon what action if any
should be taken by City Council.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council repeal Municipal Ordinance
13.32.080 Overnight Parking. Stafffurther recommends that the Traffic Safety and Parking
Commission hold a public hearing on the matter to solicit the community's opinion(s) on the issue.
After such hearing(s), the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission should offer direction to Staff and
City Council on how to proceed on the issue.
DISCUSSION: Staffdetermined that the Overnight Parking Ordinance (13.32.080) is outdated and
completely ineffective. The ordinance reads as follows (in part): Permit required It is unlawfulfor the
owner or driver of any vehicle to park such vehicle upon any street or alley in the city between the hours of
2:00 a.m.-6:00 o.m. without a permit therefore.
Less than 100 citizens annually bother to obtain the required permit. The enforcement of the ordinance
is done on a complaint only basis. Enforcement otherwise is virtually impossible. Most of the
complaints are driven by residents wanting to restrict others from parking in front of their homes
and/or in their neighborhoods. Those individuals who are issued citations in violation of this ordinance
need only respond to the police department to obtain a permit. In most cases, the permit is granted and
the citation is dismissed. This enables the individual to now legally park in the area where the original
complaint was initiated; the very behavior that the original complainant wanted to prevent. No other
city has an overnight parking ordinance that restricts an individual's right to park on a public street
during certain hours. Therefore, staff is making the above recommendation. Staff was represented in
this matter by the City Manager, City Attorney, Chief of Police, police representatives, Traffic
Engineer and the chair of the Traffic Parking and Safety Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impact of this recommendation would be the loss of approximately
$1'000.00 in revenue annually. This figure was derived from the total of permits issued annually as well
as any fines that might be collected as a result of violating this ordinance.
BY
BY
ATTACHMENTS: Attached you will find a copy of the existing ordinance in its entirety.
ae/
I 3.32.080 Overnight parking.
Burlingame Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main
Tit|e 13 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
Chapter 13.32 STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING
Page I ofl
Search Print No Frames
13.32.080 Overnight parking.
(a) Permit Required. It is unlawful for the owner or driver of any vehicle to park such vehicle upon any
street or alley in the city between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. without a permit therefor.
O) Issuance of Permit. In cases of hardship where the owners of vehicles cannot obtain suitable storage or
parking facilities, permits for parking between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. may be issued by the chief of police. The
application for a permit shall be signed by the applicant, shall state the make, model and license number of the
vehicle and shall contain a statement of the necessity and reasons for the permit. If, upon investigation, it is
found that the necessity exists therefor and that the applicant has no reasonable means for night storage of the
vehicle during the above-stated hours, the chief of police shall issue the permit for an annual or semiannual
period, as the applicant may request, based upon a calendar year. The fee for such permit shall be ten dollars
($10.00) payable annually in advance to the chief of police.
The permit shall not be transferable and shall be displayed on the left side window to the rear of the driver of
the vehicle for which it is issued at all times during which the vehicle is parked upon the street between the hours
of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. The chief of police shall revoke the permit when the necessity under which it was
issued and the reasons therefor cease to exist, or may renew such permit if the hardship still exists.
(c) Exemptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a commercial vehicle of any regularly
licensed business in a commercial or industrial zone or to public utility vehicles while on service or emergency
calls, or to vehicles of any regularly licensed physician when actually engaged in making professional calls.
(Ord. 1136 $ 6 (part), (1978); Ord. 1154 $ 4, (1979); Ord. 1783 g 2, (2006))
http://qcode.us/codes/burlingame/view.php?topic:13-13_32-13:32_080&frames:on 4/r612007
CURRENT BUSINESS - ITEM 9.4
STAFF REPORT
To: Traffic Safetv and Parking Commission
DATE: 0511412007
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE -I-I-
SUBMITTED
BY
ByFROM:Sst. Dean Williams-of Traffic
suBIECr: The Traffic Safety and Parking Commission should hold a public hearing and offer direction
to staff as to what action should be taken regarding the issuance of daytime parking permits in certain
areas within the city.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the issuance of daytime parking permits for residents tiving
in areas with time restrictions on parking and/or transitory parking issues in or near business districts.
Resident's guests would also be address in this program. Staff is recommending a 90 day trial period on
a limited basis prior to full implementation. Staff further recommends that the Traffic Safety and
Parking Commission hold a public hearing on the matter to solicit the community's opinion(s) on the
issue. After such hearings, the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission should offer direction to staff
and the City Council on how to proceed on the issue.
DISCUSSION: Staff discussed the need to allow residents the right to park in front of their residence(s)
without time restrictions. Staffwas unanimous in their opinion that it is inherently wrong and unfair to
limit a person's right to park in front of his/her residence, just because they reside in or near a business
district. These daytime parking permits would allow residents to park in front of their residence
without fear of being issued a citation for violating a time restriction. Guests of a resident would also
benelit from such a program. The guest would obtain a temporary guest permit allowing them to park
in front of the residence without the possibility of being cited. As it stands now, residents in these areas
and their guests are required to move their vehicles within the posted time limitation or risk being
issued a parking citation (or towed). Staff recommends that we initially start this program on a 90 day
trial basis in a limited area (i.e. Occidental Ave. and Chapin Ave. area).
BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impact of such a program on the city's budget is approximately
$40,000.00. The initial costs would include updating the signage in the above listed areas to reflect the
exemption for the residential permit holders from the various time restrictions. This would include the
manufacturing of new signs and the attachment of 66permit exempt" signs to the existing signs per code
requirements. This would entail a one time cost of approximately $401000.00. The annual cost of the
stickers/placards and registration forms are estimated at approximately $11000.00. The final annual
costs of the stickers/placards and required forms are uncertain and may fluctuate until we get a clearer
idea on public involvement in the program. This would also apply to possible revenue generated from
such a program. Depending on public participation, revenue generated from the issuance of permits
and parking violations could help to offset the costs of such a program (i.e. permit issuance/review and
signage etc.)
ATTACHMENTS: Attached you will lind a proposed program in its entirety. This program should be
used as a baseline for discussion.
STAFF REPORT G
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE _I_106
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTEI)
DATE:
APPROVED
FROM:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the issuance of daytime parking permits for residents living in
areas with time restrictions on parking and/or transitory parking issues in or near business districts. Resident's
guest would also be addressed in this program. Staff is recornmending a 90 day trial period on a limited basis.
DISCUSSION: Staff discussed the need to allow residents the right to park in front of their residence(s)
without time restrictions. Staff was unanimous in their opinion that it is inherently wrong and unfair to limit a
person's right to park in front of his/her residence, just because they reside in or near a business district.
These daytime parking permits would allow residents to park in front of their residence without fear of being
issued a citation for violating a time restriction. Guests of the resident would also benefit from the program.
The guest would obtain a temporary permit allowing them to park in front of the residence. As it stands now,
residents in these areas and their guests are required to move their vehicles within the posted time limitation or
risk being issued a parking citation. Staff recommends that we initially start this program on a 90 day trial
basis in a limited area (i.e. Occidental Ave. and Chapin Ave.).
PURPOSE AI\D INTENT: Staff is recommending that council enact an ordinance in order to:
A. Create a preferential parking program for streets in or about a business district impacted by time
restriction and transitory parking. This program is necessary to alleviate certain nuisance parking by
non-resident vehicles and to provide reasonably available and convenient parking for residences
without time restrictions.
B. Protect residents of designated residential parking permit areas from unreasonable time restrictions and
reasonable access to their residences due to transitory parking issues.
C. Preserve the character of designated residential parking permit areas as residential neighborhoods.
D. Promote the peace, comfort, convenience and welfare of all inhabitants of the city.
E. Promote a cooperative effort among neighbors in dealing with a shortage of parking spaces on the
streets where they reside.
F. Create procedures that will enable residents of the city to request the establishment of neighborhood
parking restrictions within the area in which they live which are in addition to, and likely to be more
restrictive than, the city's standard parking regulations for such area based upon established criteria as
set forth in this chapter.
G. Provide for the issuance of a certain number of parking permits to the residents of such designated
areas, the display of which will serve to exempt their vehicles from the parking restrictions.
DEFINITIONS: As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed
to them in this section:
BY
By
G@PY
A. "Demonstrated need" means and includes, but is not limited to, a situation where the city council
determines that there is strong support by the residents within a proposed residential permit parking
area for creating such an area due to unreasonable time restrictions and/or transitory parking issues.
B. "Dwelling unit" means a house, apartment, condominium, townhouse, or other type of residence
designed and used exclusively for residential occupancy. This does not include motels or hotels.
C. "Guest" means a person who visits or is employed by a resident within a residential permit parking
atea.
D. "Motor vehicle" means an automobile, truck, motorcycle or other motor-driven form of transportation
not in excess of six thousand pounds gross weight.
E. "Non-resident vehicle" means a motor vehicle parked or left standing in a designated residential permit
parking area without having displayed thereon a parking permit for such area issued by the city
pursuant to this chapter, regardless of whether such motor vehicle is owned or being used by a resident
of the designated permit area.
F. "Owner" means a person that has at least a one-half interest in a parcel of real property within a
designated residential permit parking area.
G. '?arking permit" means a permit issued by the city pursuant to this chapter to a resident of a
designated permit parking area for display on a vehicle owned or used by such resident or his/trer
guests which is parked or left standing within the boundaries of such area.
H. "Parking restrictions" means the amount of time, and/or the day and time of day, vehicles shall be
prohibited from parking on a street in a residential permit parking area except with a valid permit. An
example of such restrictions may include, "hvo-hour parking eight a.m. to six p.m. Monday through
Friday, holidays and permits exempted.
I. "Resident" means any person eighteen years or older whose legal resident address is a dwelling unit
located within a residential permit parking area.
J. "Resident vehicle" means a motor vehicle parked in a residential permit parking area that is currently
registered with the State Department of Motor Vehicles to a resident residing at an address within the
residential permit parking area.
K. "Residential permit parking area" means a contiguous or nearly contiguous residential area with streets
or boundaries designated by resolution of the city council establishing the area wherein vehicles
displaying a valid permit shall be exempt from parking restrictions established pursuant to this chapter.
DESIGNATION CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARI(NG
AREA: The following criteria shall be used by the city council in determining whether a residential
permit parking area shall be established:
A. A residential parking permit area shall only be considered for streets/areas substantially impacted by
unreasonable time restrictions and/or transitory parking issues.
B. There shall be a "demonstrated need" for the establishment of a residential parking permit area before
considering implementation. This may include, but is not limited to, a petition by the residents within
the proposed area documenting a strong level of support for the formation of such an area and
measuring the actual impacts caused by unreasonable time restrictions and/or transitory parking issues.
C. Requests to establish residential parking permit areas on specific streets shall be reviewed by the
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. The review shall validate compliance with the demonstrated
need criteria and recommend the specific parking restrictions that are to be imposed within the area.
D. Establishment of a residential parking permit area shall be through council resolution in conjunction
with a public hearing.
MODIFICATION OR ELIMINATION OF DESIGNATED PERMIT PARI(NG AREA:
A. The city council may modify the boundaries of a designated residential permit parking area or any of
parking restrictions applicable to such area, or the council may abolish the entire area or rescind any
of such restrictions by resolution following a public hearing.
ISSUANCE OF PERMITS:
A. Persons residing within a designated permit parking area may apply to the police department for
parking permits, which shall be granted upon payment of the application fee and submittal of
documentation acceptable to the chief of police, or his or her authorized representative, showing proof
of residency and matching proof of vehicle registration from the owner residing within the designated
area to use each motor vehicle for which the parking permit is requested.
B. Permits will not be issued for trailers, boats, mobile homes, construction related equipment or
commercial vehicles exceeding six thousand pounds gross vehicle weight.
C. The number of permits that may be issued to the occupants of each dwelling unit located within the
designated permit parking area shall not exceed two per dwelling unit, provided, however, that the
chief of police, or his or her representative, upon the showing of special circumstances or unavoidable
hardship, shall have authority to issue greater number of parking permits to the occupants of any
dwelling unit within the designated permit parking area. Non-resident owners of the property within a
residential permit parking area may obtain one permit for the property owner's personal use only.
D. Parking permits shall be issued for a term of one year and may be renewed for additional terms of one
year upon payment of the renewal fee and, if requested by the chief of police, upon resubmittal of the
applicant's proof of residency and proof of vehicle ownership/current registration.
E. The chief of police shall cause to be prepared each year a distinctively colored sticker for issuance to
permittees of residential parking permits. Stickers shall note the effective one year period for which
the sticker is valid and reference the permitted vehicle's license plate number. Stickers shall be affixed
to the motor vehicle as specified in this chapter.
F. The chief of police shall have the authority to issue rules and regulations concerning the granting,
renewal and display of parking permits, provided the same are consistent with the terms and provisions
of this chapter.
G. In the event any person is denied a permit to park within the designated residential permit parking area,
he or she shall have the right to appeal the decision to council.
FEES FOR ISSUAI\CE.DURATION OF PERMITS:
A. The council may establish, by resolution, fees for the issuance of residential parking permits, gueSt
parking permits and for the replacement of lost, damaged or destroyed permits or stickers.
B. Residential parking permits shall be valid for one calendar year, unless otherwise stated on the permit.
C. The permit issuance fee will not be prorated for a mid-duration issuance. However, permits for an
upcoming one year period may be obtained up to three months in advance of the effective date noted
on the permit and shall be valid upon issuance up to and including the effective one year period noted
on the permit/sticker.
TERMINATION OF PERMITS:
A. Residential or guest parking permits shall be terminated upon any of the following events:
1. When the vehicle for which the permit has been issued is either transferred or sold.
2. When the permit holder no longer owns, resides in, or leases a residence within the residential permit
parking area.
3. Upon the expiration of the calendar year for which a permit has been issued.
GUEST PARIflNG PERMITS
A. An eligible applicant may obtain a guest parking permit for the purposes of allowing a guest to park
within the residential permit parking area.
B. An eligible applicant for a guest parking permit shall be any person eligible to obtain a residential
parking permit pursuant to criteria set forth in this chapter.
C. Guest parking permits shall be issued for a pre-designated, two week period upon payment of the
guest parking permit fee.
DISPLAY OF PERMITS:
A. Parking permits shall be in the form of a sticker, permanently affixed upon a motor vehicle in the
lower left corner of the rear bumper, sufficiently visible so it can be ascertained that the motor vehicle
has a parking permit. Nothing shall be placed on the vehicle to obstruct the view of said permit.
B. Guest parking permits shall be in the form of a placard placed inside of the vehicle, visible through
the front windshield on the driver's side.
POSTING OF SIGNS:
A. Prior to the posting of the signs, the city council shall adopt a resolution designating the boundaries of
a residential permit parking area, the time limitation upon parking within the district, and the days and
hours during which parking shall be restricted, as determined by the council after a public hearing.
B. The parking restriction established for a residential permit parking area shall become effective and
enforceable upon the posting of street signs giving notice of such restrictions to the public in the
maruler prescribed by the California Vehicle Code. The public works director shall have the
responsibility of installing and maintaining such signs.
C. Streets signs giving notice of parking restrictions shall be double sided and placed in accordance to
code as determined by the city's traffic engineer.
D. Unless otherwise directed by council, standard parking restriction signs shall indicate the time
restricted hours with permits exempted.
VIOLATIONS:
A. It is the sole responsibility of the owner, operator, or manager of a vehicle for which a valid parking
permit has been issued to become familiar with the provisions for and limitations on the use of the
parking permits. Ignorance of the provisions and limitations of this chapter shall not be claimed as a
defense against any action brought about due to an illegal use of the permit.
B. Violations of this section shall be deemed to be an infraction and each person in violation of this
section shall pay a fine in such an amount as established by resolution of the city council. It is
unlawful and a violation of this chapter, unless expressly provided to the contrary herein, for any
person:
1. To park a motor vehicle in excess of the posted time restrictions on a street in a residential permit
parking area without a valid parking permit properly affixed to the vehicle.
2. To park a motor vehicle within a residential permit parking area with parking permit evidencing that
such a permit has expired or has been terminated.
3. To falsely represent him or herself as eligible for a parking permit or to furnish false information in an
application for any such permit.
4. To use or display a parking permit on a motor vehicle other than that vehicle for which such permit
was issued.
5. To sell, lend or otherwise permit the use or display of a parking permit for the purpose of profit or
favor.
6. To copy or create a facsimile or counterfeit parking permit, not shall any person use or display a
counterfeit parking permit.
7. To park a motor vehicle upon any street during those hours in which parking is prohibited for street
sweeping, road repair or during emergencies.
C. All non-resident vehicles which are parked or left standing in violation of any parking restriction
established pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the same fines and penalties in effect for such
area.
D. For violation of this chapter, the chief of police, or his or her authorized representative, may revoke
the residential parking permit of any person found to be in violation of this chapter. Upon written
notification thereof, the person shall surrender such permit to the chief of police, or his or her
authorized representative. Failure to do so shall constitute a separate violation of this chapter. Any
appeal of the decision to revoke the residential parking permit shall be made to city council.
EXEMPTIONS: A. A motor vehicle on which is displayed a valid, unexpired parking permit shall be
permitted to stand or be parked within a designated permit parking area for which such permit has been
issued without being subject to the neighborhood parking restrictions established for such an area
pursuant to this chapter. Such parking permit shall not constitute the guarantee or reservation of an on-
street parking space for the exclusive use of the permit holder.
B. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be interpreted in a manner that will affect, impair, or supersede
the enforcement of any other state or local laws, ordinances, or regulations, whether pertaining to
parking or otherwise, and the same shall continue to be applied with full force and effect in all
designated permit parking areas. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency with the parking
restrictions established pursuant to this chapter, such other laws, ordinances and regulations shall be
controlling.
C. This chapter shall not permit the residential permit parking holder to leave standing his or her vehicle
for more than seventy-two hours nor during the times posted for street sweeping, if applicable.
D. The following vehicles are specifically exempted from the parking restriction imposed by this chapter:
1. Motor vehicles being used by a disabled person meeting the requirements of section 2251 1 .5 of the
California Vehicle Code and displaying a valid, unexpired identification placard.
2. Ambulances, fire department vehicles, police vehicles, authorized emergency vehicles as defined by
state law, public utility vehicles engaged in work in the designated residential permit parking area or other
official city vehicle used in the course of official government business.
3. Commercial vehicles parked for the purpose of loading or delivering of goods, wares or merchandise
from or to any building or structure in a residential permit parking area or delivering materials to be used
in the repair, alteration, remodeling, construction or reconstruction of any such building or structure for
which a building permit has previously been obtained.
SEVERABILITY: Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this chapter. If any
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this chapter is held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a court competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this chapter.
RECOMMENDED DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL PARI(NG AREAS: For the purposes of this
proposed progrirm, the following areas are deemed eligible for designation as residential permit parking
areas:
Occidental Ave.: 200-400 block
Chapin Ave.: 1500-1600 block
Burlingame Ave.: 900-1000 block and 1500 block (south side of street)
Ralston Ave.: 1500 block
Howard Ave.: 1500 block
Park Rd.: unit-100 block (west side of street)
Lorton Ave.: 100 block (west side of street)
Highland Ave.: unit block (west side of street)
Primrose Rd.: unit block (west side of street) and 500 block
Bellevue Ave.: 1200-1400 block
Douglas Ave.: 1100 block
Chula Vista Ave.: 1000 block
Laguna Ave.: 1200 block
Capuchino Ave.: 1100-1200 block
Paloma Ave.: 1 100-1200 block
California Dr.: 400 and 900 block
BUDGET IMPACT: The impact of such a program on the city's budget is approximately $40,000.00.
The initial costs would include updating the signage in the above listed areas to reflect the exemption for
the residential permit holders from the various time restrictions. This would include the manufacturing of
new signs and the attachment of "permit exempt" signs to existing signs per code requirements. This
would entail a one time cost of approximately $40,000.00. The annual cost of stickers/placards and
registration forms are estimated at approximately $1,000.00. The final annual cost of the
stickers/placards and required forms will remain relatively uncertain and may fluctuate until we get a
clearer idea on public participation. Revenues generated from the issuance of permits and parking
violations/citations would serve to offset the costs of signage, permit issuance and review etc.
ATTACHMENT(S): Attached you will find a copy of a sticker similar to the one that we are proposing
that we utilize for this program. Also attached, is a registration form similar to one that will be used for
this program.
CITY OF BURLINGAN{E
RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT APPLICATION
Please fi.Ilin shaded areas
Vehicle #1 $25.00
*** *** ****
FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Date:
Expires:
Expires:
Residency verified by:
$25.00
$2s.00
Vehicle #1 perrnit'#
Vehicle #2 permit #
:..::
Vehicle #2 $25.00
v
F BURLINGAME
PARKING PERMIT
JAN I,
DEC 3I,
CITY O
NIGHT
20,07
2oi07
061
VALID
COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 13.1 to 13.5
From : Juergen Pfaff <jj pf@pacbell.net>
Date: May 11,2007 12:46:25 PM PDT
To: scwarden50@aol.com, dconwayl 1l@hotmail.com, schan@cityofsanmateo.org,
phoenix3 8@sbcglobal.net, jmarkn@gmail.com, mbohnert@cashin.com
Cc: GRP-Council <council@burlingame.org>
Subject: RE: Crosswalk at Peninsula Ave. and Stanley
Dear Susanna, dear Burlingame Traffrc Commissioners:
I am writing alert you to a problem in my neighborhood. There is an existing crosswalk at Peninsula and
Stanley, that crosses over 3-4 lanes of traffic, linking Burlingame to San Mateo. This crosswalk has always
been a hazard, and is seldom taken seriously by drivers, anxious to beat the signal a couple ofstreets away.
It is used by young and old alike, crossing over the border to the strip mall at Woodlake, and then back to
Burlingame. Typically, people are in such a hurry that the pedestrians really get stranded until they get
desperate enough to take the plunge into the street, and hope they aren't killed. Since we will soon have a
new overpass, with four lanes, we expect traffic volume and speed to be increased.
Although there is currently an older crosswalk sign on the San Mateo side, and a newer green sign on the
Burlingame side, neither is very effective. I am writing to ask if the green florescent sign from Burlingame
could be replaced, such that it is not blocked by the tree. It is currently not visible. I would suggest perhaps
moving it further east, to clear the visual path, or indeed, install two, one further east, and one right at the
crosswalk itself.
It would be helpful if the older San Mateo sign could be replaced with one of the newer florescent kinds.
Also, there should be large block letters stenciled onto the street, warning people that pedestrians can cross
there. I'm not sure ifthat exists, but ifit does, it needs to be repainted, or the color should be changed. It is
not very prominant.
It would also be helpful to have one of those vertical posts in green, in the center of the crosswalk that also
warns people about the pedestrian. zone. There are many elderly residents on both sides, as well as kids,
given errands to run at the mall. There aren't any other places to cross the street, other than the signals way
up at Dwight, and down at Humboldt. Therefore, it is vital that this popular crosswalk be made as safe as
possible.
Thanks so much for your time.
Sincerely yours,
Jennifer Pfaff
615 Bayswater Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
lr=*< i3.2-
From : J uergen Pfaff [ma ilto :jjpf@pacbel l. net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22,2007 9:51 AM
To: scwarden50@aol.com; dconwayl 1 1 @hotmail.com; jmarkn@gmail.com;
phoenix38@sbcAlobal. neU M ike Bohnert
Cc: GRP-Council; PWENG-Gomery, Jane; PARKS/REC-Schwartz, Randy
Subject: RE: Centennial Plaza design
Dear Traffic, Safety and Parking Commissioners:
Last week a meeting took place at City Hall regarding the design of the future Centennial
Plaza. As you may be aware, the main emphasis of this project (Phase I), will be the
conversion of Parking Lot 'V', in front of the station, into a paved, transitional space, that
will double as a public plazafor various events at which time, the lot would be closed to
vehicles.
Several audience members offered feedback about the type of design and landscape
features that could be integrated into the space. As the evening progressed, it became
clear that although details and ideas varied, the one overriding wish of everyone present
was to seize this unique opportunity to create a permanent public space there, by
eliminating the current, underutilized parking lot.
Enthusiasrn was so evident, it was suggested by a staff member that citizens first contact
your commission to get feedback on the idea. There was a parking study of the downtown
lots a couple of years ago; perhaps this data can be used to investigate the idea further.
This is time sensitive, however, as the Landscape Architect will approach the plaza
design differently, if the parking spaces need no longer be considered.
The Directors of the Citizens For a Better Burlingame believe that the benefits of a
permanent public plaza in that location far outweigh the potential loss of parking there.
Both the public and Caltrain lots just across North Lane seem to be underutilized. We
consider this to be a golden opportunity to create a vibrant destination for residents and
vistors alike. As such, we would greatly appreciate your feedback and consideration of
this idea.
We greatly look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
The Board of Directors
Citizens For a Better Burlingame
ltapt /3. 3
LIN The City of Burlingame
cALtFORNtA 94010-3997
www.burlingame.org
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Approved
Thursday, March, 8, 2007
Commissioners Present:Victor James, Chair
Dan Conway, Vice Chair
Michael Bohnert
Mark Noworolski
Stephen Warden
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present:
Visitors:
1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
3. ROLL CALL
5 of 5 Commissioners present.
4, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works
Sgt. Dean Williams, Police Department
Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works
Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive
Diana Mason, 1451 Balboa Avenue
Farris Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive
Ray Mason,1451 Balboa Avenue
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue
Sharon Menicucci, Atwater Drive
None
lrE s 13. {;
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -
Motion: To accept the minutes of February 8, 2007 with the correction of the date
M/S/C: Warden, Conway; 5/0/0
Chair James informed the Commission that Kirsten Wallerstedt from State Senator LeLand
Yee's office was seeking a letter of support for SB279. Chair James said that due to the
time restraints, the Commission was unable to provide the letter. He said that he would,
however, forward her email to staff and have this item listed under Communication on next
month's agenda.
Chair James wanted to clariry that the bi-annual reports to Council would be written by the
Commissioners and compiled by the Chair.
Chair James suggested that the proclamation of service to former Commissioner Gene
Condon be prepared such that all Commissioners would have a place to sign the
proclamation.
Chair James also noted that all future TSPC agenda and packet be provided to the public
as it was this evening to encourage audience involvement.
Chair James stated that the quad maps provided this evening did not indicate each
Commissioner's preferred method of contact. He added that once this information was
confirmed, it would be available on the quad maps themselves.
Chair James suggests an electronic record depository of all business and activities of this
commission as a measure of transparency participation.
Chair James explains that he intends to gather input from the commissioners by doing
rounds starting from either the left or right on the dais.
Chair James states that the role of the Traffic Engineer and Traffic Sergeant is to provide
staff input and serve as an advisory role. Their roles are not inferior nor superior but of an
equal level.
6. CONSENT
None
CHAIR PROLOGUE (Un-agendized ltem)
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Horak provided copies of an article from Burlingame Daily News regarding City of San
Mateo's prioritizing pedestrians in their downtown and suggested that Burlingame should
also consider this. l\,,lr. Horak also mentioned State Senator Yee seeking support from
communities to allow local municipalities to have jurisdiction over the sale of vehicles parked
on local streets. Mr. Horak said that he has noticed that Bart parking lot E is mostly empty
during the week and definitely on the weekends. He suggested that this could be a place
for private parties to sell their vehicles and the cities within the county involved would
receive a portion of the sales tax. Mr. Horak also inquired about the status of the TDA grant
for the lighted crosswalk on Broadway; and, whether a group of individuals that were looking
at this intersection recently had any pa( of the grant process.
Mr. Horak suggested that grants could be enhanced with public participation and asked if
there was a list of potential grants. Mr. Horak also suggested that when the City was
seeking public participation that this request could be put on its website.
Mr. Horak also acknowledged that the deterrent of the unmanned Police Department patrol
car appeared to be effective at Broadway/Paloma.
Mr. Chou asked to respond to Mr. Horak's questions and said that the TDA scoring group
had performed a field visit at Broadway and Paloma for their initial evaluation of the City's
grant application. Mr. Chou also said that there was no formal list of potential grants, as all
cities are notified of various grants as they become available. He added that grant
applications must be submitted and sponsored by the City through its staff.
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.1 Request by Pat Giorni to consider marked crosswalks at the intersection of Hillside
Drive and Balboa Avenue.
Mr. Chou explained the history of this request dating back to November 2005. He said
that staff re-evaluated this intersection and found that there have been no significant
changes; therefore, it was not recommending the installation of marked crosswalks at
this intersection. He added that staff did, however, recommend red curbing at the
approaches along Hillside Drive, at Balboa Avenue, to mitigate the visibility issue.
Pat Giorni provided documentation of excerpts from TSPC minutes dating back to
October 2005 regarding this matter. Ms. Giorni also presented a signed petition
representing 42 households requesting a 4-way stop sign at the intersection, with the
inclusion of at least one painted crosswalk across Hillside Drive and the construction of
ADA curb ramps on the three remaining corners.
Ms. Giorni asked that the following requests be considered
1. 4-way stop signed intersection to control driver behavior.
2. At least 1 painted crosswalk for pedestrian crossing.
3. Elimination of curb side parking on Hillside for at least 20'
4. ADA curb cuts be completed as soon as possible
Sharon Menicucci questioned the underlying reasons for stop sign warrants and
questioned the validity of the assessment that there would be vehicle backup to El
Camino Real.
Diana Mason expressed the need for stop signs and crosswalks at this intersection and
her concern of the near-misses that have occurred there. Ms. l\,lason stated that there
was high pedestrian traffic at this intersection and that drivers are focused on the
stoplight ahead, rather than the immediate intersection and crosswalk.
Farris Horak stated that every intersection should have crosswalks.
Chair James closed the public floor and asked input from the Commission
Commissioner Noworolski questioned the likelihood of traffic backup and asked whether
traffic counts performed on Adeline could be relevant to Hillside. Mr. Chou said the
volumes could be different such that it would be less on Adeline when compared to
Hillside.
Commissioner Conway stated that the study looked at crosswalks and did not address
stop signs. He asked confirmation that in order to consider stop signs another study
needed to be conducted.
Commissioner Bohnert asked about the criteria necessary for red curb installation. Mr.
Chou stated that the one criteria was dependent on how much existing curb parking
would be eliminated, and if there would still be ample adjacent parking.
Commissioner Bohnert expressed his concern that something needed to be done at this
intersection beyond red curbing; and, that there was lower pedestrian traffic due to the
lack of safety and therefore avoidance of this intersection.
Commissioner Warden said he supported the staff recommendation to not proceed with
installation of marked crosswalks, but to proceed with red curbing to address the
visibility issue.
Commissioner Conway asked clarification on what warranted a stop sign installation.
Mr. Chou explained that stop sign warrants were established by State and Federal
regulations.
Commissioner Noworolski asked staff the question of if a crosswalk were installed, if it
Commissioner Conway inquired about the process of installing the curb ramps and how
it was prioritized. Mr. Chou answered that there was an existing ADA Ramp
Replacement Program which was part of the Capital lmprovements Program. He said
that doing areas by sections was economically advantageous and was a more
productive method of project management.
is ever removed. Mr. Chou answered that there was always a process to re-evaluate
the continued need for a crosswalk, but historically, such traffic devices tended to
become a fixture because it was warranted and justified initially.
Chair James wanted clarification that stop signs were not the tool for speed control and
asked what the proper tool for speeding would be. Mr. Chou concurred that stop signs
should be used for right-of-way assignment. He added that enforcement and education
were the tools to use to address speeding.
Chair James once again opens the floor for public comments
Ms. Giorni reiterated the issue of right-of-way for pedestrians and vehicles attempting to
enter Hillside Drive from Balboa Avenue, hence stop signs were necessary.
Ms. Menicucci stated that she agreed with Commissioner Bohnert, and did not
necessarily understand the Traffic Enginee/s perspective.
Chair James closes the floor for public comments.
Motion: To deny the marked crosswalk installation and to implement the red curbing.
M/S/C: Warden, Noworolski; 2/3/0
The motion did not carry, so Commissioner Conway made a second motion.
Motion: Table the issue and re-evaluate for next month, especially in light of the new
materials and petition presented by the public.
M/S/C: Conway, Noworolski; 4/1/0 Warden dissented)
9, STAFF REPORTS
9.1 Traffic and Parking lssues
None
9.2 Staff Reports
9.2.1 Traffic Enginee/s Report
None.
9.2.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report
None.
10, ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
None
11, PENDING ITEMS
12, COMMUNICATIONS
'12.'l Letter from Forte Press Corporation regarding height limitations signs on Broderick
Road.
lvlr. Chou reported that this is a written request; and, that staff would evaluate it and if
necessary, work with the Quad representative to handle this matter.
'12.2 Commissioner Warden reported that there still seemed to be a problem with storage
containers of furniture on Edgehill Drive. He added that itwas present for the last 8-9
months.
12.3 NIr. Chou reported that the City Clerk was requesting a joint Council/Commission
meeting for May 7, 2007 at 6:00 pm.
'I3. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
13.1 Bi-annual Commission Report to Council (June 30 and December 3'l)
No discussion.
'13.2 Quad Maps
All commissioners were agreeable to being contacted for Quad issues by either
telephone or email. Commissioner Noworolski stated he preferred email, but either
method is acceptable.
l4,ADJOURNN4ENT
Adjournment was at 8:45 pm
None.
The City of Burlingame
cALtFORNtA 94010-3997
www.burlingame.org
TRAFFIC, SAFEW AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Approved
Thursday, April 1 2, 2007
Comm issioners Present:Victor James, Chair
Dan Conway, Vice Chair
Michael Bohnert
Mark Noworolski
Stephen Warden
Commissioners Absent: None
Visitors
1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works
Sgt, Dean Williams, Police Department
Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works
Jennifer Callahan, 1321 Balboa
Susie Smyth, 1345 Balboa Avenue
Gabrielle LaMond, 1350 Babloa Avenue
Bob Lazich,1341 Balboa Avenue
Bonnie Ruebert, 1401 Balboa Avenue
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue
Michael Fleming, 1472 Balboa Avenue
Jim Puccinelli, 1328 Balboa Avenue
Karen Delee-Simpson, 1429 Balboa Avenue
Cathy Abrams, 1422Balboa Avenue
Gabrielle LaMond, 1350 Balboa Avenue
Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive
3. ROLL CALL. 5 of 5 Commissioners present.
ITEPt t3.€
6
Staff Present:
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
None
Motion: To accept the minutes of March 8, 2007 with the inclusion of the following under
Chair's Prologue:
Chair James suggested an electronic record depository of all business and activities of
the commission as a measure of transparency participation.
Chair James explained that he intends to gather input from the commissioners during the
discussion portions of the meetings by doing rounds, starting from either the left or right
on the dais.
Chair James stated that the role of the Traffic Engineer and Traffic Sergeant is to provide
staff input and serve as an advisory role. Their roles are nol inferior nor superior but of
an equal level to the Commission.
lVl/S/C: Warden, Conway; 5/0/0
6, CHAIR'S PROLOGUE
Chair James commended Commissioner Bohnert, Commissioner Warden and Mr. Chou for
putting together the grant for the Broadway area.
Chair James said that the biannual report to Council needed to be submitted here as a
Commission by the end of April in order to be submitted to Council by June.
Chair James suggested that as a proactive measure on the part of the Commission, to
propose a series of public seminars to engage the public. He said that as a city in the 2'lst
century, these seminars would be held to present ideas on managing parking, traffic
engineering, and citizen participation.
Chair James stated that Quad Reports for the Council would not occur this month. The
criteria for these reports were to address issues such as parking, questions, overnight
parking, etc. Chair James stated that the concept behind Quad Maps is to take government
to the citizens.
Chair James stated that the role of the Commission was to advise Council as to matter of
policy and to provide oversight responsibilities once laws were passed. He said that the
oversight capacity was a partnership between the Commission and Police and Public Works
staff. Chair James also said that he wanted to make clear that the roles of commission and
staff were a two-way street. He stated that the commission cannot dictate to staff, but can
raise questions; and, that staff cannot dictate to the commission. He said that this meant
staff, the Public Works Director, or the City lvlanager could not dictate to the commission.
They are appointed by Council and work cooperatively with everyone as a two-way street
partnership.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -
7. CONSENT
None.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Pat Giorni expressed her support for agenda item 13.1, the request from Senator Yee's
office for support on SB 279.
Ms. Giorni suggested the next B/PAC meeting be announced in the Burlingame Newsletter
to achieve greater public input.
Linda Abbey spoke regarding the traffic study in the vicinity of Our Lady ofAngels. She said
that it was performed in 2006. Ms. Abbey had thought that there was going to be a sign put
up about the study and/or meetings for inform the public of the outcome. Ms. Abbey also
expressed her concern for the lack of selective enforcement present at this location. Ms.
Abbey stated how dangerous this area can be. She inquired as to how she should proceed
so that she and her neighbors could be informed as to the outcome of the study. Chair
James suggested to Ms. Abbey that she write a letter so that this item could be on the
agenda under Communications for the next TSPC meeting.
9, CURRENT BUSINESS
9.1 Request by Pat Giorni to consider marked crosswalks at the intersection of Hillside
Drive and Balboa Avenue
Mr. Chou explained that this issue was tabled at the last TSPC meeting on March 8,
2007 so that the Commission could review the additional information submitted by the
residents. He said that staff did not support a 4-way stop, especially in light of the high
volume of traffic that could potentially backup on Hillside Drive. Mr. Chou added that
marked crosswalks would be supported only if high pedestrian foot traffic were present.
Mr. Chou concluded that due to the lack of visibility at the intersection, staff
recommended the installation of red curbing along the corners approaching the Hillside
Drive/Balboa Avenue intersection.
Chair James open the floor for public comments on this matter
Pat Giorni provided additional signatures including that of a former TSPC Commissioner.
Ms. Giorni once again made a request for stop signs and asked that the righlof-way be
considered for pedestrians at this intersection. Ms. Giorni stated the need for red curbing
and selective enforcement; and, that this intersection needed a "Cadillac" solution for
safety.
Gabriel Lal\,londe stated that she was new to Burlingame and California. She said she
realized vehicles would park all the way to the corner - which essentially made Balboa
Drive a one lane street. lvls. LaMonde said she supported red curbing and cutouts.
Susie Smythe requested restricting parking, cutouts and a trial period of stop signs at
this intersection. She said she needed to cross Hillside Drive from Balboa Avenue on a
daily basis, and that the visibility was so poor that she must go into the street from a
neighbors driveway to gain visibility. She also said that the driveway provided stroller
access.
Jennifer Callahan said she was a 4-y2 yeat resident and supported restricted parking,
cutouts, and stop signs. Ms. Callahan stated that vehicles accelerate to make the light
and also make quick right turns on a red light to avoid the intersection. Ms. Callahan also
stated that at this intersection, it was unsafe to cross the streets and that there were
large commercial vehicles parked on Hillside blocking visibility.
Michael Fleming stated that he was a 2-y2 ye resident who supported all the
recommendation made by lvls. Giorniwith the exception ofthe stop signs. He stated that
this could be overkill at this point. Mr. Fleming stated that there was definitely an issue
with line-of-sight and felt that red curbing would be the key issue. Mr. Fleming also
supported crosswalk installations and selective enforcement to address the issue of
speeding.
Bob Lazich said he was a 40 year resident, and expressed his observation that this area
currently has a lot more small children present. Mr. Lazich stated that Hillside Drive has
always been dangerous, but more so now. Mr. Lazich said he endorsed crosswalk
installations. red curbing and cutouts.
Cathy Abrams said she was a 17 yeat resident. She stated that this issue was very
"black and white" and wanted to know what it would take to put up a stop sign. She felt
this was a human necessity. Ms. Abrams said she felt that this commission would be
responsible if stop signs were not installed, and someone got killed or seriously hurt.
Ms. Abrams questioned what it took to get the stop sign approved for the
Occidental/Howard Avenue intersection, but felt Hillside Drive/Balboa Avenue
intersection to be much more dangerous.
Larry (last name inaudible) said he was a resident since November and stated that
crossing Hillside Drive was ridiculous due to the speed ofvehicles. He said that vehicles
back{rack to Adeline Avenue to avoid this intersection. He added that commercial
vehicles caused blind spots and it was difficult for strollers without the curb cutouts.
Bennie Ruepert, a 35 year resident, said he could vouch for what everyone was
expressing this evening as he has a front seat to this intersection. He supported the trial
period of slop signs and the cutouts for ease of use of strollers.
Karen Delee-Simpson said she was a 30 year resident who has raised her children in
this particular area and are now grown, expressed the difficulties trying to stop traffic
while crossing with a stroller. Ms. Delee-Simpson stated that there was an injury
accident approximately three years ago at this intersection. She said that vehicles
speed to make the stop light, and now with right-turns only on green, cars don't stop.
Ms. Delee-Simpson hoped some decision would be made to improve safety and felt it
was worth trying.
Chair James closed the public comment period on this issue and sought input from the
Commissioners.
Commission Noworolski said that he appreciated the issue of traffic not yielding to the
pedestrians and would like to move foMard with red curbing at this intersection.
Vice-chair Conway acknowledged that this was an emotional issue and stated that it was
not necessarily "black and white". He explained that this Commission was appointed by
the Council and that laws designate and regulate what could be done in many instances.
He said that the TSPC was not ignoring concerns and was trying to serve the City of
Burlingame. Vice-chair Conway then stated that there clearly was a difficult problem at
this intersection. He expressed his concern that stop signs could create a backup which,
in turn could make vehicles speed even more in order to make the light. Vice-chair
Conway stated that studies have shown that crosswalks can give a false sense of
security and pedestrians don't look left or right. He agreed that drivers might slow down
potentially if they saw a crosswalk. Vice-chair Conway added that red curbing made
perfect sense to increase visibility.
Commissioner Bohnert asked about the ADA curb ramps, and if this was an issue that
would be handled without further action by the Commission. Mr. Chou replied that he
would ensure that he would talk to the project engineer about getting this work added to
the annual program for the following year.
Commissioner Bohnert noted that this intersection was within a 4 block radius of a large
park, two schools, a market and two churches. He said that he felt strongly for red
curbing and crosswalks.
Commissioner Warden stated that there were four areas of concern to him.. Curb cutouts - which were being dealt with by staff.. Stop signs - which did not meet guidelines imposed by the State and which could
create a false sense of security and potential backup of vehicles.. Crosswalks - whose location may not be deemed the safest place to cross,
especially since it was one block from EI Camino Real.. Red curbing - which he supported, but noted that the residents needed to be
forewarned that this might result in commercial vehicles being pushed onto
Balboa Avenue and other side streets.
Commissioner Bohnert asks about speed abatement, and other available measures
such as speed bumps. Mr. Chou replied that stop sign guidelines provided by the State
and Federal government stipulated that stop signs should not be used to control speed.
He added that speeding traffic control measures, such as bumps and obstructions in the
roadway were all Capital lmprovement Program items. He said that staff needed to
Linda Abbey stated that vehicles do speed on Adeline Drive just like on Hillsdale Drive.
address the enforcement and police staff shortage issues when addressing the speeding
rssue
Commissioner Noworolski asked if "bots dots" across the roadway were plausible. Mr.
Chou replied that bots dots could be installed, however the installation would be effective
all the time and the sound would wake up residents at night.
Commissioner Noworolski reiterated that a safety issues did exist at this intersection and
supported red curbing; however, a stop sign was not suitable and he did not support a
stop light or crosswalks.
Commissioner Bohnert states that as on Broadway we have over used signage as a way
to compensate for lack of enforcement. Commissioner Bohnert agreed with Mr. Chou
that a stop sign was not applicable; however, he was adamant about installation of
crosswalks and would trust Mr. Chou's determination of the length of red curbing
necessary at each corner of the intersection.
Commissioner Warden wanted to reiterate to the public about the noise that would result
from bots dots, particularly at night.
Chair James asked Mr. Chou why crosswalks were not included in his staff report. Mr.
Chou replied that studies have been done and that crosswalks create a false sense of
security on the part of pedestrians. He said that if drivers did not see a constant flow of
pedestrians, drivers would then ignore the crosswalk lines. He stated that staff was not
opposed to crosswalks, but was determined that this crosswalk did not have the volume
and might not be the best location for crossing.
Chair James questioned the line of visibility based on length of vehicles and speeding at
this intersection. Mr. Chou replied that a van or truck was gene'ally 20-22' and a car
was 12-15',.
Chair James asked for confirmation that dealing with speeding was difficult due to
Capital lmprovement Projects and personnel expenses. Mr. Chou said that, at this point
in time, the City was short on personnel for enforcement.
Chair James stated that it was a salient fact that the residents felt this intersection was
unsafe. He was concerned that because speed enforcement was problematic due to
Chair James stated that he was inclined to modify the staff report by rejecting the
proposed staff report and modifi/ it by adding crosswalks.
Commissioner Bohnert asked about undergoing a trial period for a crosswalk and
suggested that perhaps there was a lack of pedestrian traffic due to a safety issue. He
asked if a volume study could be done after installation of the crosswalks. Mr. Chou
replied that crosswalks could be removed, but the commission must be able to quantify
when one keeps or removes a crosswalk. He also said that it would require a study
before and after installation.
personnel issues, the other option to him was some kind of crosswalk. He felt that in lieu
of the lack of safety, a lack of enforcement, lack of engineering, and devices to control
speeding, it seemed that the alternative would be crosswalks.
M/S/C: Warden, Bohnert; 5/0/0
Motion: To install red curbing on approaching corners and install crosswalks at the
Hillside Drive/Balboa Avenue intersection.
M/S/C: Bohnert, James; 3/2/0 Warden, Noworolski dissented)
10. CURRENT BUSINESS
10.1 Traffic Engineer's Report
None.
10.2 Traffic Sergeant's Repo(
Sergeant Williams reported that staff would like to rescind the city ordinance
regarding overnight parking and Chief Van Etten wanted the Commission's input.
Chair James stated that part of the process to repeal an ordinance was to open it for
public input and to make TSPC aware of what staff was considering.
11, ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
None
12, PENDING ITEMS
None
,I3- COMMUNICATIONS
13.'1 Request from State Senator Leland Yee's office regarding local support for Senate
Bill 279 (Give local law enforcement agencies the same authority currently granted to
CHP and Caltrans to tow away vehicles for sale on state highways.)
No discussion
13.2 Press release regarding Burlingame's TDA project grant applications (California Drive
Sharrows, Howard Avenue Bike Lanes, and Broadway/Paloma Lighted Crosswalk)
Motion: To decline the staff recommendation as submitted.
Chair James congratulated Commissioner Bohnert, Commission Warden and Mr
Chou on this accomplishment.
,14, COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
14.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedeshian Advisory Committee
Commissioner Bohnert reported that the Committee was looking into installing
approximately 40 "U" shaped bike racks along Burlingame Avenue and that at the
next TSPC meeting they may present a diagram of the plan. He added that these
racks were nice for parking three bikes alongside meters and planter benches.
Commissioner Bohnert also said that the Committee was looking at a program that
would do a 50-50 match financing of this project.
14.2 City Council/Commission Joint Meeting (Monday, May 7 - 6pm)
Chair James stated that Council would like TSPC to provide their issues to form an
agenda for this meeting.
Commission Warden suggests funding for traffic calming
Vice Chair Conway suggested explaining the constraints that the Commission must
work within. He also wanted to share with the Council the issues that the TSPC
comes up against, since they are directed by Council.
Commissioner Bohnert suggested dialogue and communication of what role the
TSPC plays.
Chair James suggested the seminar series.
'14.3 Quad Maps
Chair James noted that the attached map reflected the corrections made with the
inclusion of contact information.
14.4 Grants List
Chair James acknowledged that the list provided by staff was agreeable.
l5.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
THE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
FIRST BI-ANNUAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR
THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
Submitted by:
Victor V. James, Jr., Ph. D
Chair
June 13,2007
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
The TraIIic Safety and Parking commission is in a unique position to use trallic
safety and parking issues to create a sense of neighborhood, uniting a collection of
communities where people have a sense of belonging to each other and to the city.
Traffic safety and parking issues are innocuous, impacting all demographics
equally.
The premise of this report is we as a Commission, an arm of the Council, have a
duty to provide the city council a bi-annual report ofour activities in furtherance
of our Traflic Safety and Parking responsibilities for the City of Burlingame.
This is our first report, covering the period January-May 2007. It is divided into
six parts: Introduction and Methodolory, Oveniew, Staie of the Commission,
Meeting with stakeholders, Management Model, Issues/concerns, challenges and
Opportunities and Reports of quad A, B, C and D. Each report is writteo fy tl"
respective commissioner. Each report is submitted as received without any editing.
we did not establish any rigid guidelines. However, we used the following Lroad -
parameters: traffic, safety, parking, citizen participation and grant application.
Should you have any questions regarding a particular euad, please address them to
the particular Commissioner.
MANAGEMENT MODEL
The management model consists of six parts: defining the roles ofand relations
between TSPC, TSPC Chair, Departments' Staff, record keeping the Quad system
and the bi-annual report.
The role of TSPC is twofold: policy formulation and policy implementation. The
Traflic Safety and Parking Commission advises Council on matters of policy
formulation relrtive to trafiic, safety and parking, providing creative ideas, holding
public hearings and sering as a filter for citizen fusues. on the implementation side
of the ledger the role is oversight of and partnenhip with the Departments of public
works and Police. we work in partnership with them to resolve issues of citizens'
concem. When the Commission, as an advocate for the citizens, is at loggerhead
with a department, the Commission can communicate with Council via a formal
vote requesting the Council to ask the City Manager to direct his staffto take the
appropriate action or show cause why he/she did not.
The primary role of the Commission Chair is to manage the myriad of interests
impacting the Commission. This is done formalty and informally. Formally, he
presides over Commission meetings, schedule and hold public hearings, prepares
and manage the agenda, martage the minute of its meetings and archiving the
Commission's business. The agenda and the minutes of the meetings are the key
instruments the Chair has to manage the business of the Commission. Informally,
he may meet with various constituent groups, stakeholders, make and receive
telephone calls, e-mails, luncheons and et. al.
The concept of dividing the city into qurds is premise on the following assumptions:
that citizens feel alienated and estranged from the government and politics ofthe
city; that government does not respond to their needs; that they don't understand
government procBses; therefore, dividing the City into euads, with Commissioners
being assigned to quads where they live will bring government directly to the
neighborhood; their neighbors can communicate directly with their commissioner
via visits to their homeslelephone calls, e-mails and/ or neighborhood meetings.
Second, they will learn more about the Commission, its process and how
government works. The broader concepts are if people feel empowered to address
issues that impact their lives and feel they have a stake in their resolution, they will
take ownership which will increase their level of participation and their feelings of
ellicacy about themselves and their goverrment Finally, the duad system can serve
as another analytical tool for the Mayor and council to evaluate the traffic safety
and parking issues in the City and to evaluate the performances ofthe
Commissioners.
ISSUES/CONCERNS
The success oflocal governance depends on an effective system of checks and
balances. The council commissions are the key to that process, because they not
only serve as advisers to the councit on matters of policy, but they have oversight
responsibilities on the implementation side of the ledger. The agenda, the minites
of meetings (raw, notes, tape recordings and et. al.), siaff reports are the
commission's formal communications to the counc and the pubric. They berong
to the public and are to be managed by the commission via th; chair. Having the"seinstruments managed by the department is contrary to the system of checks aid
balances.
The question of managemen_t and controt ofthe agenda, minutes and record keeping
have caused some tension. For examptes, a matter was presented to the commission"two months consecutively the commission's vote was "ontrary to the wishes of theDepartment of Public works, they wanted the matter rescinded, because the TralficEngineer didn't get a chance to present his case. I reminded the Assistant Directorthat the matter was before the commission twice, one of the meetings, it was the
only substantive matter on the agenda. I suggested that he review tf,e'meeting tapes.However, one of the Commissioner: requested that a formal request from the"commission to the counc to remand the matter back to the commission forfurther consideration. I submitted the foflowing wording for the agenda June l3rhmeeting, "Request from commissioner Bohnert to request council to remand backto the commission the Hillsdale Drive/Balboa AvenuJcrosswalk matter for furtherconsideration." The wording of the agenda was different than what was submitted
by the Chair.
Another example involves the commission's secretary who records the minutes ofthe meetings; however, the minutes submitted for apirovar are written and edited
by the TraIIic Engineer. There is apparently no record keeping system in prace.
Examples of record keeping invorved a terephone ca I rece-ived from the Mayor
requesting information regarding a previous commission matter; I was ,nubr. toanswer her questions nor were any of my fellow commissioners, except a senior
member who was directly involved and who was subsequently asked, along with aformer senior member of the commission, to appear before tie City coun"cir toprovide historical penpectives based on their ricoltections and to answer councilquestions. I asked sta{f to provide me some written information such as staffreports or minutes; I was informed that there were none. Another exampleinvolved a meeting with the Assistant Director of pubric works and staff doing
which- he had some questions regarding the implemented management model indwhy there was no information on file for his review.
My recommendations are that the agenda is prepared and approved by the
Commission and Chair; the minutes of the mietings be prepared by the secretary tothe commission and the chair for final approvar uy tte commission; that theMinutes in all of its form (approved, unapproved, tape recording), staff reports and
et. al. be delivered and archived in the office of the City Clerlc The staff reports
should be archived in the respective Departments with copies in the City Clerk's
office. Finally, all of these documents should be made available to the public-
electronically and /or paper,
Finally, the fundamental problem lies in the personalization of the process. The
argument is that commission chairs come and go, but it is the staffthat provides
the administrative and historical continuity. The process should stand alone not
embodied in an individuat(s). The depersonalization of the process, defining roles
and clarifying responsibilities wilt shift the process from an individual(s) to a
process embodied in the institution, providing administrative and historical
continuity.
CHALLENGES
our challenges as a commission are to hamess the city's sense of neighborhood;
that is a collection of communities where people have a sense of belonling to eachother and of belonging to the City. The quad system, citizen education andparticipation, new and creative ideas are a beginning. Second, our challenge is tocontinue to be responsive to the citizens of Buiringame, the city counc , cityManager and city Departments. As chair and fac itator of tie procesq I wittcontinue to work constructivery to estabrish a sense of meaning, a sense oi betongingto our communities and neighborhood.
CONCLUSION
Council Manager Government is the embodiment of an informed citizenry,
enjoying broad participation, including people directly in the politicalproc$s. Therefore, as manager of the business of the Commission and the
facilitator of the inter$ts of Citizens, City Council, Commission, City
Manager and City Departments, I will continue to advocate a process that is
depersonalized, open, fiir and transparent.
QUADRANT A
COMMISSIONER STEVE WARDEN
NO REPORT SUBMITTED
QUADRANTB
COMMISSIONER MIKE BOHNERT
Quad B Report .
January l, 2007 -May 19, 2007
Commissioner Mike Bohnert
The following are the geographic boundaries of Quad B (see attached map):
1. Northem Boundary: Broadway
2. Southem Boundary: Peninsula
3. Westem Boundary: Califomia (to Sanchez) and El Camino (to include Carmelita
and Broadway)
4. Eastern Boundary: N/A
Traffic, Safety, Parking Citizen Complaints, Requests, and Comments:l. Request for a 4-way controlled stop at the intersection of
Clarendon/Burlingame Avenue.
i. Result: Commission-per the recommendation by Staff-denied
the request for a 4-way controlled stop. commission decided to
add this intersection to the "selective enforcement" list and also
utilize a radar speed trailer.
2. Complaint regarding speeding vehicles and safety on Park Avenue
between Carolan Avenue and Winchester Avenue.i. Result: Commission asked Police Traffic Sgt. to include this
location on the selective enforcement list.
3. Complaints regarding various commercial vehicle parking on Victoria
Street and Howard Avenue
i. Note: This topic appears regularly throughout euad B.
Commission discusses this topic regularly.ii. Result: Commission supports staff s suggestion to meet with the
city Planning, Attorney, an6 code Enforcement to restructure the
use-permit process and ultimately remove any loopholes which
could cause similar problems
4. complaints regarding bicycle and pedestrian safety on Broadwayi. Note: commission formed a "Broadway Sub-committee" (see
below for specifics about the sub-committee) to address these
issues.
ii. Result: Per the recommendation of the sub-committee, the
Commission votes (a) that on-going selective enforcement be
continued; (b) staff to review the signage and eliminate
redundancy while maintaining aesthetics on Broadway and (c) to
expedite the installation of an illuminated crosswalk system on
Broadway at Paloma (TDA Grant Project #6).
5. Complaint regarding speed conhol and/or stop signs on Carmelita and
Chula Vista.
i. Result: TBD at June TSp Meeting
6. Complaint regarding visibility of pedestrian crossing signs on Peninsula
i. Result: TBD at June TSP Meeting
Citizen Participation:
l. Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (B/PAC): The goal of the
B/PAC is to create a more bicycle and pedestrian-friendly environment
throughout Burlingame. This committee meets oncHr twice-a month
to discuss ideas, issues, and planning. currently there are 3 TDA
approved grants that will directly benefit biking and pedestrian safety in
Quad B. Other areas of concentration for the B/PAC committee is (a)to
add bike racks throughout the city and (b) design a plan for a pedestrian
and bike Broadway/l0l overpass.i. Citizen Volunteers:
1. craig Horak-2007 San Mateo county Bicycle commuter
of the Year
2. Pat Giomi-Bicycle enthusiast and longtime city/county
volunteer.
2. TSP Commission Broadway Traffic Sub-Committee: The Broadway
subcommittee was created in 2006 by the TSP Commission to address
merchant complaints and concems regarding bicycle and pedestrian safety
on Broadway between California and El Camino Real. Commissioner
Warden and myself along with the City Traffic Engineer/staffformed the
sub-committee which included the following m.rch*ts and area residents:i. Rudy Horakii. Ross Bruce
iii. John Kevranian
iv. The sub-committee utilized public input, stafftraffic counts and
research (conducted in June 2006) to develop an immediate plan to
increase bicycle and pedestrian safety on Broadway (see attached).
Traffic Sergeant Williams' Reportl. Staff and Sergeant Williams recommend rescinding the city ordinance
pertaining to overnight parking.i. Result: TSP will conduct a public discussion on this subject-date
TBD.
2. Quad B Selective Enforcement Locationsi. Note: Quad b has the highest number of selective enforcement
locations.
l. R/R Crossings & R/R Tracks-trespassing; vehicle &
pedestrian violations.
2. Broadway (business districtfyielding to pedestrians3. Bayswater (east of CaliforniaFspeeding4. Carmelita (between California and El Camino RealF
speeding
5. carolan/Monell-fail to yield to pedestrians in crosswalk6. Park-speeding
7. California/Bellewe-fail to yield to pedestrians
Grants
8. Howard Avenue (east of cariforniaFspeeding and stop
signs
3. Quad B Selective Enforcement Statistics (February z6,z0o7-Mafch 25,
2007)
i. R/R crossings & R/R Tracks--{ Traffic citations; 0 Traffic
Warnings
ii. Broadway(business districtF4 Traffic citations; 5 Traffic
Wamings
iii. Bayswater (east of california)- 0 Traffic citations; 0 Traffic
Warnings
iv. carmelita (between california and El camino RIH Traffic
Citations; 0 Traffic Warningsv. carolar/Morrell-0 Traffic citations; l rraffic warningvi. Park-0 Traffic Citations; 0 Traffic Warningsvii. califomia/Bellewe--{ Traffi c citations; 2 iraffic warningsviii. Howard Avenue-3 Traffic citations;0 Traffic wamings
Note: Carmelita Avenue-listed twice on the selective enforcement list-
was the only location not included in the statistics.
b. TDA Project Grants
i. Three TDA Grants directly impacting the traffic and safety in
Quad B:
l. In-pavement illuminated crosswalk system at Broadway &paloma
2. California Drive: Shared-lane bike route3. Howard Avenue Bike Lane
QUADRANT C
COMMISSIONER Mark Noworolski
Page I of2
Victor James
From:
To:
Sent:
Subiect:
"Mark Noworolski" <jmarkn@gmail.com>
'Victor James" <phoenix3S@sbcglobal.net>
Sunday, June 03, 2007 10:48 AM
Re: An emailfrom Burlingame Resident
Victor,
Here's what I've got. I'm not actually sure about the California Ave TDA bike grant and will check on
that with Mike.
mark
CommissionerNoworolski began his term in January of 2007.
Since that time: traffic, safety and parking issues pertaining to Quad C:
o Request for crosswalk and stopsign at Hillsdale & Balboa
o Background: Staffrecommendation was to red-curb this intersection for increased visibility.
The public comment on this issue was extensive.
o Result: Commission recornmended red-curbing and installing crosswalks at this
intersection. The request for stop signs was denied.
o Request for 4-way stop signed intersection to control driver behavior at Hillsdale & Balboa
o Intersection did not meet state warrants for stop sign installation
o Result: Request denied, per staff recommendation.
o Request for at least 1 painted crosswalk for pedestrian crossing at Hillsdale & Balboa
o Background: Citizen comments on this issue were extensive, including a signed petition.
o Result: Commission recommended installation of crosswalks at this intersection, in contrast
to staff recommendation.
o Request for elimination of curb side parking near Hillside & Balboa intersection
o Result: Commission, along with staffrecommendation, recommended red curbing at this
intersection.
o Request for ADA curb cuts at Hillside & Balboa
o Result: Commission was informed by staff that this intersection is on schedule to have curb
cuts.
Citizen Participation:
o Member of Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
o Details of this committees work are in commisioner Bohnert's report.
Grants involving quad C - TDA:
o California Avenue - shared-lane bike route
617t2007
QUADRANT D
COMMISSIONER DAN CONWAY
From:
IO:
Sent:
Subiect:
"Dan Conway" <dconwayl 1 1@hotmail.com>
<phoenix3S@sbcglobal.net>; <dconwayl 1 1 @hotmail.com>Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:59 PM
City Council Memo
Page I of I
Hi Victor-
I have two things to report for my quadrant for the 2OO7 memo:
1' The Crmmission approved a stop sign on Occidental southbound at Howard. This was a significant movebecause this intersection had been non-standard for years and presentd a hazard to pede$rlaniwho wereconfused when-cars failed to stop when.tuming onto Howard going east bound. This itop sign his also helped toslow down traffic going east bound on Howard all the way doin the street.
2. Looking forward this year, the Commission may be involved in the permit parking issue. The commission andcity Council may consider requests to implement a residential parking permit throrihort tne cityino atso arequest from the police departnent to abolish the overnight parking permit progra;.
Thanks,
Dan
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with windows Live spaces. It's easy! Try itl
6/7t2007
Victor James