Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2006.07.13TRAFFIC. SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY HALL, 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7:00 P.M. THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2006 - REVISED AGENDA SUGGESTED ACTION I 7:00 p.mCALL TO ORDER 2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL 4 CURRENT BUSINESS 4.1 ACTION ITEMS 4.1.1 Minutes for March 9 and June 8, 2006 Approve. 4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS Califomia Drive/Highland Avenue - Crosswalk enhancement or removal. 4.2.1 Discuss and review staff report. 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS Acknowledge request and accept testimony. Burlingame Avenue/Clarendon Avenue - Request for stop signs. 5.1 Occidental Avenue/Howard Avenue - Request for an additional stop sign at the existing 3-way intersection. 5.2 6 FROM THE FLOOR Acknowledge request and accept testimony. 7 INFORMATION ITEMS 7.1 Bicycle Safety lssues in Burlingame - Future sub-commiftee meetings and project considerations. Verbal report by sub- committee members. 7.2 From Council to Commission/Staff Acknowledge and discuss or place on future agenda. IrII T I T ,L 3. I 7.3 From Staff to Commission 7.3.1 Traffic Engineer's Report Verbal update only.Peninsula Avenue/US1 01 Overpass Status Report 7.3.1.1 Verbal update only.7.3.1.2 Broadway/US1O1 Overpass Status Report Verbal update Whandouts.7 .3.1.3 Radar Speed Zones - Final analysis. Verbal update dhandouts.7.3.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report Verbal update from staff and presentation by vendor, Red Flex. 7.3.2.1 Red Light Camera Enforcement Program Verbal update only7.3.3 Other City Staff Reports 7.4 From Commission to Staff Chair report and update on various issues. 7.4.1 CommissionChairperson'sReport Verbal update Whandouts.7.4.1.1 Caltrain Railroad Corridor Safety Members report and update on various sub- committee issues. 7.4.2 Commissioner/Sub-commifteeReports Verbal report only.7.4.2.1 Broadway/Paloma Avenue Traffic Safety Measures Direction to staff.7.4.2 Reports of citizen complaints or requests Direction to staff7.5 Comments and communication Announcement of expected absences7.6 Next Regular Meeting: August 10, 2006 INACTIVE OR PENDING ITEMS AGENDUM FOR NEXT MEETING - August 10, 2006 ADJOURNMENT10 IIIII T IIII IIII ll 8. I 7 .3.1 Traffic Enginee/s Report Verbal update only 7.3.1 .2 Broadway/US101 Overpass Status Report Verbal update only 7.3.1 .3 Radar Speed Zones - Final analysis.Verbal update Mhandouts. 7.3.2 Traftic Sergeant's Report Verbal update Whandouts. 7.3.2.1 Red Light Camera Enforcement Program Verbal update from staff and presentation by vendor, Red Flex. 7.3.3 Other City Staff Reports Verbal update only. 7.4 From Commission to Staff 7.4.1 CommissionChairperson'sReport Chair report and update on various issues. 7.4.1 .1 Caltrain Railroad Corridor Safety Verbal update Mhandouts 7.4.2 Commissioner/Sub-committeeReports Broadway/Paloma Avenue Traffic Safety Measures 7.4.2.1 7.4.2 Reports of citizen complaints or requests 7.5 Comments and communication Announcement of expected absences 8 INACTIVE OR PENDING ITEMS o AGENDUM FOR NEXT MEETING -August 10,2006 10 ADJOURNMENT II TrII rIII IIII ,1.1 7.3 From Staff to Commission 7 .3.1 .1 Peninsula Avenue/US101 Overpass Status Report Members report and update on various sub- committee issues. Verbal report only. Direction to statf. Direction to staff. 7.6 Next Regular Meeting: August 10, 2006 CITY HALL.5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD cALtFORNtA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday - June 8, 2006 Commissioners Present:Eugene Condon, Chair Victor James, Vice-Chair Michael Bohnert Stephen Warden Dan Conway Staff Present Visitors: TRAFFIC, SAFEW & PARKING COMMISSION June 8, 2006 Minutes Page 1 of 13 Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Sergeant Don Shepley, Police Department Pat Giorni,1445 Balboa Avenue Linda Abbey, 1415 Adeline Drive Jay DeWolf ,1212 Edgehill Drive John Kevranian, 1241 Broadway Avenue Barbara Zukowski, 1 108 Capuchino Avenue Tom Koros,2225 Summit Drive Farris Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive Sandy Towle, 2200 Hillside Drive Susan Towle, 2220 Hillside, Drive Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road Dennis O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive Katie O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive Eugenia Swanson, 1124 Paloma The City of Burlingame 1. CALLTO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 5 of 5 Commissioners present. (Commissioner Conway arrived at 7:15 PM) 4. CURRENT BUSINESS 4.1 ACTION ITEMS 4.1.1 Minute for March 9, April 13, and May 18, 2006 meeting. Traffic Engineer Chou explained that the Minutes for March 9 were not in the current packet. The April 13, and May 18, 2006 were in the packet to be approved. Motion: To approve April 13 and May 18 minutes M/S/C: Warden, James; 4/0/0 4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS 4.2.1 California Drive - Proposed "Overnight Parking Restriction" signs along the 700 Block. TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION June 8, 2006 Minutes Page 2 oI 13 Traffic Engineer Chou explained that at the January 12, 2006 TSPC meeting there was a request from a Commissioner to evaluate the extension of the overnight parking restriction along the 700 block of California Drive. As a previous action, the Commission had approved similar restrictions further north on California Drive. Mr. Chou said that extending the restriction would prohibit overnight parking from Oak Grove, north to Carmelita. He explained that the Commission wanted to ensure sufficient public notification so that businesses along the 700 Block would have time to present any concerns before action was taken. Commissioner Warden stated that he requested to have this brought back for review. He said the 700 block of California Drive had become a parking zone for commercial vehicles and this would be an opportunity to clean the matter up and get these vehicles into a commercial storage yard. Motion: To move this to an action item M/S/C: Warden, James; 4/0/0 Second Motion: To accept staff recommendation to implement No Overnight Parking restrictions on the block of California Drive from Oak Grove to Palm (700 Block). M/S/C: Warden, James; 4/0/0 4.2.2 Broadway/Paloma Avenue - Evaluate need for stop signs Traffic Engineer Chou explained that the City had received requests from merchants for stop signs on Broadway at Paloma. The merchants felt vehicles speeding had made this intersection unsafe for pedestrians and that some type of traffic control would help. Mr. Chou stated that staff conducted a Stop Sign Warrant Study. He explained that for the volume condition, about 13,000 to 14,000 vehicles were recorded on Broadway. Additionally, approximately 1,000 vehicles were recorded on Paloma Avenue. He went on to explain that while the volume condition for Broadway was met, the volume condition for Paloma fell very short. And the accident conditions were not met. He explained that Broadway had a large number of vehicles traveling on it. The use of stop signs was really for right-of-way assignment. There was not enough demand on the side streets to warrant stop signs. Pedestrian safety should be the focus and alerting vehicles to pedestrian traffic. Mr. Chou stated that Broadway already experienced traffic congestion from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM. He expressed concern that if a stop sign was installed, a speeding situation could be created between the blocks as drivers would try to make up any time lost due to stopping. Mr. Chou stated that since all three warrants were not met, a stop sign recommendation could not be made. He did make the recommendation that other options regarding pedestrian safety (signage and/or crosswalk enhancements) be considered. Chair Condon stated traffic enhancements had been approved at the crosswalk, at the intersection of Chula Vista and Broadway. Tom Koros, 2225 Summit Drive, stated that both vehicular and foot traffic would increase due to the opening of five new restaurants on Broadway. TRAFFIC, SAFEW & PARKING COMMISSION June 8, 2006 Minutes Page 3 of l3 He said Broadway was viewed as a main artery to the freeway, and that visibility was reduced due to streetscape. Despite the warrant study, he said he wanted consideration given to stops at Paloma. He expressed concerns for citizens who were pedestrians, and went on record as a strong supporter for the stop signs. Barbara Zukowski, 1"108 Capuchino Avenue, expressed her concern about cars speeding along Broadway with crosswalks not a being a deterrent to speeding. She also stated that there wasn't enough protection for pedestrians. She expressed the difficulties she experienced in attempting to cross Broadway, and also went on record in support of a stop sign at Paloma and Broadway. John Kevranian, 1241 Broadway, recommended a stop sign be installed. He wanted to see traffic study numbers for Burlingame Avenue, which had both stop signs and a traffic signal. He said the volume of traffic was the same as Broadway. He also said that there wasn't enough police power to enforce safety laws. He went on record strongly urging the installation of a stop sign. Rudy Horak, "1332 Edgehill Drive, stated that the constant flow of traffic on Broadway prevents him from crossing to shop on the north side of Broadway. He said Paloma was halfway down Broadway and the logical place to put stop signs. Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive, stated pedestrians crossing Broadway was the reason it was impossible to turn left off Paloma, as well as other streets, onto Broadway. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, suggested making Broadway a one-way skeet from El Camino through to the freeway. She said that traffic could be directed to use Carmelita westbound since the parking has parking restrictions during commute hours. This would allow for two lanes going to the freeway at Broadway and two lanes coming back on Carmelita. Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road, asked if 18-wheeler trucks were allowed on Broadway. He also asked if the accident history condition study was conducted only at that specific intersection. Mr. Bruce stated he and other merchants felt that placing a stop sign at Paloma would have a beneficial result for all of Broadway, preventing vehicle accidents and slowing traffic. He asked that the study area be expanded even though the warrants had TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION June 8, 2006 Minutes Page 4 of l3 Fanis Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive, discussed how difficult it was to cross Broadway and how time consuming it was driving north on Paloma and turning onto Broadway. She felt stop signs at this location would allow cars to turn. not been met. He suggested placing a stop sign at this intersection as a one year experiment. Sandy Towle, 2200 Hillside Drive, suggested slowing down traffic by installing a lighted crosswalk on Broadway, similar to ones in San Mateo and on California Drive. He felt stop signs and traffic signals would create tremendous delays, causing drivers to go faster and not make it any safer for pedestrians. He wanted the City to try a lighted crosswalk approach. Eugenia Swanson, 1124 Paloma Avenue, discussed speeding issues on Broadway and getting across Broadway (east-west) from Paloma and went on record in favor of the stop sign. Jay deWolf, 1212 Edgehill Drive, asked what the City was doing for Broadway and Chula Vista. Chair Condon stated crosswalk enhancements on Broadway and Chula Vista was the past recommended action. Mr. deWolf inquired about variations in the count which could occur during various times of the year. He asked the City to look at U-turn signage on Broadway. He felt installing a stop sign would be fine, but suggested a stronger police presence might be more helpful. He also said that those turning right didn't seem to slow down for pedestrians. Katie O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive, stated Broadway was a thoroughfare going to the freeway. She said pedestrian traffic and car traffic had increased, and will continue to increase. Commissioner Warden asked if Paloma was the correct place for a stop sign, with respect to side street traffic. He asked Mr. Chou if the stop sign belonged at Laguna rather than Paloma since 2-way traffic crossing Broadway was allowed on Laguna. He stated that numerous stop sign requests had been turned down in the past because of liability to the City. Commissioner Warden asked if placing stop signs in locations not meeting warrants would actually make the Cig liable. TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION June 8. 2006 Minutes Page 5 of 13 Commissioner Warden expressed his opposition to making Paloma a one- way street. He stated he didn't want to see all the traffic backed up on a residential street like Carmelita. Mr. Chou stated that the City Attorney knew of no cases where cities had legal action against them for installing unwarranted stop signs. However, doing this did not stop any city from being taken to court. He said that the City would have to prove a professional engineering decision was made for doing so, based on overwhelming evidence that stop signs would benefit the City at those locations. Commissioner Warden wanted the Laguna area studied for action based on the increased amount of pedestrian traffic possibly resulting from new businesses opening soon. Commissioner Warden stated that if nothing is done with a stop sign, knock-down delineators might be another option for consideration when this matter comes back to the Commission. Commissioner James directed his questions to the floor speakers. He asked Mr. Koros about the levels of traffic and what time the heaviest traffic occurred. Mr. Koros indicated the heaviest was between 7:00 AM and 9:30 AM, and then again between 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM. He said this was true for both pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Commissioner James asked Barbara Skukoski what the time frame was for her concerns. She stated it was 5:30 PM to 6:00 PM. Commissioner James asked John Kevranian what time he observed the "near-miss" incidents referenced earlier. Mr. Kevranian stated it is all day, between 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Commissioner James then asked Jay deWolf about the times of the U-turn violations. Mr. deWolf stated it was all day. He also thanked the Commissioners for their service to the community by serving on the Commission. Commissioner James asked if speeding was the biggest concern based on the discussion from the floor. The audience agreed. Commissioner Conway stated that the warrant studies were useful because the Commission could rely on them legally. He stated that there had not been a time where the warrant study did not match the field test. He added, however, that he also felt discomfort crossing Broadway. Regardless of the outcome of the warrant studies, he felt strongly that something needed to be done. He expressed his concern with the backup that would be caused by putting in stop signs. Commissioner Bohnert expressed his own concerns regarding crossing Broadway. He said crossing Carmelita was just as dangerous as crossing Broadway. He suggested the entire area should go under review (Carmelita, Broadway, Laguna, Paloma, all cross streets, the Broadway overpass enhancement and freeway) to be made pedeshian safe. One stop sign in the middle of all of this would create a great deal of backup to the freeway without addressing the problems in all of these areas. Commission Condon expressed his concern that the residential streets would be subjected to the backups. He said he would entertain a traffic study for stop signs at Capuchino because it is a 4-way intersection. He said he would also like to look at the placement of knockdown delineators at Mr. Chou stated that while the Laguna intersection was not at the center of the Broadway corridor, it did have traffic entering from both ends of the side street and might better meet the warrant conditions. TRAFFIC. SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION June 8. 2006 Minutes Page 6 of l3 Capuchino and Laguna. With so many cars coming through Broadway, he said he didn't see speeding as the problem, but crossing the streets was the issue. He suggested looking at the locations where people cross streets, implement measures known to work similar situations, and consider a stop sign at Laguna if the warrants were met. Mr. Chou responded that delineators were a good option. He cautioned that wide turning vehicles on a street narrowed by streetscape would roll over delineators, so regardless of using less expensive delineators, there would still be a maintenance issue. He said this intersection was a three way approach and there would only be one gpe of turning movement minimizing the damage to the delineators. Mr. Chou said that this intersection and corridor was a good case for considering traffic signals. He stated the main reason being large volumes of vehicles traveling in one direction where breaks in traffic flow was needed for other vehicles and pedestrians to cross. He said that stop signs were not warranted because this would mean that each of the 13,000- 14,000 vehicles would be required to stop and backups would be a concern. Traffic signals would allow vehicles to move through the intersection and create breaks when needed. Mr. Chou stated that a traffic signal warrant study could be conducted for the future and the Commission can then bring this to the Council. Chair Condon asked Mr. Chou if a new traffic signal at this intersection could be coordinated with the signal at California Drive to avoid a congestion and backups. Mr. Chou responded that this could be done. Chair Condon said he would like to see the crosswalk delineators at the Capuchino and Paloma intersections; and, look into traffic signals and get a sub-committee together to study the feasibility of meeting signal warrants. Commissioner James stated the problem was not being addressed because the issue being brought up was speeding, but the request for stop signs dealt with right-of-way control. He raised the question that speed was stated as the issue during public discussions, but how could there be speeding when the traffic was so heavy? Commissioner James asked Mr. Chou if there were other studies and methods to address the issue of speed. Mr. Chou said there were. Commissioner James stated that cars parked perpendicular would also affect the speeding issue. He stated a different approach to the speeding problem is required other than a stop sign. Commissioner Bohnert expressed the importance of seeing the big picture in all options planned for this area. TRAFFIC. SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION June 8, 2006 lrinutes Page 7 of 13 Commissioner Warden suggested changing Paloma into a two-way street. He said that combined with a signal at Paloma, this could be the way to keep traffic moving, and improve pedestrian traffic access. Motion: To make this an Action ltem. M/S/C: Warden, Conway; 5/0/0 Chair Condon aske dfor a motion to deny the request and open up the whole Broadway district to a sub-committee to look into several alternatives such as signals and crosswalk delineators. He asked that the sub- commiftee come up with a plan for all of Broadway. Commissioner Warden suggested adding merchants and residents in the area to the sub-commiftee. Commissioner Conway asked asked Mr. Chou the best way to set up the sub-Committee. Mr. Chou stated that two members from the commission should work with the merchants and/or Ross Bruce, BID President. This would be an on-going process to build consensus for a plan of attack for the entire corridor and not just this intersection. Then the sub-commiftee, with support from the business community, would come back to the Commission and build the last bit of consensus from the rest of the Commissioners. This way the sub-committee would not come back to the Commission with a "done deal" solution. Fu(her discussion of any new ideas should occur between the business community, sub-committee and Commission. Second Motion: To deny the request for a stop sign at Broadway and Paloma, and have the chair appoint a sub-committee to review the entire Broadway corridor for a more appropriate approach to the traffic and pedestrian issues in that area. M/S/C: Warden, James; 5/0/0 Commissioner Warden and Commissioner Bohnert volunteered for the sub- committee. 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NEW ITEMS 5.1 California Drive/Highland Avenue - Crosswalk enhancement or total elimination Mr. Chou stated that a staff report discussing this matter would be available at the next Commission meeting. TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION June 8, 2006 Minutes Page 8 of 13 6. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, stated that Councilwoman O'Mahoney said at the last Council meeting that money would be available for repaving arterial streets; and, that one of them was Hillside Drive. Ms. Giorni expressed her hope that the Commission would consider re-evaluating crosswalks at Hillside and Balboa. She said the City ordinance regarding overnight parking was not being enforced there and cars parked at the corners add to the "blindness". She requested red paint be added at corners ofthe intersection to keep cars from parking there. Linda Abbey,2415 Adeline Drive, thanked the City of Burlingame forthe traffic counts conducted on Adeline Drive. She said that one count location had a red cone in the street next to the counter. She was also concerned that during the study, Mercy High School was not in full attendance because of finals week, and she asked if the City could verify with Mercy High School what the attendance was during the dates of the study. Ms. Abbey stated that the traffic was never light during the week on Broadway, and she also wanted it noted that the time period between 11:30 AM and 1:00 PM during the week was a high traffic time. She stated that the pedestrians on the street may not perceive cars as speeding, but cars aren't yielding to people in the crosswalks. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS 7. 1 Bicycle Safety lssues in Burlingame Chair Condon asked Mr. Chou if a format of the meeting could be established beforehand, and Mr. Chou agreed that they could do that once the meeting date was established. 7.2 From Council to Commission/Staff None TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION June 8. 2006 Minutes Page 9 of 13 Traffic Engineer Chou stated the sub-committee was working on dates to meet to discuss potential projects. He said that June 20 or June 27 were the most likely dates. Mr. Chou added that the sub-committee members were in agreement that they need to develop some projects for funding; and, that this sub-committee would not impinge on the Council's sub-committee because this current sub- committee would lay the groundwork and be able to hand over something viable to the Council's sub-committee after it was established. 7.3 From Staff to Commission 7.3.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 7.3.1.1 Peninsula Avenue/US 101 Overpass Status Report Traffic Engineer Chou stated that San Mateo and Burlingame were working on an agreement to hire a haffic consultant to redo some of the studies in the area. He said that Burlingame would pay for a portion of the studies and receive data on a list of Burlingame intersections. Mr. Chou said that the City of Burlingame provided the City of San Mateo with recommendations of the streets to be studied. 7.3.1 .2 Broadway/US 101 Overpass Status Report Traffic Engineer Chou stated that this was still in the EIR stage. 7.3.1 .3 Radar Speed Zones Commissioner Warden commented that it made sense to look at this in three sections: Murchison to Broadway, Broadway to Burlingame Avenue, and Burlingame Avenue to Peninsula Avenue. 7.3.2 Trallic Sergeant's Report Traffic Sergeant Shepley stated that staffing continued to be sporadic.He reported on the following: The Police Department was able to deploy the radar trailer more often when their staffing was higher. lt is currently broken and has been sent for repairs. TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION June 8, 2006 Minutes Page l0 of 13 Traffic Engineer Chou reported that he was reviewing the accident reports supplied by the Police Department. Mr. Chou also stated that the section of California Drive in questions would be broken into two sections with two surveys rather than one. The first section of California Drive would be from Murchison to Broadway. He said at Broadway, California Drive changed significantly, and this is not reflected in the current report. Selective enforcement had been happening on the train tracks at Sanchez, Broadway, and North Lane areas. Two joint operations with Amtrak and ESO were conducted. Moving the California/Sanchez bus stop appeared to have positive impact on the afternoon SamTrans school bus route. Police was also enrolling their School Resource Officer into an lnstructor's Course to teach him how to conduct the Operation Life Saver program in schools, which will be part of the office/s curriculum next year. The Street Racer Detail was to be on Friday night, June 9. There had been lots of media interest and Burlingame was hosting the event, as well as next weekend's event at the request of the Daly City Police Chief for the premiere of the movie "Fast and Furious 3". a . A training session was scheduled for Friday, June 9, from noon to 4:00 PM with the San Diego Police Department, who were the current "gurus" in street racing enforcement. Sgt. Shepley also reported that Engineering, Finance and the Police Department were involved in several studies. Engineering, Police, and Finance were currently working on smart meter implementation. The Employee Parking Permit Program would be ending in August. Commissioner Warden asked what would happen when funding ran out with DBID. Sergeant Shepley stated that the City Manager could designate who he wanted to administer the sale of the parking permits, and was looking for one of the merchant groups or a merchant take over what DBID was doing. TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION June 8, 2006 Minutes Page 1l of 13 . Preliminary Red Flex red light running studies were done for Broadway/El Camino Real, Broadway/California Drive, Chapin Avenue/El Camino Real, and Trousdale Drive/El Camino Real. The results showed that Broadway/El Camino Real was the highest violator location. Further evaluation was needed before suggesting to Council whether or not to accept the program citywide. Commissioner James asked about the other capabilities of the red light runner cameras. Sgt. Shepley stated that he was not directly involved with the program implementation, but understood that once they were installed, the system could have the ability to provide Police with the footage of a crime if it occurred at a monitored intersection. 7.4 TRAFFIC, SAFEry & PARKING COMMISSION June 8, 2006 Minutes Page 12 ol 13 From Commission to Staff 7.4.1 Commission Chairperson Report. Chair Condon reported on the Calhain railroad corridor safety issue. He said that he was looking into possible funding for joint fencing, as well as cost for the various options for fencing material. Chair Condon asked staff to look into the design options for fencing lengths and the use of natural barriers, defensive landscaping, and gullies. Commissioner Warden asked about scheduling another Special Meeting and inviting Caltrain and SamTrans to discuss what changes they made regarding fencing and rerouting bus line. Chair Condon said that he wanted all the answers to all possible questions beforehand, along with costs forthe total job and for each option. Chair Condon responded that securing funding for fence installation was the delay and could not be done by August. He asked, however, if it was possible to get all the "ducks in a row" with respect to planning, options, costs, funding avenues, before the August meeting. Mr. Chou stated that the information could be gathered for the internal meeting with Caltrain. Chair Condon asked that at the July meeting, a date be set for an August Special Railroad Corridor Safety meeting. Chair Condon asked for a Commissioner to join him on this sub-committee, and Commissioner Conway volunteered. 7.4.2 Reports of Citizen Complaints or Requests Commissioner Warden stated his concern over a lot of commercial vehicles parking in residential areas. He asked if it is was possible to have the Business License Office or the Code Enforcement Officer to look into whether these businesses were being operated out of homes. He asked if this could be controlled through the City Attorney's office. Traffic Engineer Chou agreed the process could begin there and then assigned to Finance, Permits or Code Enforcement. Commissioner Warden wanted to know what the timing would be, as he would like to see something done for the August meeting, before the beginning of school. 7.5 Comments and Communications Chair Condon suggested that Engineering and Police look into the Hillside Drive tssue. Chair Condon also said that the Commissioners could help staff with traffic counts and the development of possible solutions future plans for the Broadway/Paloma issue. Commissioner Warden asked if they ask the sub-committee to draft local merchants and residents based on this meeting's attendance. lt was suggested Ross Bruce, Dave from the ll Piccolo Coffee Shop and some others. 7.6 Next Regular Meeting There were no anticipated absences for the next meeting on July 13, 2006. 8. INACTIVE OR PENDING ITEMS None. 9 AGENDUM FOR NEXTMEETING Item 5.1 - California Drive/Highland Avenue crosswalk. 10, ADJOURNMENT 9:15 PM. TRAFFIC. SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION June 8, 2006 Minutes Page 13 of ll BURLINGAME Meeting Date: Julv 13. 2006 STAFF REPORT SUBMITTED BY Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission July 10, 2006 Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer Agenda ltem 4.2.1 Galifornia Drive/Highland Avenue - Crosswalk Removal or Enhancements .- TO: DATE: FROM: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission determine the community's need for the mid-block crosswalk. lf the need is not present, staff recommends removal of the marked crosswalk. lf the need is present, staff recommends crosswalk enhancements. ln whichever situation, staff does not recommend no action. DISCUSSION: The crosswalk is located on California Drive, immediately north of the intersection at Highland Avenue (see attached aerial photo exhibits). The crosswalk is currently marked with white paint and crosses four lanes of traffic (two northbound and two southbound). Pedestrian crosswalk signs are also posted on each side of California Drive at the crosswalks. No additional warnings or markings exist. Public Works-Engineering staff has requested that the crosswalk be examined to determine if a need is being served with the existence of this marked, mid-block crosswalk. lnitial pedestrian volume counts were taken on a typical weekday. Times of day were during the morning hours periodically between 9AM and 114M, again during the noon lunch hour, and finally during the afternoon hours of 4PM and 6PM. The results showed that there was minimal pedestrian usage of the crosswalk during those times. While there are no specific warrant criteria for crosswalk installations, in most engineering analyses, the recommendation is for traffic engineers to use "sound engineering judgment" to determine whether there is a perceived high usage at the crossing point for a marked crosswalk. The volume counts done for this location are below 25 pedestrians for any 4 hours. lf little or no need exists, then the marked crosswalk should be considered for removal. lf, however, a need does exist, then enhancements should be considered. Both options have associated benefits and liabilities. The benefits of removal are that pedestrians would not appear to be encouraged to cross at a lightly used crosswalk, where safety may be taken for granted. One concern with marked crosswalks is that pedestrians may develop a false sense of security while crossing, or that they may assume drivers will (or must) automatically yield to them when they cross. Traffic studies indicate that pedestrians tend to exercise greater caution when crossing streets at unmarked crosswalks; and, that crosswalks typically should not be marked unless there is evidence that a clear need exists. This need may be due to location or pedestrian volume requirements. Another related benefit of removal is that if volumes and needs are low, a marked crosswalk can give the pedestrian the erroneous idea that this is the nearest, best, and safest location to cross the street. ln most cases, a little used and lightly demanded crosswalk is not the safest point to cross a street. This is even more so for mid-block crosswalks. The liability of removing an existing crosswalk is that the local population already knows of, and may use, the crosswalk. lf the marked crosswalk is being used, removal does not guarantee that usage will Page 1 of2 S:\A Public Works Directory\TsP Commission\Staff Reportsu006\07-1 3-06 CA-Highland Crosswalk.doc stop. The removal of the marked crosswalk may also create a perception in the minds of drivers, who regularly use the street, that pedestrians will no longer be crossing at this location. Should the Commission determine that removal is the best course of action, staff would direct the Streets Maintenance crews to grind out the crosswalk markings. The Commission also needs to look at the possibility of not only keeping the crosswalk, but also enhancing it. Should the Commission consider enhancements, the benefits are that the existing crosswalk would receive enhancements that would highlight its presence and increase driver awareness of the likelihood of pedestrians. The liability to enhancemenl may be that after initial driver awareness, apathy could set in if pedestrians are not seen using the crosswalk regularly. Staff has concerns if the crosswalk has never really been fully utilized, that over time, the enhancements will become ineffective and the current condition in driver response will return. Crosswalk enhancements would include the addition of cross-hatchfuertical "laddeF paint and reflectorized buttons. These actions would be consistent with Tier 1 enhancements to crosswalks and would be applicable to this mid-block crosswalk situation. Additional actions such as knockdown delineators are not recommended since initial pedestrian volume studies show that there is minimal pedestrian usage during a typical weekday. lnstallations of delineators at low-volume locations may be deemed exceptional actions that could have negative effects on other high-volume locations by devaluing the importance of these safety measures there. Staff cautions use of such safety measures, as they tend to replace common-sense caution in pedestrians. Page 2 of 2 S:lA Publi.Works Dtsctory\TsP commission\st.fi Repons\2006\0h 3-06 CA-Hghl.nd crcs*alk.doc I ,# "., o City of Burlingame Engineering Department EXISTING CONDITIONS : California Drive Crosswalk Drawn by! lon Roldan Scale: 1" = 60'date:711O12006 City of Burlingame Engineering Department EXISTING CONDITIONS: California Dr. Crosswalk Drawn byi lon Roldan Scale: 1" = 20'date:711012006 City of Burlingame Engineering Department CROSSWALK REMOVED Drawn byl Jon Roldan Scale: 1" = 20'date:711012006 City of Burlingame Engineering Department ENHANCED CROSSWALK Drawn by! Jon Roldan Scale: 1" = 20'date:7 /1012006 Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission Subcommittee Recommendations for School and Park Intersections Gene Condon and Dan Conway June,2005 OVERVIEW The following is a checklist of measures the subcommittee proposes the TSP Commission consider when addressing pedestrian safety issues at uncontrolled intersections leading to schools and parks. This report does not address pedestrian safety issues at controlled intersections (those with stop signs or traffic signals) because, in general pedestrian safety is less problematic at these intersections and ultimately increased enforcement may be the best solution when stop signs or traffic signals are involved. The recommended measures below are listed in descending order starting with the most immediately effective and easy to implement and concluding with those that can be more difficult and/or expensive. The first four measures are all indicated with a"1." These measures taken together are considered o'the standard" for increasing pedestrian safety, and all three were in fact instituted with success at a problematic intersection at the north entrance to Lincoln Elementary School in 2005. A "Usage Note" is included with each tactic to explain when a particular measure may or may not be appropriate. As is the case with most items considered by the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, each proposed traffic solution must account for the particular challenges of the area under consideration. PROPOSED MEASURES: 1. Cross-hatch (zebra) style Crosswalk Usage Note: The paint used at the time of this writing is a marked improvement over the paint used in the past. Replacing old faded paint with new highly reflectorized paint has an immediate positive influence on an intersection. Cross-hatching is typically used for uncontrolled intersections where drivers need to be aware of the potential for them to stop because of the presence of pedestrians. 1.. Reflectorized markers Usaec l{atq: These reflectorized markers are "dots" or "raised buttons" that are effective indicators to drivers of the presence of marked crosswalks. These markers are typically used at locations where lighting is poor, or the roadway leading to the crosswalk is not straight and level. 1. New Generation Fluorescent Signs Usage Note: These signs may read "School Crossing" or any number of other indications, and should either be placed at the point of the crosswalk or at a distance no farther than 50 feet from the actual crosswalk. When there are curves or other roadway obstructions in the road leading to the defined area, advance signs should be utilized 50-100 feet from the crosswalk. 1. Red curbs near crosswalk intersections. Usage Note: In some cases where pedestrian visibility at crosswalks is an issue, red curbing can be employed to give pedestrians more visibility around parked cars on the street, as well as provide drivers with greater visibility of pedestrians. The first option should always be to put new fresh paint on curbs where existing red paint may have faded. In some instances, the TSP Commission should consider instituting new red curbing or extending existing red curbs to increase visibility. Of course the surrounding neighborhood must always be a part of these considerations since increased red curbing may lead to loss of street parking spaces. 2. Centerline Striping Usage Note: Centerlines have a narrowing effect on a street and cause drivers to slow down. In some instances centerlines should be painted and in others they can be painted and dotted. Generally centerlines are most effective at mid-block crosswalks on wide streets. Caution and prudent judgment should be used when considering the use of centerlines on residential streets, especially since they are typically of lower volumes when compared to collector and arterial streets. If considered for residential streets, then the prime candidates would be residential streets with many blind curves (both vertical and horizontal) and/or have roadway widths greater than 40 feet, curb to curb. 2. Delineators Usage Note: A delineator may be placed in the middle of a crosswalk to further indicate a pedestrian zone. Delineators should generally only be used at mid-block crosswalks on wider streets. The road must be 32' wide before the use of a delineator is possible. Caution and prudent judgment should be used when considering the use of delineators as permanent safety measures for crosswalks. Delineators are typically used as centerline delineation devices in construction zones or as a way to direct traffic in heavily congested and confusing locations where vehicular collisions may occur. 2. Rumblestrips Usage Note: Rumble strips are a series of dots that are placed in advance of a crosswalk. Although they can be effective, the use of rumblestrips can be a nuisance when used in a residential neighborhood because they are very noisy. Rumble strips are typically used in rural areas where the noise generated by passing vehicles will not generate complaints. 3. Speed Humps Usaee Note: Speed humps are to be considered only for intersections with serious speed violations that have not responded to other traffic calming measures. Speed humps should only be considered when there is a generous amount of straight road before and after the bump. Also, speed humps should be considered tools for traffic calming, not just to help enhance crosswalks. 3. In-Pavement Lighted Crosswalks Usage Note: In-pavement lighted crosswalks (or "illuminated" crosswalks) are to be considered only for high-pedestrian volume, mid-block crosswalks or at isolated crosswalks where, again, there are high-pedestrian volumes with no trafftc controls for a quarter of a mile (1,320 feet) in either direction. ADVISORY NOTE FROM STAFF _ When considering any of the above suggested safety measures, the evaluator must also recognize the affect of these measures on the typical driver. Questions to ask should always include: o What affect does this measure have on traffic 24-hours a day? o Is there an overwhelming amount of pedestrian traffic that would warrant this measure? o Are the pedestrian volumes and patterns such that police enforcement at key times of the day will not address the issue? o Will the over-use of these measures at other locations diminish the overall impact this particular installation will have on the driver? (Will drivers see too many of these installations throughout the city and begin to ignore them?) The City of CITY HALL.5O1 Burlingome PRIMROSE ROADPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Tel:(650) 558-7230 Fax:(650) 685-9310 CORPORATION YARD Tel:(650) 558-7670BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 0.3997 TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 p.m., Thursday, July 13, 2006 City Hall, Counci! Chambers, 501 Primrose Road The Traffic Safety and Parking Commission will be considering either the enhancement or total removal of the existing marked crosswalk across California Drive, near Highland Avenue. This item will be discussed during the next Traffic Commission meeting on Thursday, July 13, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Council Chambers. Your attendance is encouraged as the Commission welcomes public input on this important issue. lf you are unable to attend this meeting, you may submit your written comments by postal mailto Traffic. Safety and Parking Commission. 501 Primrose Road. Burlingame. CA 94010 or submit an email message to Mr. Augustine Chou , the Burlingame Traffic Engineer, at achou@burlingame.org. All written comments wil! be fonruarded to the Commission. lf you have any questions or need additional information about this notice, please call 650-558-7230. ENHANCEMENT OR TOTAL REMOVAL OF THE MARKED CROSSWALK ACROSS CALIFORNIA DRIVE, NEAR HIGHLAND AVENUE NOTICE - PU LIC IVEETING S:\A Public Works Directory\TsP Commission\R6spons6 & Notification Lettors to Requests\Public Notice - 7-13-06 CA-Highland Xwalk.wpd