Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - TSP - 2006.09.21TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Special Meeting: Caltrain Railroad Corridor Fencing September 21, 2006 Minutes Page 1 of 4 The City of Burlingame California 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Special Meeting: Caltrain Railroad Corridor Fencing Meeting Minutes – Approved Thursday, September 21, 2006 Commissioners Present: Eugene Condon, Chair Victor James, Vice Chair Dan Conway Stephen Warden Commissioners Absent: Michael Bohnert Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Traffic Sergeant Don Shepley, Police Department Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Visitors: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue Kristina Peterson, San Mateo Daily News Tara Ramroop, San Francisco Examiner TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Special Meeting: Caltrain Railroad Corridor Fencing September 21, 2006 Minutes Page 2 of 4 1. CALL TO ORDER. 6:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 5 Commissioners Present 4. CALTRAIN RAILROAD CORRIDOR FENCING 4.1. BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS Mr. Chou provided background information regarding the need for Caltrain Railroad Corridor Fencing and reported that City Council has requested this Commission to provide fencing recommendations that can be forwarded to Caltrain for consideration and near-future implementation. Mr. Chou made a presentation based on recommendations by the sub-committee and staff identified three options for fencing/barrier schemes within the Broadway/Burlingame corridor. In all options, black 6-foot chain link fencing material is recommended throughout as it was deemed the most cost-effective while still being an aesthetically pleasing barrier. Option #1  West side of Carolan Avenue – fencing from carwash lot south to Morrell Avenue pedestrian crossing. (Approx. 2,000 feet.)  East side of California Drive – fencing from Broadway station parking lot south to Sanchez Avenue. (Approx. 300 f eet.) This option is supported by Staff because it specifically addresses the concern of illegal pedestrian track crossings at a known location. The benefit of this option is that it uses Caltrain’s own recommendation for fencing along the Carolan side, a s show on their Broadway station plans. Therefore, staff expects little resistance from Caltrain over acceptance and implementation of this option since a majority of it was already a part of an existing plan for station improvements. Cost is estimated between $42,000 and $70,000, depending on the chain link material. Option #2  Same as Option #1 with additional fencing on the east side of California Drive, fencing from Oak Grove Avenue intersection north to to existing drainage channel (approx. 400 feet). Staff also supports this option which addresses concerns raised during the last TSPC Commission and sub-committee meetings. This additional fencing may increase the cost of mitigation another $7,000 to $12,00 from Option #1, again depending on chain link material used. TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Special Meeting: Caltrain Railroad Corridor Fencing September 21, 2006 Minutes Page 3 of 4 Option #3  West side of Carolan Avenue – fencing from carwash lot south to Oak Grove Avenue intersection. (Approx. 3,500 feet.)  East side of California Drive – fencing from Broadway station parking lot south to Oak Grove Avenue intersection. (Approx. 3,200 feet.) Staff does not support this option because installation of almost 7,000 feet of fencing may be considered by Caltrain to be cost-prohibitive for only one section of their entire peninsula corridor. Initial cost analysis by the sub-committee showed that fencing costs for Burlingame alone could range from $126,000 to $210,000 depending on chain link material. If other materials were to be considered, this amount could escalate up to $476,000. Staff also feels that duel fencing along the entire section of track between the Broadway station and Oak Grove Avenue is redundant and unnecessary, when one section may be sufficient. 4.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Ms. Giorni made a recommendation of another option which she referred to as Option #4 – to fully fence the entire area. This would include additional fencing on the California side down to Burlingame Avenue. She expressed her feelings that the Joint Powers Board did not know what their plans were since they wanted to expand into another district, yet they hadn’t fixed the problems within their existing districts. Ms. Giorni also suggested the use of the same kind of sanctioned crossings which could be found at the Hayward Park, San Bruno and Millbrae (behind OSH) stops. 4.3. Chair Condon opened the discussion to comments from the Commission. Commissioner James asked if Option #1 was a recommendation from the subcommittee. Mr. Chou replied it was and noted that this was part of the original Broadway improvements plan. Commissioner James asked if Option #2 was also a recommendation from the subcommittee. Mr. Chou replied that it was a development from the last TSPC meeting when it was suggested to extend the California side south to Oak Grove. Commissioner James asked for confirmation that the distinction between the first two plans was cost; and, that both plans met the intent of the fencing. Mr. Chou confirmed that this is correct. Commissioner James requests confirmation that Option #3 was duplication of fencing. Mr. Chou acknowledges that this is correct. Commissioner James questions whether the natural barrier would deter people from illegal crossings. Mr. Chou responded that it was an assumption that people would tend not to walk in the drainage channel. He said that the intent of the fence needed to be established – whether to deny access to the area or to deter people from crossing? Commissioner James asked if there was input from Caltrain for Option #1. Mr. Chou explained that since it was part of the original existing plan for Broadway Station , it was an assumption that Caltrain already approved this plan. Chair Condon stated that the sub-committee was tasked with determining what the maximum and minimum was that could be asked from Caltrain. He said that they felt TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Special Meeting: Caltrain Railroad Corridor Fencing September 21, 2006 Minutes Page 4 of 4 chain link and Option #1 was a minimum, and questioned whether Option #3 would be acceptable to Caltrain. Commissioner Conway stated that he supported Option #1 and #2, and noted that it was important to keep in mind the intent of the fence - which was to deter illegal crossings. Commissioner Conway felt that either Option #1 or #2 was reasonable and did not see the need for Gaza or non-see-through fencing. Commissioner Warden expressed that Option #2 offered a good combination of natural barriers/landscaping and fencing. Commissioner Warden agreed that the City should make a reasonable request to Caltrain and felt confident that the City could get Caltrain approval. Chair Condon supported Option #2 and felt the natural barrier was sufficient. He stated that fencing would not stop kids from being in the area, but would serve as some deterrent. 5. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL Motion: To recommend Option #2 as a preferred option to City Council M/S/C: Warden, Conway; 4/0/1 (Commissioner Bohnert absent) 6. ADJOURNMENT: 6:30 p.m.