HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2018.06.14
TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m.
Members of the public may comment on any action or study item appearing on the agenda at the time it is called. Comments on
other items should be made under agenda item #5. Provision of identifying information is optional but assists in preparation of the
minutes. All votes are unanimous unless separately voted for the record.
1. CALL TO ORDER – 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. May 10, 2018 Meeting Minutes
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA
Members of the public may speak on any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest
an item for a future Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period. 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 provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional.
Speakers are limited to three minutes each. The Commission Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the
number of anticipated speakers.
6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
a. Community B/PAC Update
Attachment
b. School Related Traffic Safety Issues
Staff/Sub-committee Presentation
c. Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 4 Grant Staff Presentation
7. INFORMATION ITEMS
a. Engineering Division Reports
Staff Report (Reports and/or updates on Public Works-Engineering Division projects and activities)
b. Police Department Reports
Reports and/or updates on Police Department programs and activities
c. Farmer’s Market
Reports on inquires/comments/topics brought up by residents at booth during the Farmer’s Market
d. TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communications
Reports on meetings with City Council Members, general public, interested parties
8. COMMITTEE & SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Downtown Parking (Martos & Wettan)
b. Broadway Parking (Bush & Israelit)
c. School Traffic (Londer & Israelit)
d. Citywide Transportation Alternatives (Londer & Wettan)
9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
10. ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650-558-7203 at
least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public viewing at the City Clerk’s
office, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City‘s website
at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at the site.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission regarding any item
on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at City Hall, 501 Primrose
Road, Public Works - Engineering counter.
NEXT REGULAR TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION MEETING: Thursday, July 13, 2018
1
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of Thursday, May 10, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:02 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Israelit, Bush, Londer, Martos, Wettan
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: To accept the minutes of April 12, 2018 as written.
M/S/C: Londer/Wettan; 5/0/0
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA
No public comment.
6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
Since the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (B/PAC) meeting was still in session at
the start of the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission meeting, Chair Martos asked and
received consensus from the Commission to move item 6b forward on the agenda as the
first item of discussion. The subsequent discussion items resumed in the order shown on
the meeting agenda.
b) 2019 Street Resurfacing Project
Mr. Wong indicated the 2019 Street Resurfacing Project is the first project City staff has
worked on with the community B/PAC from the initial conceptual stage. He said the City
will be taking a complete streets approach with the resurfacing efforts and that the project
would be funded by grant monies. Mr. Wong stated that Alta Planning + Design has been
2
selected to complete the design and will also review the complete streets approach.
Mr. Hough Louch from Alta Planning + Design was present and reviewed the upcoming
resurfacing efforts, including the existing conditions and preferred improvements for each
of the following locations. He also noted that he will be incorporating feedback recently
received from the B/PAC.
Broadway (El Camino Real to California Drive): Existing conditions include narrow travel
lanes and shallow angled parking on both sides of the roadway. While retaining the current
configuration, the suggested improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians include ADA
compliant ramps, detectable warning surfaces and enhanced pedestrian crossings.
Trousdale Drive (Marco Polo Way to California Drive): Existing conditions are varied with
parallel parking on both sides of the roadway, red curbing, and bus routes that travel along
this road. Possible improvements focus on pedestrian crossings and include ADA
compliant ramps, detectable warning surfaces and enhanced pedestrian crossings.
Additional improvements to be considered include medians and bulb outs to shorten
crossing distances. Bike facility improvements to be considered as part of the Bicycle
Master Plan update.
California Drive (Peninsula Avenue to Burlingame Avenue): Existing conditions include
extremely narrow travel lanes with parallel parking on both sides of the roadway. Given
the challenge of the existing road conditions, the suggested improvements include
retaining the current configuration and installing ADA compliant curb ramps, detectable
warning surfaces and enhanced pedestrian crossings.
Cadillac W ay (Rollins Road and Carolan Avenue): This is an important connection to the
new bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing and new bicycle facilities installed as part of the
Carolan Avenue Complete Streets Project. Existing conditions include two travel lanes
with parallel parking on both sides and no posted speed limit. Suggested enhancements
include the installation of sharrows, ADA compliant curb ramps, detectable warning
surfaces and enhanced pedestrian crossings, while maintaining the current configuration.
In relation to the resurfacing plans for Broadway, Commissioner Londer inquired about the
option for a one-way street to better accommodate bicyclists. Chair Martos asked if parallel
parking would allow for additional space to accommodate a dedicated bicycle facility. Mr.
Louch indicated the bulb outs would not allow for a continuous bike lane. He also indicated
the resurfacing project is isolated to certain street improvements to which Mr. Wong
reiterated the project is related to street resurfacing and suggested the larger scale
improvements be considered during the Bicycle Master Plan update.
Vice-Chair Bush asked if the traffic flow on Trousdale justified a road diet. Mr. Louch
indicated the data counts were on the edge—it was not an obvious yes or obvious no. Due
to access to the hospital and other current conditions, Mr. Louch recommended the
consideration of a road diet as part of a broader planning effort with time slated for
3
community input.
For the stretch of California Drive between Peninsula Avenue and Burlingame Avenue,
Vice-Chair Bush felt strongly this was an ideal location for a road diet given the current
substandard travel lanes and connection to San Mateo Drive, which is already a target
location for a road diet by the City of San Mateo. In response, Mr. Louch recognized the
valid points made for a road diet, but explained that eliminating parking at this location
would not provide adequate space to install a dedicated bike lane.
Commissioner Londer stated the downtown specific plan called for a road diet on a portion
of California Drive. Mr. Louch offered to share the Federal Highway Administration
guidelines related to road reconfigurations in response to Commissioner Londer’s inquiry
into traffic counts and the threshold to justify a road diet.
Chair Martos indicated road diets are addressed in the City’s General Plan and
recommended the City’s consultant review the document specifically for content related
to road reconfigurations.
Mr. Wong clarified to the Commission that road diets and other larger-scale improvements
can be considered at a later date. He explained that the approved resurfacing project is
federally funded and additional work outside of the approved scope may jeopardize
access to those funds. Additionally, Mr. Wong reminded the Commission public input
would be required for long-term improvements. He then indicated he would look into Vice-
Chair Bush’s request to schedule time to obtain community input regarding the resurfacing
efforts, whether the federal funds allocated for street resurfacing can be used for larger-
scale improvements, such as a road diet, and the timing of the City of San Mateo’s plans
for the road diet on San Mateo Drive.
In regards to the fourth location at Cadillac Way, Vice-Chair Bush felt the improvements
to the roadway should include a cycle track for better access to the bicycle and pedestrian
overcrossing and requested again for community input. Commissioner Wettan noted this
location is a small but critical access point to the Bay Trail and felt a dedicated bicycle
facility was worthy of consideration. Chair Martos was in agreeance and indicated he
wants to see more efforts to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. He stated he would
like to see more done at this location and suggested eliminating parking on one side of
the roadway.
a) Community B/PAC Update (Informational Only)
Lesley Beatty indicated the B/PAC is currently working on updates to the Bike Master
Plan. Additionally, she wanted to make sure the Commission was receiving updates on
the California Drive Complete Streets Project located between Broadway and Murchison
Drive. Ms. Beatty said the B/PAC reviewed the project plans and they align with the
discussions that took place last fall; however, she wanted everyone to be aware that the
project design includes a bike lane with a door zone past Village Park for several blocks.
4
She indicated the B/PAC discussed this concern at length and given the narrow roadway,
current conditions, and the City’s recommendation, B/PAC is supportive of the design
concept coupled with a number of mitigation measures. Ms. Beatty also indicated other
small adjustments to the plans related to parking and travel lanes have been made at the
recommendation of the B/PAC.
For the record, Commissioner Wettan noted the Commission has not seen the project
plans for the California Drive Complete Streets Project since fall 2017. To his best
recollection, he also said the project was never brought back to TSPC earlier this year as
requested. With that predicate, Commissioner Wettan stated there have been recent
changes to the design that gave rise to debate and encouraged Ms. Beatty to elaborate.
In response, Ms. Beatty indicated there are two areas of contention. She said the B/PAC
is not in full support of the City’s recommendation to remove a buffered bike lane, add
parking, and extend the door zone by Village Park as a means to address the recent
increase in traffic and subsequent double parking possibly due to the Burlingame soccer
club. Second, Ms. Beatty explained the proposed left-turn lane on California Drive near
the medical building has been included in the plans after it was removed once already,
and ultimately forces the width of the bike lane down to 4.5 feet. Vice-Chair Bush indicated
the soccer club may be a temporary situation as Murray Field is currently undergoing the
synthetic turf project.
Commissioner Wettan expressed his disappointment regarding the process to obtain
feedback from the TSPC regarding modifications to the project plans. As a result, Chair
Martos asked if the Commission could still have an opportunity to review and comment on
the revised plans for the California Drive Complete Streets Project. Mr. Wong indicated he
would inquire with the Director of Public Works.
c) Exploring the Feasibility of an East-West Shuttle
Mr. Wong indicated this item is a carry-over from last month’s meeting. He provided a
presentation to the Commission that included three east-west shuttle route alternatives.
1. Alternative A is an out and back route starting on California Drive in downtown
Burlingame to Broadway, El Camino Real, and Hillside Drive, with stops at the
Burlingame and Broadway Caltrain stations, the Broadway Commercial District,
Our Lady of Angels (OLA), and Hoover Elementary.
2. Alternative B is a counter-clock-wise loop that would serve the same areas but
starts at Hillside Drive, to El Camino Real, Burlingame Avenue, California Drive,
and then Broadway.
3. Alternative C is a clock-wise version of Alternative B, serving the same key
locations, but utilizes El Camino Real to Broadway, California Drive, Burlingame
Avenue, and back to El Camino Real.
Chair Martos opened public comment.
5
Ms. Goldman proposed an alternative route that would travel north on California Drive to
Trousdale Drive, west on Trousdale Drive to Skyline Boulevard, south on Skyline
Boulevard to Hillside Drive, east on Hillside Drive passing OLA (and close to Hoover
School) and back to California Drive or El Camino Real. She felt this route would serve
Burlingame High School (BHS) and Burlingame Intermediate School (BIS) students and
residents in Burlingame Hills. Ms. Goldman felt this route would also help reduce
congestion, especially at the intersection of Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove.
Commissioner Israelit questioned if the proposed shuttle makes sense given the outreach
efforts made by staff and the lack of public response received. She said she has doubts
regarding the shuttle demand and economic feasibility.
Commissioner Londer added that Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove is one of the most
dangerous intersections in his opinion and was unsure if a shuttle would mitigate some of
the safety concerns. He also expressed concern surrounding the lack of response from
the public and suggested a possible subcommittee to further review with members of the
community.
Commissioner Wettan encouraged the consideration of extending the shuttle service from
the Millbrae BART Station to Burlingame Avenue as it currently goes as far as Broadway.
To address the residents in Burlingame Hills, he suggested two use cases—students and
everyone else. Setting the use case aside for students, Commissioner Wettan suggested
gaging public interest with subsidized rides (such as Uber or Lyft). He felt a ride sharing
pilot program would make more economical sense at this stage given the larger financial
investment of a shuttle, for an unsure outcome. Commissioner Wettan stated there are
two specific travel windows for students; if it is determined there is a significant use case,
he suggested there may be a need to consider something specific for students residing in
Burlingame Hills.
Vice-Chair Bush confirmed the anticipated travel time for the proposed east-west shuttle
route to be approximately 30 minutes. With a shorter cycle time, natural aggregating
points, and if the schedule syncs with other public transportation, Vice-Chair Bush felt
there was viability to the proposed shuttle. He said ultimately the focus should be on
specific use cases and their needs. Lastly, Vice-Chair Bush felt the amount of public
comments received constituted a decent amount of public interest.
Chair Martos concurred with Commissioners Israelit, Londer and Wettan regarding the
lack of public interest for an east-west shuttle and noted the previous east-west shuttle
was cancelled for lack of ridership. In addition, he reiterated there was no public response
from Terry Nagel’s post on Nextdoor. Although he believed there was not enough interest
for a public shuttle, Chair Martos liked Commissioner Wettan’s idea to look at
transportation options to BHS and/or BIS for students residing in Burlingame Hills and
suggested this be a future agenda item. Lastly, Chair Martos proposed the SamTrans bus
that goes to BIS, possibly loop back in order to serve the students of BHS.
6
Commissioner Wettan shared that Rusty Hopewell of the Burlingame School District is
working on a heat map for BIS and suggested it could be a tool to help determine use
case(s).
The Commissioners continued to engage in an interactive discussion which resulted in the
following motion.
Motion: Table the current discussion for an east-west shuttle including the routes
presented today since there appears to be a lack of interest or demand,
with the intent to start a subcommittee to investigate specific uses
suggested at tonight’s meeting such as transportation for high school
students and ride sharing to try to alleviate downtown parking.
M/S/C: Israelit/Bush; 5/0/0
7. INFORMATION ITEMS
a) Engineering Division Reports
Mr. Wong provided updates on the following Public Works – Engineering projects
and activities.
• Lyon Hoag Working Group Session – Working group session scheduled for
Wednesday, May 23, starting at 6:30 p.m. at the Community Center. Items up
for discussion include traffic calming, residential permit parking program, private
development, and San Mateo’s Peninsula Interchange Project.
• Hoover School Sidewalk Improvements – The design consultant has been
selected. The construction on Summit Drive is anticipated to start in the summer
of 2019.
• Lime Bike – Data for March’s activity is attached.
• Primrose Road Pilot Stop Signs – City to implement a pilot program for stop
signs along Primrose Road in the vicinity of City Hall and the Main Library.
Notices will be posted prior to the installation. Intersections will be monitored by
Police and Engineering. Analysis to be brought back at future TSPC meeting.
• TSPC Priority List (Updated May 2018):
TSPC Led Effort
1 Downtown Parking Strategies 3/8/18: Item 6b
2 Downtown Modal Access
7
3 Grant Opportunities 3/8/18: Item 7a
4 Bike\Ped Plan Update: fwd to BPAC
5 SR2S Review
6 School Traffic Issues 5/10/18: Item 6x
7 California Complete Streets 3/8/18: Item 7a
8 Neighborhood Traffic Calming
9 Broadway Parking
10 Public Shuttles/Transit 5/10/18: Item 6c
11 ECR Corridor (ECR Task Force)
12 Bay Trail
13 Intro to Paving 5/10/18: Item 6b
14 Halloween Traffic Impacts (July)
15 Parking and traffic considerations w/Planning
Staff Update via Report
1 Caltrans’ ECR/Floribunda
2 Hoover School Update 5/10/18: Item 7a
3 Downtown Parking Strategies 3/8/18: Item 6b
4 City Hall Traffic Calming/Floribunda
5 California Roundabout 4/12/18: Item 7a
6 General Plan – Circulation Element
7 Bike\Ped Plan Update: fwd to BPAC
8 Rec Center Parking
9 Carolan Complete Streets Update 3/8/18: Item 7a
10 Grant Opportunities 3/8/18: Item 7a
11 Grade Separation 3/8/18: Item 7a
12 San Mateo's Peninsula Ave OC
13 School Speed Limit Updates
14 Burlingame Point - Bay Trail
15 School Safety Improvements
16 California Complete Streets
2018 Agenda Item Action Status
1 Chap. 13.52 of BMC Adopted
2 Citywide Parking Restrictions To City Council June 4
Mr. Wong indicated the TSPC recommendations regarding the size of the parking
structure on Lot N will be forwarded to the Planning Department to be included in an
upcoming Planning Commission agenda packet.
8
b) Police Department Reports
Sergeant Ford provided an update regarding collision statistics over the last reporting
period (April 12 and May 7). He stated there were 17 accidents with the primary collision
factor being unsafe turn movements and other collision factors included speed and
driving under the influence. Sergeant Ford said there were no accidents at the
intersection of El Camino Real and Floribunda but pointed out there were two collisions
at the intersection of El Camino Real and Murchison Drive. He indicated he would obtain
additional details surrounding the bicyclist-involved accident at El Camino Real and
Murchison Drive at Vice-Chair Bush’s request.
c) Farmers Market
Commissioner Londer stated there will be no participation at the Farmer’s Market this
month as the TSPC participated in the Streets Alive and Bike to Work Day events.
d) TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communications
Commissioner Londer took a moment to welcome and thank Katie Apple, a student intern
at Supervisor Pine’s Office, for attending tonight’s meeting.
Chair Martos said he attended the Parks and Recreation Master Plan kick-off meeting on
April 18. He stated there is currently a survey available and encouraged his fellow
Commissioners to participate.
Chair Martos reflected on the upcoming Lyon Hoag meeting and agenda. He indicated
the meeting agenda will start with the Mayor who will provide introductions and go over
the purpose of the meeting; the City Manager will go over the content; and the Director
of Public Works will discuss parking, traffic calming, the Peninsula Avenue Interchange
Project and new private development. Chair Martos also indicated the second part of the
meeting will include breakout sessions to obtain community input and the Mayor
requested TSPC presence. He said the meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 23
from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Recreation Center. Chair Martos then confirmed all
Commissioners were available to attend.
7. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
a) Downtown Parking (Martos & Wettan)
No update.
b) Broadway Parking (Bush & Wettan)
No update.
9
c) School Traffic (Israelit & Londer)
Commissioner Londer indicated he and Commissioner Israelit met and divided the schools
in Burlingame with the intent to review the list of desired improvements.
The Commission agreed to form a subcommittee called Transportation Alternatives with
a scope to investigate and evaluate passenger options for transportation around the City.
Commissioners Londer and Wettan will serve on the subcommittee. Commissioner Israelit
will take over for Commissioner Wettan as the subcommittee member for Broadway
Parking.
8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• School traffic
• TSPC and B/PAC joint session
• Hoover School update
• 2019 Street Resurfacing Project dialog
• Special meeting for California Drive Complete Streets
Chair Martos asked and received a moment of silence in remembrance of his father-in-law,
Gaetano DiModica, who passed away in April. He joined his wife of 55 years, Chair Martos’
mother-in-law, who passed away five months earlier.
9. ADJOURNMENT 9:10 p.m.
Dear City of Burlingame Public Works Engineers,
Thank you for bringing the most recent planned changes to the California Drive (Broadway and
Murchison) to us. We discussed them at our most recent meeting, with the following consensus.
Time limits for parking spots between Rosedale Ave & Oxford Dr. (including 7 new
spots):
The temporary relocation of Burlingame Soccer Club practices to Village Park has led to parking
congestion. The source of congestion will be removed before the California Drive construction is
complete. Because of this, we urge caution in creating new parking spots in front of Village
Park. In the event that that the City decides to add parking in that location, nevertheless, we
recommend that ALL parking spots along the stretch of California Drive from Rosedale to
Oxford Road be given a time limit. We would prefer an hourly time limit to an overnight ban,
which discourages long term parking, but does not address those people who use the spots for
the day.
Left turn lane by the medical building:
We support the decision to keep the left-hand turn lane out of the construction, and observe the
impacts. We have our own observations, collected on a recent morning that we'd be happy to
share. We don't believe that the traffic turning left into the Medical building warrants a separate
lane, and would be happy to provide you with the data should it be useful.
Crosswalks:
A reminder that zebra crosswalks should be painted across all east/west feeder streets into
California Drive for the safety of pedestrians who are walking the stretch of California Drive.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to give feedback on these, and prior plans. We look
forward to the implementation of this project!
Sincerely,
Lesley Beatty
Burlingame BPAC chair
SCHOOL RELATED TRAFFIC
SAFETY CONCERNS
School Safety Subcommittee (Commissioners Israelit & Londer)
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
June 14, 2018
BACKGROUND
SPEED LAWS
The CVC requires speed surveys to be conducted as the basis for establishing
enforceable speed limits for roadways which are not bound by the prima facie limits
found in Section 22352.
AB 321 which amended California Vehicle Code (CVC)Section 22358.4 to grant the
authority to local jurisdictions to establish a 15 or 20 mph speed zone around schools.
A 15 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district,on a highway with a posted
speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower,when approaching,at a distance of less than
500 feet from,or passing,a school building or the grounds of a school building,
contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed
limit of 15 miles per hour,while children are going to or leaving the school,either during
school hours or during the noon recess period.The prima facie limit shall also apply
when approaching,at a distance of less than 500 feet from,or passing,school grounds
that are not separated from the highway by a fence,gate,or other physical barrier while
the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a school warning sign
that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour.
Last year,the City began a pilot program to introduce 15 MPH limits at two school
locations:Our Lady of Angels and Burlingame Intermediate School.
DISCUSSION
LOCATIONS
School Streets
1)Roosevelt Elementary School Broadway/Vancouver
2)Our Lady of Angels Cabrillo
3)Franklin Elementary School Quesada
4)Lincoln Elementary School Balboa/Devereux
5)Burlingame High School Carolan/Oak Grove
6)McKinley Elementary School Paloma/Oak Grove
7)Washington Elementary School Howard/Anita
8)St.Catherine of Siena Primrose/Bayswater
9)Mercy High School Adeline/Hoover
10)Burlingame Intermediate School Quesada
11)Hoover Elementary Easton
DISCUSSION
CONSIDERATIONS
Factors favoring 15 MPH zones include:
1)The reduction of vehicle speed from 25 MPH to 15 MPH improves vehicle,
pedestrian,and bicycle safety by:
(a) encouraging an increase in the proportion of trips accomplished by non-
motorized means (which is a good thing) thereby reducing the number of
vehicles;
(b)reducing stopping distances;and
(c)reducing the force of a collision if one does occur.
2)Many students walk,bike,or skateboard on their own or in groups,without
parents escorting them,increasing the risk of conflicts between autos and
pedestrians.
3)Schools have established bicycle parking on campus,promoting bicycling
(which is a good thing)but again increasing the risk of conflicts between
autos and bicyclists.
4)Many streets near and around schools are bicycle routes,again increasing the risk of
conflicts between bicycles and pedestrians.
DISCUSSION
CONSIDERATIONS (CONTINUED)
5)The elevation changes on several streets in and around some schools,limiting visibility.
6)Parked vehicles on City streets limit visibility,especially elementary school students.
7)The schools and fields are home to numerous after-school and extracurricular
programs.
8)The proximity of many schools to Hillside Drive,Trousdale Drive,California Drive and El
Camino Real ,which serve as thoroughfares,encourages higher speeds on roadways
near schools.
9)During drop off and pickup some of the recommended 15 MPH roadways are so
congested that higher speeds are virtually impossible,but 15 MPH signs throughout
the City serve as a good reminder to drivers to be alert and go slow at all times when
kids are present.
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
For the reasons stated, the Subcommittee respectfully proposes that the Commission
recommend that the Council implement the following:
1)Convert the 15 MPH pilot program on Cabrillo Avenue (OLA) and Quesada Way (BIS &
Franklin) to a permanent 15 MPH.
2)Establish permanent 15 MPH speed limits on school proximate roadways (within 500
feet of a school) as follows:
Burlingame High School -Carolan Avenue & Oak Grove Avenue
Hoover School -Easton Drive, Canyon Road & Summit Drive
Lincoln School -Devereux Drive & Balboa Avenue
McKinley School -Fairfield Road , Paloma Avenue & Oak Grove Avenue
Mercy High School -Adeline Drive, Hoover Avenue & Alvarado Avenue
Our Lady of Angels School -Cortez Avenue
Roosevelt School -Vancouver Avenue & Broadway
St. Catherine of Siena School -Bayswater Avenue, Park Road & Primrose Road
Washington School -Howard Avenue, Anita Road & Arundel Road
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (CYCLE 4)
SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENT
PROJECT
Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
June 14, 2018
Goals
Provide community and TSPC with an update regarding the
project:
−Background
−Selected alternative
−Anticipated schedule
Background
The Active Transportation Program (ATP)was created by Senate Bill 99
(Chapter 359,Statutes of 2013)and Assembly Bill 101 (Chapter 354,
Statutes of 2013)to encourage increased use of active modes of
transportation,such as biking and walking.
Some of the highlights of the program are to:
−Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and
walking.
−Increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users .
−Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the
benefits of the program.
−Enhance public health,including reduction of childhood obesity
through the use of programs including,but not limited to,
projects eligible for Safe Routes to School Program funding.
Background
Safe Routes to School Projects
−For a project to qualify for a Safe Routes to School designation,the project must directly
increase safety and convenience for public school students to walk and/or bike to school.
Safe Routes to Schools infrastructure projects must be located within two miles of a
public school or within the vicinity of a public school bus stop and the students must be
the intended beneficiaries of the project.Other than traffic education and enforcement
activities,non-infrastructure projects do not have a location restriction.
There are five application types:
−Project,Infrastructure only or Infrastructure/Non-infrastructure:Projects with a total
project cost of greater than $7 million will be considered a Large Project and must use the
Large Project application
−Medium Project,Infrastructure only or Infrastructure/Non-infrastructure:Projects with a
total project cost between $1.5 million to $7 million will Medium Project and must use
the Medium Project application.
−Small Project,Infrastructure only or Infrastructure/Non-infrastructure:Projects with a
total project cost of less than $1.5 million will be considered a Small Project and must use
the Small Project application.
−Non-infrastructure Only
−Plan
Discussion
Discussion
Significant scoring measure is beneficial to a “Disadvantaged
Community.”
In the previous ATP cycle,none of the six San Mateo County
applications were selected.
The program is extremely competitive;only 67 projects were selected
out of 447.
For Small Urban Applications,only DAC projects were selected.
The School Area Pedestrian Enhancement Project has been selected
on the preliminary list for grant writing services,pending C/CAG Board
approval at the June 14,2018 meeting.
Cycle 4 has 80%more funding than Cycle 3.
Schedule
May 16, 2016:Call for projects
June 4, 2018:ATP Workshop
July 31, 2018:Project applications to Caltrans
December 31, 2018:Staff recommendations posted
January 2019:Commission adopts statewide and small
urban and rural portions of the program
Questions & Feedback
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NO:
7.a – Engineering
Division Reports
MEETING DATE:
June 14, 2018
To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
Date: June 14, 2018
From: Andrew Wong, Senior Engineer – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Item 7.a - Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission receive a presentation by staff providing an update on
various Public Works – Engineering projects and activities.
BACKGROUND
• California Drive Roundabout – Stage 1 construction (1 of 4 stages) is underway. Work
for stage 1 is anticipated for the next three to four months, with project completion
tentatively scheduled for January 2019.
• Hoover School Sidewalk Improvements – Design underway, with project update at
upcoming TSPC meeting.
• Lime Bike – Data for April and May
Manual Rides Electric Rides Total Rides
April 1,694 2,543 4,237
May 1,743 3,846 5,589
• California Drive Complete Streets – Staff has addressed two of the Community
BPAC’s major concerns in the final design. Bid opening scheduled for Tuesday, June 26,
2018.
• TSPC Priority List (Updated June 2018):
TSPC Led Effort
1 Downtown Parking Strategies 3/8/18: Item 6b
2 Downtown Modal Access
3 Grant Opportunities 3/8/18: Item 7a
4 Bike\Ped Plan Update: fwd. to BPAC
Item 7.a – Engineering Division Reports June 14, 2018
2
5 SR2S Review
6 School Traffic Issues
7 California Complete Streets 6/14/18: Item 7a
8 Neighborhood Traffic Calming
9 Broadway Parking
10 Public Shuttles/Transit 5/10/18: Item 6c
11 ECR Corridor (ECR Task Force)
12 Bay Trail
13 Intro to Paving 5/10/18: Item 6b
14 Halloween Traffic Impacts (July)
15 Parking and traffic considerations w/Planning
Staff Update via Report
1 Caltrans’ ECR/Floribunda
2 Hoover School Update 5/10/18: Item 6b
3 Downtown Parking Strategies 3/8/18: Item 7a
4 City Hall Traffic Calming/Floribunda
5 California Roundabout 4/12/18: Item 7a
6 General Plan – Circulation Element
7 Bike\Ped Plan Update: fwd. to BPAC
8 Rec Center Parking
9 Carolan Complete Streets Update 3/8/18: Item 7a
10 Grant Opportunities 6/14/18: Item 6c
11 Grade Separation 3/8/18: Item 7a
12 San Mateo's Peninsula Ave OC
13 School Speed Limit Updates 6/14/18: Item 6a
14 Burlingame Point - Bay Trail
15 School Safety Improvements 6/14/18: Item 6b
16 California Complete Streets 6/14/18: Item 7a
2018 Agenda Item Action Status
1 Chap. 13.52 of BMC Adopted
2
Council Direction Regarding Improving
Short-Term Parking in the Burlingame
Avenue Downtown Area
Presented at June 4 Council
meeting
3 Citywide Parking Restrictions TBD
4 TSPC’s Lot N Parking Structure
Recommendation
Submitted to Planning Staff for
inclusion into future staff report.
DISCUSSION
Some of these items may have been originally presented to City staff and/or the Traffic, Safety
and Parking Commission as public requests or comments. Items on this list are matters that
Item 7.a – Engineering Division Reports June 14, 2018
3
would typically be addressed by City staff on an administrative level, or are City capital
improvement projects. Matters that require broad public input or have a wide-spread impact are
addressed as Commission “Discussion/Action Items” (TSPC Agenda Item 6).