Loading...
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).