Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2016.10.13TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION a AGENDA Thursday, October 13, 2016 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. CALL TO ORDER — 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. September 8th, 2016 regular 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. School Speed Limits Staff Report b. Consideration of Adding Carolan Avenue to the Residential Permit Parking Program Staff Report 7. INFORMATION ITEMS a. Engineering Division Reports Reports and/or updates on Public Works -Engineering Division projects and activities Staff Report 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. 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 (Wettan & Bush) C. School Speed Limits (Londer & Akers) d. Envision Burlingame (Martos & Londer) 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.burlinoame.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, November 10th. 2016 CITY TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of Thursday, September 8, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL MEMBER PRESENT: Akers, Bush, Martos, Wettan MEMBERS ABSENT: Londer 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: To accept the minutes of August 11, 2016 with the following two edits • Page 3, item 6a, paragraph 2 — correct reference to Chair Martos as Commissioner Martos; and • Page 5, item 7b, paragraph 1 — revise "four were minor in nature" to "four with injuries that were minor in nature." M/S/C: Akers/Martos; 4/0/1 (Chair Londer absent) 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON -AGENDA Manito Velasco thanked Sergeant Ford and the Burlingame Police Department for their enforcement efforts for the no parking restrictions implemented on a portion of California Drive. Mr. Velasco felt that compliance has improved and therefore increased the safety of the corridor over the last few weeks. Mr. Velasco also thanked City staff for sending him the Carolan Avenue Complete Streets Project design and meeting with him and the City's consultant. He encouraged the Commission to review the latest design comments. Lastly, Mr. Velasco suggested that the Commission review three projects: 1) Thermoplastic Project; 2) Albemarle/Davis Street Sewer Project; and 3) 2016 Resurfacing Program. 6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS a) Hoover School Update (Presentation) Mr. Wong reviewed the improvements completed prior to the opening of Hoover School and highlighted the following general observations collected: • Traffic circulation pattern through drop-off area was effective. • There was not a queuing issue at the drop-off area during drop-off. Queuing occurs during pick-up when parents are waiting. • On first morning, about 60 pedestrians came from Easton Circle. • Initially the majority of students/parents walked along Easton Drive (160), have since switched to using Summit. • Parents are parking along Easton Drive and walking students to school. • There was not a "hectic" 10 minute period prior to the final bell. • Some vehicles travelled westbound from Easton Circle, including parents with students. Mr. Wong indicated that the Principal and parents that he spoke to were very pleased with the improvements. Additional signage improvements to the traffic island and the installation of delineators by the retaining wall will be completed shortly. Commissioner Wettan began by saying he felt staff did a great job and that overall this is a real success story. Commissioner Wettan observed traffic and pedestrian flow the second morning of the new school year and was shocked to find no queuing. He commented that most of the foot traffic he saw in the morning was along Summit. Based on Commissioner Wettan's observations, he encouraged staff to consider additional crosswalk improvements at the intersection of Hillside Circle and Hillside Drive such as reflectors, ped paddles and/or additional signage. He also suggested additional signage regarding the traffic flow restrictions at Summit and Hillside Circle. Lastly, Commissioner Wettan urged City staff to revisit the parking exception on the north side of Easton Drive. He observed pedestrians forced to walk in the street because there was not adequate space to walk on the other side of the parked vehicles as anticipated. Commissioner Wettan suggested at the least to stripe a walking lane so homeowners can still park their vehicles while still providing a walking path for pedestrians. Based on inquiries and comments from Commissioners Bush and Wettan, Mr. Wong was asked to verify the ADA requirements and legal risk for the stretch of sidewalk in 2 poor condition by the Easton Gates. Commissioner Martos thanked Mr. Wong and the Burlingame Police Department for their work on traffic and pedestrian flow; he was impressed with the outcome. Commissioner Martos inquired about making improvements to help deter drivers to travel the wrong way on Easton Drive. He suggested a changeable message board/flashing signs to which Mr. Wong and Sergeant Ford confirmed there is a message board already back out there. To conclude, Commissioner Martos asked for clarification from Sergeant Ford when they planned to stop giving warnings and start issuing citations. Sergeant Ford indicated there is no date in mind; they will provide drivers with a warning first, and the second time they will be issued a ticket as the Police Department keeps track of warnings given. Vice -Chair Akers echoed the sentiments of his fellow Commissioners about the City's rapid response, engaging in solutions, and implementing various improvements within a short time period. Vice -Chair Akers indicated that this topic of discussion should continue, especially given the concern about portions of the walking path on Easton Drive. He suggested City staff engage with the homeowners regarding the issue and also look into a striped walking path. b) School Speed Limits (Sub -Committee Report) Vice -Chair Akers briefly summarized the report he and Chair Londer provided regarding their recommendations for a school zone speed reduction pilot program consisting of a 15 MPH speed limit on Quesada Way in the vicinity of Burlingame Intermediate School (BIS). He then sought comments, suggestions, and/or questions about the proposed pilot program. Fellow Commissioners Bush, Martos and Wettan provided feedback which is captured below. • Work with the Burlingame School District to obtain their feedback about the proposed pilot project and location; • Define the measures of success such as the ratio of children walking unaccompanied by an adult or the overall satisfaction of parents and the safety of their children; • Invite the School District to an upcoming TSPC meeting; and • Continue to refine proposal before routing to others for review and comment; Vice -Chair Akers opened public comment and Manito Velasco provided feedback. He stated he felt the afternoon hours are worse than the morning rush. Mr. Velasco indicated he supports the pilot program on Quesada Way but suggested diversifying our efforts in multiple locations such as Lincoln, Adeline, Balboa, Cortez, Paloma, and Devereux. 3 7. INFORMATION ITEMS a) Engineering Division Reports • US107113roadway Interchange Project — Stage 3 construction continues and is about halfway completed. The construction of the final eastbound overpass section will be completed in late October. The construction for the remainder of September includes construction of retaining walls, finish grading and paving of the roadway approaches to both sides of the overpass. Stage 4 work is planned for early winter, when portions of Bayshore Highway will be reconstructed to raise the Bayshore/Airport intersection to its planned elevation. • California Drive Roundabout — Awaiting date for next public meeting to review aesthetic treatments. Project plans are at 65% Horizontal Geometric Design configuration. Staff is reviewing the basic horizontal roadway geometry to identify and discard any potential flaws in basic assumptions at the 65% milestone. Elevation and vertical alignments are currently being calculated, with final analysis being based on confirmed horizontal layout. General aesthetic and landscape concepts are also being gathered to be used as a beginning point for discussion at the third public outreach meeting. No date has been confirmed as yet, but October is being considered as a tentative month for a third meeting. • Carolan Complete Streets — The City has received final approval from Caltrans Cultural Resources on the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) and the Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) for the project. City staff and the design team are now working to complete the project plans and specifications for submittal to Caltrans in October for review and authorization to advertise for construction. • TSPC Email Communications — Single communication from Jeffrey Tong. Staff has responded back to Mr. Tong. • Burlingame Point Project Update — Staff working on comments regarding project, including roadway improvements. • California Drive Bike Facility — First public meeting completed on July 26. The design team is working on draft options which will be presented at the next public meeting. This meeting is anticipated for Mid -October. These options will have taken into consideration input received from residents at the July meeting. • ECR/Floribunda Update — The City Council has established a Task Force for the ECR Corridor. This task force consists of a technical group and a community group. The City has brought abroad the consultant team of Hathaway Associates to facilitate meetings. This team is currently in the process of setting up the framework to initiate the process and has already met with Caltrans. It is anticipated that in the coming weeks the consultants team will be initiating meetings with the task force and C! stakeholders. • BPAC Update — Staff has updated the members associated with the BPAC with a summary including the recommendation from TSPC, as well as the next steps. Staff will be available as a resource to provide some assistance to the group. • TSPC Priority List (Updated August 2016): TSPC Led Effort 1 Downtown Modal Access Completed 2 B/PAC setup 6/9/16: Item 6a 3 School Speed Limit Notices/Review 9/8/16: Item 6b 4 School Traffic Issues 3/10/16: Item 6a 5 California Drive Commuter bike route 2/11/16: Item 6b 6 California Drive parking restrictions 7/14/16: Item 7a 7 Broadway Parking 7/14/16: Item 6a 8 Public Shuttles/Transit 9 Downtown Speed Limit Review 9/8/16: Item7a 10 Review TSPC Mandate 11 Joint agreements with Caltrans Countywide 4/14/16: Item 6b 12 ECR Corridor Infrastructure 4/14/16 & 5/12116 13 Bay Trail 14 Fee Schedules 15 Joint Commission Meeting (City Council) Staff Update via Report 1 Caltrans' ECR/Floribunda Completed 2 Hoover School Update 9/8/16: Item 6a 3 Downtown Parking Strategies 7/14/16: Item 6b 4 City Hall Traffic Calming/Floribunda 9/8/16: Item 7a 5 California Drive Roundabout 9/8/16: Item 7a 6 General Plan — Circulation Update 7 Bike/Ped Plan Update: Fwd to BPAC 8 Taxi Regulations — Update by BPD 9 Carolan Complete Streets Update 9/8/16: Item7a 10 Grant Opportunities 11 Grade Separation 4/14/16: Item 6b 12 Traffic Brochure Completed 13 San Mateo's Peninsula Avenue OC b) Police Department Reports Since the last TSPC meeting, Sergeant Ford indicated there have been 21 vehicular accidents. Of the 21 accidents, four were with injuries that were minor in nature, and one was a major injury accident. There were no fatalities. No accidents occurred at the intersection of EI Camino Real and Floribunda. The primary collision factor for 8 of the 21 accidents was an unsafe lane change. Sergeant Ford indicated there would be a DUI checkpoint on September 15, 2016 and that the Police Department would be participating in the upcoming pet parade. Sergeant Ford also said that the Burlingame Police Department will receive an award on September 19, 2016 related to traffic safety from the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Sergeant Ford shared his feedback regarding week one of the new school year. He felt things went well as the Police Department did not experience any significant issues. Lastly, Sergeant Ford informed the Commissioners and City Staff that effective January 2017 he will no longer serve as the Traffic Sergeant representative at the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission meetings. c) Farmer's Market Commissioner Martos said the last Farmer's Market was busy and therefore he and Chair Londer were unable to speak with the local merchants regarding parking. Next Farmer's Market date unknown; Commissioners agreed to continue the discussion next month when Chair Londer returns. d) TSPC Chair/Commissioner's Communications Commissioner Wettan indicated that the recent no parking restrictions implemented for a portion of California Drive significantly improves the condition of the corridor. Commissioner Martos said the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) provided a General Plan Update regarding the latest Envision Burlingame efforts related to emerging land use to City Council last night. Commissioner Martos felt that the live/work concept near transit hubs in the north Bayfront area resonated with City Council. He noted other key discussion topics such as the redevelopment of EI Camino Real, new residential and mixed use development, and more affordable housing for people working in Burlingame. 0 8. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS a) Downtown Parking (Martos & Wettan) Commissioner Wettan reviewed the time slots for the downtown parking data collection effort and reminded his fellow Commissioners to collect data for their assigned day(s) twice before Thanksgiving. Commissioner Wettan signed up for Tuesday, Commissioner Martos signed up for Friday, and Commissioner Bush agreed to Saturday. Commissioner Wettan said Sunday would be shared between the Commissioners in conjunction with the Farmer's Market. At this point in the discussion, Vice -Chair Akers suggested finalizing the assignments and time slots for data collection after the meeting; his fellow Commissioners agreed. b) Broadway Parking (Wettan & Bush) No update provided. c) School Speed Limits (Londer & Akers) See Discussion/Action Item (6b). 9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Item from TSPC Priority List; • Parking restriction along 191 Airport Boulevard; • 10 -hour parking request for Frontage Road adjacent to EI Camino Real between Trousdale and Murchison; • Quesada Way/Ray Drive stop -warrant study; • Hoover Parking; and • Review of latest design for the Carolan Complete Streets Project. 10. ADJOURNMENT 8:58 p.m. 7 aSTAFF REPORT To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Date: October 13, 2016 From: Andrew Wong (650-558-7237) Subject: Item 6.a — School Speed Limit. Item 6.a — School AGENDA ITEM NO: Speed Limit MEETING DATE: October 13, 2016 The School Speed Limit Sub -Committee proposes that the Traffic Safety & Parking Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council implement a 15 MPH (Mile Per Hour) school speed limit pilot program, consisting of a 15 MPH speed limit (when children are present) on Quesada Way in the vicinity of Burlingame Intermediate School (BIS). BACKGROUND Over the past two meetings, the Commission has discussed the benefits of a reduced speed limit along the frontages of local schools. The reduction of vehicle speed from 25 MPH to 15 MPH would improve vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle safety by (a) reducing stopping distances and (b) reducing the potential force of a collision if one does occur. The speed reduction would be accomplished using Section 22358.4 of the California Vehicle Code (AB 321 of 2007). This proposed implementation would be a pilot program with a select number of schools for which BIS is the first selected school for the pilot program. DISCUSSION The Sub -Committee believed that Quesada Way between Trousdale Drive and Davis Drive would be an ideal location for the first pilot program location. Quesada Way is home to two schools; BIS and Franklin Elementary School, and it would meet the requirements of the State's statute. Other factors favoring a 15 MPH zone on Quesada Way include: 1) In middle school more students walk on their own or in groups to BIS, without parents escorting them. The lack of parental supervision potentially increases the risk of conflicts between autos and pedestrians. 2) BIS has established bicycle parking on campus, promoting bicycling to and from school. Again, the lack of parental supervision potentially increases the risk of 1 Item 6.a - School Speed Limit conflicts between autos and bicyclists. October 13, 2016 3) The street has a Class III bicycle facility (bike route). A reduction in the vehicular speed limit in the school zone would help in minimizing the potential risk of conflicts between autos and bicycles. 4) The elevation changes on Quesada Way affect sight distances, which can impact roadway safety. 5) The schools and fields are home to several after-school and extracurricular programs. 6) The proximity to Trousdale Drive, which serves as a thoroughfare, encourages higher speeds on Quesada Way. For the reasons stated above, the Subcommittee proposes that the Commission recommend that the City Council implement a 15 MPH speed limit on Quesada Way from Trousdale Drive to 500 feet from the southern boundary of BIS. Burlingame Police Department has indicated that they can enforce the 15 MPH speed limit similar to how they currently enforce the 25 MPH limit at school locations. Before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council, both the Sub -Committee and Commission desired the input of the Burlingame School District (BSD). The Sub -Committee were hoping that the District would comment on the following: 1) The selection of Quesada Way as the pilot program location. 2) Potential impacts with a speed limit reduction. 3) Other locations that the school would request for a speed limit reduction. On October 3rd, 2016, staff met with the BSD officials at their offices to discuss the above and to obtain their input. BSD staff expressed strong support for the proposed pilot program. They agreed that the BIS location would be ideal for a pilot program, and especially supported starting with a single location. They wished to comment on other locations, after the pilot program has been in place. Should the Commission wish to forward their recommendation to the City Council, staff will prepare a staff report for the City Council to include it in the future agenda as appropriate. Exhibits: None 2 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: a MEETING DATE. October 13, 2016 To: Traffic Safety & Parking Commission Date: October 13, 2016 From: Eric Wollman, Chief of Police — (650) 777-4123 Subject: Item 6.b - Consideration of Adding Carolan Avenue to the Residential Permit Parking Program Staff recommends that the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission review the existing parking situation on Carolan Avenue between North Lane and Oak Grove, and concur with the staff's recommendation to add this area to the City's Residential Parking Permit Program. BACKGROUND Presently, Carolan Avenue between North Lane and Oak Grove has 2 hour parking limit on the west side of the street. The east side of the street that fronts Burlingame High School has no restricted parking. Historically Burlingame High School students have parked on the east side of Carolan free from restrictions. This works out well for students and affords them worry free parking for their entire school day. The west side of the street has a 2 hour parking restriction. The purpose of this 2 hour restriction is to discourage Caltrain riders, downtown employees and people going to the airport from parking for long periods of time on this public street. Students also use this 2 hour zone to park during the school day. There are approximately 60 parking spaces on the west side of the street, and 40 on the east. It is very evident that most are used by students. The police department has managed the student's parking needs, but it has recently come to the department's attention that the current practice of enforcement is not completely consistent with the signage posted for the area. When the police parking enforcement officers do enforce the 2 hour limit, this enforcement has a major impact on the student's, due to their inability to move their cars during school. DISCUSSION The enforcement of the 2 hours zones on the west side of Carolan is causing students to receive citations and is taking away parking spaces for the school students. To assist the school community in their parking needs, I am recommending that this area be considered for addition to the City's Residential Parking Permit Program. To accomplish this request, 2 hour parking signs would be added to the east side of the street, and approximately 100 residential parking permits would be made available to the students of Burlingame High School. The students would be able to park on either side of Carolan for the entire school day, and the police department would R Carolan Avenue Parking October 13, 2016 continue to enforce the 2 hour zones consistently throughout the day for other citizens needing to park and visit local businesses. The majority of this parking is needed for students. If the police continue to enforce the 2 hour zone in this area it will force students to find parking in the neighborhoods surrounding the school, which will bring over 100 additional vehicles into the neighborhoods. Since, the only property affected by the proposal is the Burlingame High School, hence it meets the requirements of two third majority support from property owners on the affected street. Staff has had initial discussions with the High School officials who have indicated strong support for the proposed approach. FISCAL IMPACT There will be staff time involved in selling the permits, and the cost of adding additional 2 hour parking signs to the east side of Carolan, which can be absorbed in the both Police and Public Works Department's operations budgets. The cost of an annual parking permit is $53.00. Exhibits: • Residential Parking Permit Program Pamphlet • Residential Parking Permit Program Policy • Map of Residential Parking Permit Program Area 2 CL )` j( \aCL� \� ` 0' � E o \f /± )Ekms 0.9 L 2 A ]w cccEi �c )) • /< ■ M:Ei§ Z u w f_ !§■ ■■ f E 0 ca ` mal=« ƒ0 = �\ 2 p\\ \ }j�j}/\ / \ z §;- k\! (\ \/ )& w ■` aE f■;t a o >; 7| k\{ ( , m }_ � k mak) ��� f � |§ 2/E Q. (L /k § 22/ ski ,7f E»{)% fG ={2 i», M ]7°55 {� k;f ! ; _»� . �E.�#� k)k,�. t!■=, -B -a , �«(D �§ -:E .2 0U -- ƒ!,/ § ■ goo ,) tea§ k2 �,2 �. 2!$->ln��Z #ƒ �|m Em, 0It l9f §«}m)rto [, *; §22«E as§f;}�){ a. \■ 22« ; ,K« r7:, �a�©-! _\Eaf%$ 22 {;§ @!2 L) )__ ® `«`•f f% {> ; - <0 !#-|£ �) �kk\7) ) k[z! °` Fa$f !$ ;2� 0j©! - - )#)<k!E<ew,! au@ai +e =- ma §k§f2 M- yl <ml�.kf wt err ��ccc �c0¢.Y O«YNm 3 3Y J u m e U Z5 04 @« y Na a in C �0 O @ )i- N c'TL 'E N Z. Y O 1•- .E (% @ @ .L.. t-. « r @ a J 0 0 a) t- O C) « N > 'p Z a W N C Ci N a E ti c 10 w a V w N .L-� CI `p M O N V -o w E 3 rn `� w(0 o MZ ao) - J .N.. a s -p C. �0YY tDa�m Edm a)t W a m.. �_ m 512 Ewca do@o. N y U -O N d 's _.. > a '-' R' 0 U N >- _� C) C_ E U .L.. U H L E L y m ��:5 > `-jO aEE T° Q w cm °�C m v @ N= 3 F'y'30 - - OJ IL Nc,wL y � o'm 0-'M N o- a EL y a @m d as E a U p y N a @ O E> 3 @ Q' C p, y (-D EmYm @gym cw O �a «� �� cY « �y O a C@ C nq a C CL CO m JE a w.Tc Q-?YwN i ao3a. anam 60) vi 'i 'M va (6ao.o(NO ay cc' € @ma "@yo amE` ca�, € 3a� N E @ a NCI' a -CO N@_ wy N O 'O C J a pI N 01 VA > N N c O N ° @ @ > N "O @ N ` _ N N@@ C N m@ E L y YO a N E aI ;C O 'O N N` O A C J O U 3 Y C L @ al F- @ C N € C O N C a a C N m d@ @ @ 4 v a) v 3 E a t0 0 �''� @ .LOJ o a� w d °.'E -° m 4) m Ca wm CL 10 u� o@o a -om dN@ a oia Tale 3w 0 y 3a r @ u'p r ° 3.ct aoL oa 01L c_a f/1 ca a c c a@ a,K a� c aN >3 c�� `m m> aM 3: .- y3N )= @mm �m dii T V N C T 9 t0 E .L.. C N 'NO ° J T O.0 a N R a c N .J ° m Y L U `y •• a @tom °@ o -p@ �y 0 4) N �Lm a;a a @@N p NHI`a ca no,E E y w� o c �m - o� m=�'u w ac R c a m m v y O N ^ N a C C 4) O C a 0 ( 41 a .a.) NoJ] aY 0myO.a°E) o@ EE m3.LN u @ @Em pT t ` 0:9 0 cN n @ a 0'" amEp c=E i E O@CC N O N 41 i Na) ` d O N - oLa ¢ a o . 0 .a) Eo o A A A ic moo uEarnU=O N a T L@ O N W @@ @ N „@„ O N @mm m° s Lo c5� L @ Ey@ aaa �nT F -m F-aE� =o. m'� ¢rnr» F-mv da �v 0 ° N O C L m c aI N !- a U O �`m�aia`miY0 L°o a `ad EO 01 N C 00 U .. y N U o p a L E y c �> rnm mma oc moccYc U M 75o OI T pZ-- O H E r a)Q H m" m o m a CD N_ =I ) N c y CI C L m t N m E c c D 3 c ON y'm N > C) 0 0 Oa N O @@@ L y y O N3 0 U Z N a a) N C N° O a C N C' -N a L WN O C > C p N T F- n0 C> n O ._ C a @ M O C c a@ O y y @ N C N d E m E me a) p N J Enax D E °0 OM E m nv� J O1 w m`o @ @ m N aC)-O N C - y p C N as ynE F d E U 0 N m CI u N b H N a c a O O N O w E 0. 0 d E E° E@ c y J ao @ y E'E @ Tv a @O ¢ v 0 E " o ° U D N L r i E2 Q OD �l CITY OF E Residential Par Policy ar MWMWFFA� - --vA, - -.W� N AW Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures - Revised Residential Parking Permit Program The City of Burlingame is committed to preserving livable and attractive neighborhoods. One issue that may cause deterioration of neighborhoods is the excessive parking of non- resident vehicles on residential streets for extended periods of time. A system of preferential resident parking serves to reduce this strain on the residents of these neighborhoods. The intent of this Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) is to allow residents to park on -street in their neighborhood while restricting long-term parking by non-residents. Parking Permit Types Residential Parking Permit Placard — Issued to residents within the RPPP area. These permits allow residents to park on the street beyond the current posted time limit restrictions within the RPPP area. •S Parking permits are issued as placards to be affixed to the resident's vehicle (rear view mirror). The residential permit is valid for a one calendar year cycle and is available from the City of Burlingame (location to be determined). B• The number of permits that may be issued to either a single-family household or a multi -family unit is two. It is understood that a greater amount of parking permits may be issued than there are available on -street parking spaces. This will create an environment of natural competition for on -street parking between neighborhood residents without the influence of long-term non-resident parking. •S Parking permits may be issued only for passenger non-commercial and passenger commercial (i.e., SUVs, small pick-up trucks, etc.) motor vehicles owned and registered by legal residents of the RPPP area. Company and leased vehicles are also eligible as long as the meet the requirements set forth. Permitted vehicles must not exceed typical passenger vehicle size (i.e. small trucks, passenger van acceptable -less than 3 tons). Boat trailers, camping trailers, motor homes and work -type commercial vehicles are not eligible to use parking permits for on -street parking under the terms of this parking permit program. ❖ Though the resident is responsible for acquiring a new permit by the first day of the new annual permit cycle year (January 1), there is typically a 30 -day grace period at the beginning of the permit cycle during which the Police Department will issue warnings. No other grace period (i.e., new resident to area, new car, etc.) is available during the yearly parking permit cycle. S 1 Public Warks DimctWTRAFFICIBPPP - Residential Perking Pa IARPPP Policydoe 2 Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures - Revised •S The requirements to obtain a parking permit as a resident are: ➢ A completed application form in the residents' name and address. ➢ A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle the applicant is requesting a parking permit. ➢ Proof of residency/ownership in the resident's/owner's name reflecting the permit address in the permit area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be the vehicle registration, a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease agreement or a preprinted personal check with the resident's name and address. Fee for Residential Parking Permits There will be a $50.00 charge for two (2) parking permit placards per household. These placards are transferable and may be placed on any vehicle associated with that property. Bail Schedule If a resident fails to properly display their placard(s), they will be subject to any/all parking restrictions in the RPPP area and any related citations/fines associated with those violations. Misuse of Parking Permits Any person selling, fraudulently using, reproducing or mutilating a parking permit issued in conjunction with the RPPP shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject to fine of not less than $100.00 for each offense and the forfeiture of all permits in conflict, or such other fine or penalty as the City Council may set by ordinance. 5:{A Publk Works DlreclayRRAFFICVIPPP - Resialenfial Parking PenoiORPPP Polioy.00c A dopled Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures - Revised POLICIES All residential parking permit programs shall follow a set of policies that are consistent from one program area to the next. This includes program area limits, enforceable times, and implementation practices. ❖ The implementation of a Residential Parking Permit Program does not guarantee the availability of parking spaces on a public street, or within a specific neighborhood. Because more parking permits may be issued than there are available on -street parking spaces, the program creates an environment of natural competition for on -street parking among neighborhood residents without the influence of long-term non-resident parking. •3 The program allows for any resident or non-resident to park on -street beyond the posted restricted hours if a parking permit is correctly displayed. •*e Program enforcement hours will be determined based on the type of parking impact generators such as schools, businesses and/or commercial districts. This will provide for consistency among RPPP areas, and simplify enforcement of the program times. ❖ Parking restrictions within RPPP areas must be consistent from corner to corner on all streets to prevent "spill-over" or shifting of an on -street parking problem to an adjacent non -restricted area. ❖ Limits of the parking permit neighborhood will be determined based on the potential of parked cars to overflow and impact adjacent streets. This will be done through a collaborative process involving both the applicant and City staff. ❖ Parking permit holders will be issued permits to park along the street within the limits (i.e. block specific) of their RPPP neighborhood area. ❖ Parking permits will be issued to owner(s) of qualified vehicle(s) registered at an address (limit of 2) within a permit parking area. 4. Only qualified passenger non-commercial, passenger commercial (i.e., SUV's, small pick-up trucks, etc.) vehicles, and company/leased are allowed permits. Boat trailers, camping trailers, motor homes and work -type commercial vehicles are not eligible for on -street parking within a RPPP area. ❖ Parking permits are not valid at metered parking spaces within business districts or retail areas. S-A Public Works DlrectoryURAFFIC\RPPP-Resltlnbal Parking Pe iaHPPP Pelicy.tlec 4 Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures -Revised •8 Parking permits are not valid within designated public parking lots ❖ Vehicles displaying parking permits are subject to all other parking restrictions including 12 and 24 -minute spaces, white passenger loading zones, yellow loading zones, handicap spaces and red zones. ❖ Displaying a residential parking permit does not exempt the vehicle from the City's ordinance which requires a car to be moved every 72 hours. •S To process a request for implementation of a residential parking permit program, a parking impact generator must exist. This program is not intended to restrict or limit the amount of residential vehicles that may park on -street within a given neighborhood. ❖ Any parking permit may be revoked if used contrary to the provisions of this policy. SM Pudic Works MeclsrylTRAFFIMPPP - Residmilal Packing Pe=MRPPP POIIc Aw Adopted Residenliai Parking Permit Policy and Procedures -Revised PROCEDURES PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Residential parking permit program development should take into consideration all practices as defined above. The procedures presented below provide for consistent parking permit program development from one neighborhood to the next. 1. Any Burlingame resident may submit a request for consideration of a Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP) for his/her street to the City. 2. The City staff will evaluate any impact that may currently be causing overflow parking problems in the area, such as the presence of parking impact generators (schools, businesses and/or commercial districts). Alternatives for maintaining on- site parking or prevention of overflow parking, such as curb markings and new meters will be examined before consideration of the RPPP. 3. If no alternative is available, the City will move forward with the evaluation process for that neighborhood. Depending on the number of request received by the City from other areas, the neighborhood may be put on a waiting list. 4. A meeting will be held between the applicant (the person requesting the permit parking program) and City staff. This meeting will be to inform the applicant of the next steps necessary for consideration of a permit parking program. City staff will review all program practices and guidelines with the applicant to determine if they are interested in proceeding further with program development. A primary neighborhood contact will also be identified at this point. 5. With the applicant's input, City staff will determine the RPPP neighborhood limits for the proposed program. Though the limits of the study area are determined through a collaborative process, the City shall make the final determination of the RPPP area limits. 6. The applicant will then be responsible for circulating a petition to determine neighborhood support within the RPPP area. A signature on the petition would indicate support for further development of the RPPP. A standard RPPP petition will be provided by the City. For the City to proceed, a minimum support of 67% of residents within the proposed RPPP area is required overall, including at least 50% support of the residents on each street in the neighborhood. A resident may sign the petition in support of RPPP development even though they may not wish to participate in the program, since obtaining a parking permit for their vehicle is strictly voluntary. s:W Public Works DirecbrylTRAFFIC\RPPP - Residential Parking PemuMPPP Polia,.doc 6 Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures - Revised 7. The petition shall be returned to the City within 45 days of issuance to the applicant. If the returned petition indicates that there is less than 67% support for the RPPP within the proposed area, or if the petition is not returned within 45 days of issuance, no further action will be taken by staff on the application. The application process will be officially terminated and the applicant will be notified. 8. A neighborhood meeting will then be scheduled to formally present the residential parking permit program to the interested residents of the proposed area. At this time, City staff will discuss the positive and negative impacts the RPPP might have on the neighborhood, and discuss the procedure for program implementation. 9. The City will then conduct parking utilization surveys of the designated neighborhood. Such a study may consist of a one- or two-day, mid -week survey. To qualify for a residential permit parking program, the parking survey must indicate that 75% of all on -street parking spaces within the proposed area are occupied during any two one-hour periods between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the survey day. 10. If 75% occupancy of the on -street parking spaces is not observed, no further action will be taken and evaluation of the RPPP request will be terminated. 11. If 75% occupancy of the on -street parking spaces is observed, City staff will prepare a report for the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) for neighborhood and public discussion. Residents and neighbors of the proposed area will receive public notice of the hearing no less than 7 days prior to the hearing date. 12. At the TSPC public hearing, staff will present the facts of the request. The applicant, or a designated neighborhood representative, is expected to participate in the public hearing portion of the meeting to summarize the RPPP interests of the neighborhood. There will also be an opportunity for additional testimony from the public. 13. If after public discussion, the TSPC concurs with the City staff analysis and determination to approve a permit parking program as requested, notification will be sent to the neighborhood informing them of the implementation of the program, as well as the new time -limit requirements for on -street parking within the permit parking program area. 14. If the request for permit parking is denied or terminated (pursuant to Steps #7 and #13 above), a second study of the same or similar RPPP study area will not be conducted for a minimum of twelve months unless there is a significant, identifiable change in parking characteristics as determined by City staff. Subsequent studies of SdA Public Warks DlrecloryRRAFFICWPPP-Reaid uiel Perking Pe KRPPP Poliry.doc 7 Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures - Revised the same general study area will be subject to the same requirements and procedures as the initial study process. 15. Any decision by City staff, and subsequent concurrence by the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, is appealable to the City Council. 16. Day and time parking limitations of the proposed program will be evaluated by City staff. For consistency and ease of enforcement by the Police Department, the following is an example of a typical sign to be used in the program. 2 -Hour Parking 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday - Friday Except Holidays or When Parking Permit Is Displayed 17. Residential parking permits shall be valid for one year and participating residents shall be solely responsible for renewing their permits every year before the beginning of the next calendar year. Parking permits may be renewed in person through the City. PROGRAM ELIMINATION The process to remove a residential parking permit program is similar to a program development. The procedures presented below provide for consistent parking permit program removal. 1. A Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP) area, or part thereof, may be removed from the permit program by City staff pursuant to: o A valid request from the affected RPPP neighborhood, and a petition from that neighborhood indicating support from at least 67% of the area wishing to be removed from the RPPP. o A determination by the City that removal from the RPPP is either in the community's best interest, is in the best interest of public safety, or is at the City Council's discretion. 2. Once the petition for removal is received by City staff, a public hearing will be scheduled for the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) and the affected neighborhood will be notified of the hearing. 3. If, at the TSPC public meeting, additional testimony or evidence is presented that calls into question the validity of removing the RPPP, no further action shall be taken and processing of the RPPP removal request will be halted. SAA Public Wake UirWorATRAFFICRPPP- Resideolial Palling Per MRPPP Poliay.eoc 8 Adopter! Resideyuial Parking Perodl Policy and Procedures - Revised 4. If the request for removal is approved by City staff, with concurrence from the TSPC, the neighborhood shall be notified of the decision, and the program will be terminated at a set date. 5. If an existing RPPP area is removed, any future request for reinstatement shall be subject to the same process as that of a new RPPP area development. 5'W Public Wake DirectoWRAFFMPPP - Residential Perking PemlillRPPP Policy.dco 9 Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures - Revised RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM FREQUENTLYASKED QUESTIONS What is a Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP)? The City of Burlingame provides for residential permit parking programs as a remedy for neighborhoods that are impacted by long-term on -street overflow parking from sources (called parking impact generators) outside the neighborhood. These parking impact generators include some high schools, business complexes and commercial areas. As this program is intended to deter long-term on -street parking, short -tern parking will be permitted within any RPPP area for non -permitted vehicles. Implementation of a RPPP area is a way to give residents of a designated area a better chance to park near their homes. It is not intended to designate a specific parking space along a property frontage. An RPPP area involves the posting of parking time limits or parking restrictions from which local residents are exempt if a valid permit is properly displayed within their vehicle. Residents within an approved parking permit neighborhood may obtain a parking permit to display on their car that will allow them to park for more than the posted time limits along their neighborhood street. Any qualified vehicle registered to an address within a permit parking neighborhood is eligible to utilize a parking permit. The number of parking permits issued per property is two. Where are RPPP areas allowed? Residential Parking Permit Programs are allowed within residential neighborhoods whose on -street parking ability is impacted by parked cars from non-residents, or parking impact generators. Why is a policy and procedures document necessary? The purpose of this document is twofold. The first reason to create a policy and procedures document is so that all parking programs are consistent. For a residential permit parking program to be effective it is essential that it can be enforced. One factor that increases the ability for the Police Department to enforce parking restrictions in an area is program consistency. Programs should be consistent from one area to another within the City. Secondly, this document serves as a tool to establish criteria and process expectations for both staff and the community while helping to define a collaborative process. Are residents who live in a RPPP area required to obtain parking permits? Obtaining a parking permit is purely optional. You may decide to obtain a parking permit which will allow you to park on the street during restricted hours, or you may decide not to obtain a parking permit and be subject to the on -street parking restrictions of the street. SM Public Wake D7tecWrATMFF1GVPPP-Real tial Par ng Per MRPPP Policy, o 10 Adopted Resideolial Parking Penni! Policy and Procedures -Revised How long does it take to establish a new RPPP area? It can take several months to establish a new area. Depending on the size of the impacted area, the overall process from initial request to program implementation could take eight to twelve months or longer. Can I use my parking permit to park in any space within an RPPP designated area? Each parking permit issued will be for a specific RPPP neighborhood or zone. With the appropriate parking permit, you may park within the boundaries of that specific RPPP area only. Parking for a period of time greater than that posted, in an area other than that designated by your parking permit, may result in your vehicle receiving a citation. The RPPP cannot guarantee or reserve the permit holder a parking space within a designated residential parking permit program area. Parking is on a first-come, first-served basis. How are the restrictions enforced? The Police Department will issue citations to vehicles that are in violation of the parking restrictions. Enforcement is made by routine police patrols or by calling the Police Department at (650) 777-4100. Can a RPPP be abolished once an area has been created? A RPPP may be removed after a re-evaluation process by City staff. The City is notified of the request for removal, a petition is circulated, a public hearing is held and if successful, the RPPP area is dissolved. SM Public Works Uireclory%TRPFFIC%RPPP -Residential Psrkin8 PetmiARPPP Policy nos 11 A dopled Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures - Revised Drawbacks Associated with `Resident Only' Parking Although there are many advantages associated with a RPPP, the City would like to point out some of the disadvantages. Please read the following information carefully while considering the impacts of implementing a Residential Parking Permit Program in your neighborhood. 1. The implementation of a Residential Parking Permit Program does not guarantee the availability of parking spaces on a public street, or within a specific neighborhood. The program creates an environment of natural competition for on -street parking between neighborhood residents without the influence of long-term non-resident parking. 2. Creating a new RPPP area can take several months. Other alternatives to solve the neighborhood issue may be implemented much quicker. 3. A petition must be circulated by the applicant, and must be approved by at least 67% of the residents within the proposed area. Sixty-seven percent of the residents can impose their parking desire on the other 33% of residents. 4. A parking impact generator (i.e. business district, school etc.) must exist. A traffic study is performed to verify impact generator parking. Many neighborhoods do not qualify. 5. If you or your guest park in the street for longer than the posted time limit without a permit, a parking citation will be issued. The current citation amount is $25.00 per violation. 6. A residential parking permit program can be imposing to a neighborhood and create a lot of inconvenience. These drawbacks must be weighed with the potential benefits when considering the implementation of a program that would restrict outside parking influences from your neighborhood. S W PoClic Wd . Cir.dWTR FICIRPPP - ResitlenfiW Peikiig P.MiV WPP POIiCy.aoC 12 I Y \ \ U` s� i / 811 '\\\ C• :` �< /°\`� \ ¢-1 LL t avw'i ®rw ci o wu on i ••a ��"� • 1 � III - d. Y i � `� O N �o,ro����'C�../� `\ .\ iol40 ♦5�\�/ i ',\`� '' � �; � `r`� • / 10 \.\\\ ••�•� • j,/� ����� . moi'' � \ f� J a S ya Af 9 a i YqZ UT O Q a~ a p�p `a � g❑ rz w o Y y tt z FO \ Q a wx w N pO \` �•/ • e✓ J� �\ � a S $ 8 8 m w Y \ \ U` s� i / 811 '\\\ C• :` �< /°\`� \ ¢-1 LL t avw'i ®rw ci o wu on i ••a ��"� • 1 � III - d. Y i � `� O N �o,ro����'C�../� `\ .\ iol40 ♦5�\�/ i ',\`� '' � �; � `r`� • / 10 \.\\\ ••�•� • j,/� ����� . moi'' � \ f� J a STAFF REPORT To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Date: October 13, 2016 AGENDA ITEM NO: 7.a — Engineering Division Reports MEETING DATE: October 13, 2016 From: Andrew Wong, Transportation 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 • US101/Broadway Interchange Project — Stage 4 construction has begun. The construction of the final eastbound overpass section will be completed in late October or early November. The work includes construction of retaining walls and roadway for the new southbound US 101 on-ramp. • California Drive Roundabout — Determining a late -October date for next public meeting to discuss aesthetic treatments. Project plans are at 65% Horizontal Geometric Design configuration. Staff is reviewing the basic horizontal roadway geometry to identify and discard any potential flaws in basic assumptions at the 65% milestone. Elevation and vertical alignments are currently being calculated, with final analysis being based on confirmed horizontal layout. General aesthetic and landscape concepts are also being gathered to be used as a beginning point for discussion at the 3rd public outreach meeting. • Carolan Complete Streets — The City Council was presented a project update on September 19. City staff and the design team are now completing project plans and specifications for submittal to Caltrans in late -October for review and authorization to advertise for construction. TSPC Email Communications — No new communications. • California Drive Bike Facility — The 2ntl public meeting will be held on November 3, again in the Lane Room. Again any of the options presented will have taken into consideration input received from residents at the July meeting. 1 Item 7.a - Engineering Division Reports October 13, 2016 • Peninsula Overcrossing Update — On November 11, the San Mateo City Council will receive an update from staff regarding the project. This update will include the current project status, and the next steps. This meeting will be study session item for their Council. In December, San Mateo's Public Works staff will make the same presentation to the Burlingame City Council. Additionally, San Mateo is about to start construction on their Poplar Avenue Improvements. Traffic impacts from this project should increase traffic on Humboldt Street as traffic will be detoured to Poplar/Humboldt. • Hoover School Update — BPD to begin enforcement of the access restrictions along both Summit and Easton. In addition to rotating the changeable message sign out onto Easton Drive, staff has contacted the school's principal to provide additional reminders to the parents of the access restrictions. Per last meeting's discussion, maintenance for portions of the walkway along Easton Drive has been completed. • OBAG II Grant Applications — Staff will be completing four City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) grant applications associated with the One Bay Area Grant II cycle. One grant will be for the Local Streets and Roads (LSR), two for the Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Program (BPIP), and finally one application for the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Program. The C/CAG Board has already approved over $500,000 to the City for the LSR program, while the City will be eligible up to $1.5 million for the remaining TLC and BPIP grants. Based on meetings with C/CAG and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) staff, our community needs, and availability of funds; applications will be submitted for sidewalks along Easton Drive (BPIP), sidewalks along Summit Drive (BPIP), and pedestrian scale street lighting along Broadway (TLC). All application will be due on November 18th, 2016. Staff will be informing the community members associated with the BPAC of the OBAG II applications in hopes of obtaining letters of support from them. Staff has already been in contact with BSD regarding the applications. • TSPC Priority List (Updated October 2016): TSPC Led Effort 1 Downtown Modal Access 2 B/PAC setup 6/9/16: Item 6a 3 School Speed Limit Notices/Review 9/8/16: Item 6b 4 School Traffic Issues 3/10/16: Item 6a 5 California Drive Commuter bike route 2/11/16: Item 6b 6 California Drive parking restrictions 7/14/16. Item 7a 7 Broadway Parking 7/14/16. Item 6a 8 Public Shuttles/Transit 9 Downtown Speed Limit Review 10 Review TSPC Mandate 11 Joint agreements with Caltrans Countywide 12 ECR Corridor Infrastructure 4114/16 & 5/12/16 13 Bay Trail 14 Fee Schedules 15 Joint Commission Meeting Cit Council 2 Item 7.a - Engineering Division Reports Staff Update via Report October 13, 2016 1 Caltrans' ECR/Floribunda Completed 2 Hoover School Update 9/8/16: Item 6a 3 Downtown Parking Strategies 7/14/16: Item 0- 4 City Hall Traffic Calm ing/Floribunda 9/8/16: Item 7a 5 California Roundabout 9/8/16: Item 7a 6 General Plan — Circulation Element 10/13/16: Item 8d 7 Bike\Ped Plan Update: fwd to BPAC 8 Taxi Regulation: Update by BPD Completed 9 Carolan Complete Streets Update 9/8/16: Item 7a 10 Grant Opportunities 10/13/16: Item 7a 11 Grade Separation 4/14/16: Item 6b 12 TrRAn Bresk�re Completed 13 San Mateo's Peninsula Ave OC 10/13/16: Item 7a 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 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 "Study Items" (TSPC Agenda Item 6). Y u 3 v 0 y o m a v v 5 C u« m ° E ac ac ac � «°� .2 nm co o co_ > o 42 ecuo o a b u>> a G o c V o 0 o m «° e o o « o y«« «° c t;.� a as m ao `c da oaaa �n 3 min n 3 - H _- = an c m p c >[N o q o o a E '« m V o A V o ^°- g % q q q o o c c o 0 o a .� a_ r a_ a .° a_ .° a_ o .° -- V a° o n n a n n n a a u u u v a a s a o u a m x v m a t4 «� v a v v a a a a « o « o o c c c c c E c c « «. E« ° g a a a v a v a .o ;a C C C co a a a a a v0. co co o a °1 Y-' m >o '„ o > o a v 'o - ° v E u E °o. °n o o o o 3 n q a 3 u a a n n a a a a a a o n n n a $ W E' E c o a c d a E E o s g q .. o n N a a A A A m n n m A A $�z u m3u�Xm r u n�a _ Y�i�m n n'ur�I-^I-^ E E u E E E E v o v„�,5 m is 6 Wille 6 6 a 5 n A - 0 o c > c o _ °o z ° w p w 2~ a VI 3 w - a` ki = wo a o o y'+ o m \ .._ A c n a '�' «q c a u u u u 3 co_ a `a_ n N u 0•�°� 3 Z o Y m-_512 O U y v c o N Y. 0 5 9 m . � � � 4 O° cm E LL -y o u g c a v u > u E o« .E = c Q y z, o m m i 5 u .°. .°. .%2 W co m: m m� 2 G '$ 'c u v c m x m ai Pl v v x � E m' v v o x z w m" '^ rc u y u 'V°- v 0 x° s' c= q o u' u D i° m g a45x 'x 0 0 0 0 0 °u i o c u E x E 0 0 v v u c v p a m 'i o o` a a>> o m d d>; >' E '-q` u E o m E v m d E a N E ._ ; a 3 i w ` ri Y .q �� 12 o 22 m w;= u E y a E w c n Ho w a w. 5 w u o= m` U o U 2 U 0 m c v u I PE 1.941 E n a E x m � b e a c rc o � t u c ° r m g E c 2 c,' £> „ ooE ah3 a- zo oq a u w t i LL c'- ¢u o a> > >wo0x � �„tiN N NN N.Qi ti.Qi Q NNN NNN u..i.g�H N---o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ry \ o o \ \ ry ry ry o N Nm \ o N o \ o \ 0 0 0 o. o o. N o00\ ONti 0 NO O u\t0\�Q NP \ mI N N T T T T T m OI O C N TN C C $