The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2014.01.09TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION BURLINGAME AGENDA January 9. 2014 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 4.1 New Commissioner Welcome —John Martos 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —November 14, 2013 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission. 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 but not required to FII out a "Request To Speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Commission Chairperson may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. CURRENT BUSINESS 7.1 Burlingame Downtown Parking Structure Discussion 8. INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 8.1 Engineering Division Reports —Reports and/or updates on Public Works projects and activities 8.1.1 Requests/comments/responses to public traffic concerns (stop signs, crosswalks, speed control, parking) • Electronic speed feedback display signs • Non-standard stop signs along Trousdale Drive Adeline Drive/Cortez Avenue pedestrian crosswalk • Streetline's "Parker" App for Burlingame Parking Lots Construction and Design projects • Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Project Bike Route Improvement Project 8.1.3 School Traffic Issues 8.2 Police Department Reports — Reports and/or updates on Police Department programs and activities 8.2.1 General/Selective Traffic Enforcement Report 8.3 CommissionersComments and Concerns 9. COMMUNICATIONS Report by Staff or Commissioners of citizen concerns or complaints regarding traffic, safety and parking ssues that are within the Commission's jurisdiction. 9.1 Eugene Zauber — Traffic Calming Petition for Floribunda Avenue 9.2 Laurie Simonson — LAPD Bike Safety Training Video 9.3 Mary Kroll — Pedestrian Signals and Ped/Bike Safety Concerns 9.4 Manito Velasco — California Drive Bike Collision 9.5 Other Communications 10. COMMISSION &COMMITTEE REPORTS 10.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (B/PAC) Committee meets 5:30PM in Conference Room B before each TSPC meeting. 11. NEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Dates for discussion to be determined later by Staff or Commissioners. 11.1 Howard Avenue Long-term and Short-term Parking (1400 block) 11.2 TSPC Areas of Emphasis for 2014 11.3 Electric Charging Stations 12. ELECTIONS -Chair and Vice -Chair Elections for 2014 13. ADJOURNMENT 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 at the Engineering Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. MINUTES -ITEM 5 The City of Burlingame CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, November 14, 2013 Commissioners Present: Nicklas Akers, Chair Caroline Serrato, Vice -Chair Jeff Londer Howard Wettan Commissioners Absent: Mark Noworolski Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Engineering Program Manager Andrew Wong, Transportation Engineer Sergeant Jay Kiely, Police Department Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary Visitors: William Jorajuric Pat Giorni Drew Dara -Abrams Ann Wallach Mark Haberecht Chris Bush John Murtos Anthony Azzollini Steve Pariani 1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 5 Commissioners present. Commissioner Noworolski absent. 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4.1 Commissioner Caroline Serrato —End of Term &Resignation Chair Akers presented a proclamation to Vice Chair Serrato and thanked her for serving on this Commission and her years of service to the community. 1 Chair Akers also acknowledged the presence of Captain Wollman and Officer Kempel from the Police Department, and Planning Commissioner Nirmala Bandrapalli in the audience. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Motion: To accept the minutes of October 10, 2013 as submitted. M/S/C: Londer/Serrato; 4/0/0 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Drew Abrams explained that he was a recent Burlingame resident and wanted to speak about the need to improve bicycle routes as well as pedestrian safety improvements in the downtown area. Pat Giorni spoke and addressed Mr. Abrams concerns regarding the City's bicycle map. Ms. Giorni said that the maps were printed in 2002; and, that more bike lanes will be installed within the next year. Ms. Giorni also commented that getting to the Millbrae Caltrain/BART station on California Drive has been much improved. She also wanted to encourage people to attend the Caltrans meeting next Tuesday in the Lane Room to discuss EI Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue intersection. Manito Velasco commented that he still struggles while travelling on California Drive. He is concerned for safety and shared photos of four intersections with left -turn pockets where he says drivers are swerving over those left -turn pocket lanes. Mr. Velasco stated that he believes it is a design issue and questions the value of these left -turn pockets. He also posed a question about what might happen if they were removed. 7. CURRENT BUSINESS 7.1 Balboa Avenue — 1400 & 1500 Block Traffic Concerns Chair Akers and Commissioner Wettan recused themselves from this discussion. Vice Chair Serrato opened the floor for public comments. Mark Haberecht provided a recap of the traffic, speeding, safety and parking issues on these blocks of Balboa Avenue. He also did not feel the radar trailer was placed at an optimal location. Mr. Haberecht also spoke on behalf of Samantha MacPhail who suggests a stop sign. Ann Wallach was present to speak and concurred with Mr. Haberecht. Pat Giorni stated that she agreed that these blocks on Balboa Avenue are a problem, although she did not feel the conditions would meet the stop sign warrants. Ms. Giorni expressed the need to look at permitted parking for these blocks. Public comment period was closed. Mr. Chou stated that staff has been addressing this issue on an on-going basis; and, that staff has also working with the Lincoln School administration regarding the traffic situation on Balboa near the school. Mr. Wong reported that stop sign warrant studies were currently being completed, but that the accident history conditions did not meet warrants requirements. He added that the collection of traffic volume conditions data was still pending. Mr. Wong commented that another option to address the concerns on these blocks might be to have residents volunteer for the Neighborhood Speed Watch Program. It was recommended that interested residents should contact Mr. Chou for further information. Vice -Chair Serrato asked the staff to provide follow-up with updates on the matter of a radar volunteer program and a residential permit program. 7.2 Ray Drive/EI Camino Real Intersection Safety —Discussion Steve Pariani stated that this intersection was dangerous due in part to the high speed of vehicles from Trousdale Drive. Mr. Pariani said he would like to see a crossing guard at this intersection because of the number of children from Burlingame Intermediate School and Lincoln School, Tony Azzollini commented that he was concerned about how the traffic moves from Balboa Avenue and Ray Avenue because there are all the "facets of cars" merging together to get to the signal light at Ray and EI Camino. Mr. Azzollini stated that he is very interested in the Neighborhood Speed watch volunteer program and stated that he knows 20 other dads who would volunteer. Pat Giorni commented that the traffic signal light timing needed to be changed. She said there was not enough time to safely cross for bicyclists and strollers. Ms. Giorni stated that there was a need to time the signal for a 5 -lane crossing. Or, Wong reported that the traffic signal at Ray Drive and EI Camino Real is a Caltrans maintained signal; and, that Caltrans has added some additional "green time"; however, the all -red signal indication was not within their policy. He said that Caltrans would continue to look at other options. Mr. Chou stated that crossing guard locations are determined by the Burlingame School District; and, that funding may be limited. Mr. Chou said that he would inform the school district of this matter. He also added that another resource in the school district might be Mr. Rusty Hopewell, who is the coordinator for Safe Routes to Schools program. Ms. Giorni commented that she recalled the Safe Routes to Schools program being tried two years ago, but that she has not seen any progress from this program. Ms. IF Giorm suggested that the Department of Education be contacted to learn what the current program entails and how it could be instituted in this city. Mr. Wong sated that he would continue to work with the School District and Caltrans on these matters, and report back what criteria might be required by Caltrans for them to consider an all -red signal phase. Mr. Wong also noted that the Safe Route to Schools is a grant program. 7.3 TSPC Areas of Emphasis for 2013 —Discussion 7. 3.1 Municipal Code Review and Update BMC Chapters 13.36 —Discussion Discussion occurred regarding Chapter 13.36 with the following items possibly needing further attention: - 13.36.010 No parking at any time. 13.36.030 One-hour parking. 13.36.043 Ten-hour parking. - 13.36.045 Angle parking. - 13.36.047 Limited height parking zones. - 13.36.049 Moving vehicles in public parking lots or facilities and use of public parking lots or facilities for storage of vehicles. 13.36.065 Parking of commercial vehicles prohibited in residential districts. 13.36.070 Preferential parking zones. 7.3.2 Parking Policy Review No report. Traffic Studies and Collision Data • Accident and Citation Data —Discussion Sergeant Kiel and Officer Kempel presented a recently compiled map of collisions involving injuries. The map indicated the "Where, When and Who" (bicyclist, pedestrian, vehicle, fatality, DUI) of collisions. They reported that this mapping system would allow traffic enforcement to focus in areas accordingly. A member of the public offered to provide information on UC Berkeley SafeTREC, a transportation injury mapping system, if relevant. Sergeant Kiely informed the Commission that City's six checkpoints are currently funded through a grant from UC Berkeley SafeTREC, Pedestrian Corridors Mr. Chou report ed that the City's grant application for funding the EI Camino Real sidewalk/pedestrian walkway (near the Mills/Peninsula Hospital and Ray Drive) was evaluated but did not make the funding list. 7A Outreach Events — Discussion Commissioner 011 U1 sought input on the Commission's continued participation in the Farmers Market events. It was agreed that it serves as a great outreach event and Commissioner Londer would follow-up with the City Clerk for dates. Commissioner Londer stated that he would also like to have a future discussion about having biking, pedestrian, and traffic safety workshops; possibly partnering with other agencies, such as Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance or Parks and Recreation. 8. Information/Discussion Items from Commission and Staff 8.1 Engineering Division Reports —Reports and/or updates on Public Works project and activities 8.1.1 Requests/comments/responses to public traffic concerns (stop signs, crosswalks, speed control, parking) Electronic speed feedback display signs Mr. Wong reported that the electronic speed feedback signs would be dynamic and provide feedback at two locations each, on Trousdale Drive and California Drive. He reported that the contractor has currently applied for an encroachment permit with the City to do the final installation work. • Non-standard stop signs along Trousdale Drive Mr. Wong reported that the accident history data at intersections at Loyola Drive, Marco Polo Way, Ogden Avenue and Toledo Avenue did meet stop sign warrants; but, that staff is now examining the traffic volume conditions as a next step in the process. Burlingame Avenue traffic/pedestrian safety concerns Mr. Wong report ed that at the September meeting, there was a request by a resident regarding changing the speed limit on Burlingame Avenue from the prima facie limit of 25 mph to 15 mph. Mr. Wong said that this consideration would be deferred until the completion of the streetscape project so that staff could do a comprehensive evaluation. Mr. Wong report 5 ed that the crosswalk at Chapin Avenue and Primrose Road will be repaved and repainted along with ahigh-visibility pedestrian sign. 5 • Streetline's "Parker" App for Burlingame Parking Lots Mr. Wong reported that the "Parker" Streetline smartphone app is now active for all Android phones. 8.1.2 Construction and Design projects • Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Project Mr. Wong reported that the project is 40 complete. The 1300 block will be completed by Thanksgiving and the entire street will be open during the holidays. Bike Route Improvement Project Mr. Wong reported that the striping work for the East/West bike project is now underway. Contractor, Chrisp Company, has laid out a number of locations where the sharrows will be. • EI Camino Real/Floribunda Avenue Traffic Concerns The Caltrans meeting on this topic will be on next Tuesday, at the Lane Room. 8.1.3 School Traffic Issues No report. 8.2 Police Department Reports —Reports and/or updates on Police Department program and activities 8.2.1 General/Selective Traffic Enforcement Report Sergeant Kiely reported Sergeant Kiely also report that the OTS county -wide grant event was kicked -off last month. He stated that it was very productive and received great media coverage. ed that another grant was submitted last month to State Farm Insurance to equip the City's speed trailer with fire and police dispatching capability. Lastly, Sergeant Kiely reported that the Police staff did data mining for the STEP program. They were only able to sample 2012 Burlingame and San Bruno data and found a 10 reduction in injury collisions since the start of the STEP program. 8.3 Commissioners' Comments and Concerns None. 9. COMMUNICATIONS 9.1 Manito Velasco • Bike Safety Concern on California Drive Webinar on Urban Street Design Guide 9.2 Adam Arenstein • Adding Bike Lanes on Bayshore Highway 9.3 Other Communications 1►i"TiL� 10.COMMISSION &COMMITTEE REPORTS 10.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory committee (B/PAC) Mr. Wong reported that the committee discussed the EI Camino Real/Floribunda Avenue issue. He also reported that the group discussed a grant application for new bicycle racks; and, that the B/PAC members needed to help staff determine the number and locations for these racks. 11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 11.1 Howard Avenue Long-term and Short-term Parking (1400 block) 11.2 Burlingame Downtown Parking Structure Discussion 11.3 Electric Charging Stations Chair Akers stated that as is not uncommon, and with his fellow Commissioners' concurrenceI the December meeting would be cancelled unless the Commission members believed that a need might arise. 12.ADJOURNMENT 9:10 p.m. rl CURRENT BUSINESS -ITEM 7.1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 7.1 TO: Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission DATE: January 9, 2014 FROM: Augustine Chou, Engineering Program Manager SUBJECT: Item 7.1 — Burlingame Downtown Parking Struct re Meeting Date: January 9 2014 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission review the findings of the parking structure analysis, obtain public input, and consider objectives for identifying top candidate locations for a future downtown parking structure. BACKGROUND: Since 1998, the City has conducted various parking studies to continually evaluate parking needs in the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business area; and, to find ways to optimize surface parking in the most efficient manner. The results of these studies first revealed, and later confirmed, a parking shortage in the approximate amount of 350 spaces. In 2012, the Council gave staff a directive to conduct a parking structure analysis using the services of transportation and parking consultants, CDM Smith (formerly Wilbur Smith Associates). CDM Smith conducted an extensive analysis and provided the City with its findings in September 2012. In February 2013, the City conducted two focus group meetings, one involving Burlingame residents and another nvolving the business community. In March 2013, a general public meeting on a potential parking structure was discussed at a regular Commission meeting. Finally, in June and July of 2013, staff conducted a sidewalk survey along Burlingame Avenue to poll shoppers and visitors about their parking habits and desires regarding a potential downtown parking structure. DISCUSSION: Parking Structure Studv The CDM Smith study focused on two main goals in their analysis. First, to identify all downtown parking lots that might be suitable for development as a possible parking structure location. And second, to narrow down all the possible locations and identify the top 4 or 5 for a future parking structure. The CDM Smith study took into account eight different evaluation criteria, as follows: 1. Shape &efficiency 5. Traffic impacts 2. Capacity of parking structure 6. Proximity to parking demand 3. Cost per net space added 7. Proximity to customer bases 4. Efficiency of circulation 8. Ability to support ground floor retail The study identified four lots as top parking structure locations: Lot C, Lot C&D, Lot J, and Lot The full ranking and analyses of these and all other lots are attached in the Powerpoint Presentation. Focus Group Meetings For the February 2013 focus group events, two separate meetings were held. The first meeting was for residents; and, had twenty participants who were broken into three groups. The results showed that two Page 1 of 2 S:W Public Works Directory\TSP Commission\Staff Reports\2014\1-9-14 SR -7.1 Downtown Parking Structure FINAL doc of the three groups preferred the location of Lot J & W (with parcels) as their first choice, with the third group preferred the location of Lot A & A-3 as their first choice. For each group's second and third choices, the preferred locations were evenly split, with each group selecting a different location, as follows: Choice Locations: 3`d Choice Locations: • 1/3: Lot J (with parcels) 1/3: Lot F • 1/3: Lot C & D combination 1/3: Lot F & N • 1/3: Lot E & J combination 1/3: Lot J At the second focus group meeting, twelve people were in attendance to represent the downtown business community. Two smaller groups were formed for the discussions, with TSPC members serving as group facilitators. Group discussions for the business community took on a different approach. Rather than identifying a top preferred locations list, both groups chose to identify positive and negative factors which they felt were pertinent to parking structure location consideration. While not developing specific rankings in structure location, the two business groups did identify several lot locations that they deemed noteworthy. • Lot J The participants indicated that Lot J was centrally located and believed. that it was well suited for the downtown parking structure, but were concerned about the potential adverse traffic circulations issues. • Lot C The participants felt that Lot C was also located close to the core parking demand area and was a good location for a parking structure. They also felt that retail opportunities should be explored in Lot C to create pedestrian ambiance. Finally, the participants felt that traffic circulation might be an issue due to narrow streets widths. • Lot F The participants felt that Lot F was a good location for a parking structure that would meet the needs of employee parking; however, they were also concerned that it was not convenient to downtown shoppers because of its distance from the downtown core. Lot A, A-3, C The participants. indicated that the combination of Lot A, A-3 & C would serve as a good location for parking needs; however, they indicated strong concerns about the negative impacts of parking circulation. The focus group meetings took two different approaches regarding public analyses and input on potential parking structure locations. While the resident group elected to make clear choices on spec"rfic locations, the business community group chose to identify specific qualities for potentially ideal locations. Sidewalk Surveys In June and July of 2013, staff conducted a sidewalk survey along Burlingame Avenue to further obtain public input regarding a potential, future parking structure for the downtown area. Surveys were taken during morning, noon, and afternoon peak times. The results of these surveys revealed the following: • A majority of visitors drove in from outside Burlingame or Hillsborough. • Most patrons preferred to park on the street. • Lot J is preferred slightly over C&D, in terms of a potential future parking structure. • Survey respondents want more parking spaces, use of smart meters, and more parking time. Commission Goal The goal of the Commission at this meeting is to gather additional public comments; and, establish certain objectives for consideration to be used in recommending top locations for a future parking structure. These objectives will be used at the February Commission meeting to provide a summary of findings and recommendation for Council. Page Z of 2 S:W Public Works Directory\TSP Commission\Staff Reports\2014\1-9-14 SR -7.1 Downtown Parking Structure FINAL.doc The City of Burlingame PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Tel: (650) 558-7230 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 Fax: (650) 685-9310 CORPORATION YARD Tel: (650) 558-7670 The City of Burlingame's Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) will be reviewing and discussing potential locations for a future parking garage in the Burlingame Downtown area. Public input is welcomed and encouraged as part of the decision making process. This meeting is a follow-up to several meetings last year regarding a Downtown parking garage. The goal of this meeting is to obtain additional public input, and discuss the top ranked locations for a parking garage. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 9th, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. Questions or comments regarding this meeting may be submitted to Mr. Augustine Chou, Engineering Program Manager, at achou ,burlingame.org1 Or. Andrew Wong, Burlingame Transportation Engineer, at a wongCZDburlingame.org. Alternatively, you may mail comments to the Department of Public Works, Engineering, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 or call at (650) 558-7237. S:\A Public Works Direcmry\W ONG\2013\201) llowvtowv Parkivg\Public Notice- 2013-12-23-Dowmown Parking Structure Notice.doc PUBLIC NOTICE: DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS AND OPTIONS THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2014 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, BURLINGAME The City of Burlingame's Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) will be reviewing and discussing potential locations for a future parking garage in the Burlingame Downtown area. Public input is welcomed and encouraged as part of the decision making process. This meeting is a follow-up to several meetings last year regarding a Downtown parking garage. The goal of this meeting is to obtain additional public input, and discuss the top ranked locations for a parking garage. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 9th, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. Questions or comments regarding this meeting may be submitted to Mr. Augustine Chou, Engineering Program Manager, at achou ,burlingame.org1 Or. Andrew Wong, Burlingame Transportation Engineer, at a wongCZDburlingame.org. Alternatively, you may mail comments to the Department of Public Works, Engineering, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 or call at (650) 558-7237. S:\A Public Works Direcmry\W ONG\2013\201) llowvtowv Parkivg\Public Notice- 2013-12-23-Dowmown Parking Structure Notice.doc �I Traffic Safety and Parking Commission January 9, 2014 ®owntdwn Burlingame Parking Structure Studies reveal and confirm parking shortage Need for 350 new spaces Council directive for parking structure analysis CDM Smith hired and conducted analysis Workshop and public meetings Sidewalk survey 12/23/2013 1 Public Meetings, Workshops & Street Surveys Council Presentation September 4, 2012 (Council Study Session) Focus Group Meeting #1 February 12, 2013 (Residents) Focus Group Meeting #2 February 13, 2013 (Special TSPC for Businesses) General Public Meeting March 14, 2013 (Regular TSPC) Sidewalk Surveys June 12, 2013 June 17, 2013 July 2, 2013 CDM SlYlltil StU(�y Goals: Identify those downtown parking lots that would be suitable for development as a parking structure Identify the best locations for a future parking structure 12/23/2013 2 12/23/2013 Issues far Consideration Parking structure location considerations Downtown district core Peripheral area Define the purpose of a new parking structure Short-term parking needs (customers) Long-term parking needs (employees) Combination short-term & long-term parking needs Study Area & Lois Analyzed 4a�F, IN 40 0#000 0 it +, . :, 12/23/2013 Lot Evaluation Criteria Shape and efficiency Capacity of parking structure Cost per net added space Efficiency of circulation Traffic impacts Proximity to parking demand Proximity to customer bases (long/short term) Able to support ground floor retail Parl(ing Lot WE AND HE An 939 An AN MAN 72A n2 389 Am am 1755 DO P77 EPA 2177 21, MAR Me 11�A ornprem 3" 57 Am SHO On An ANN 143 lip ANN 2" 779 At An 514 AM MW END NOD ROD ON An Be Me 367 BAN AM d� 322 339 475 557 A?B ME BAN 632 .10 B92 AR3 AAA 3400 340 nNIMPAP MIMI BRAIN Z23 ABA 34mn "CARE 154A. ?45a333 31 ADD U47SD 19415D 1BEEPEARB Maum 9� iume n1m III ON INJ35a IN, AM m� MINI 9 0 A 0 MAR A 17 SIBEENEI BOB IRS BRENNAN Aunn Arrms An An Inse ANDORRA 129AN I SODIUM OPERA DWAU 5"517 37 10A 8 A IMP A SMA A IRELAND [Ranking AM AwAlrem�13 10 4 11 6 1 Z 39 5 16 9 19 ) 3 10 15 10 17 F'. ,„ Suitability Evaluation Bankings Lot C w Orr ieonsumd ioiaen iN ezno ia, rs ,e on.iaaaa[or PffkfigS[ruclu,a wme a ®. PP 00 4 wo 040V Ame 44 Ii3 ° peal �'' Smith 12/23/2013 5 Lot C z Lots A & C z. Lots C & D (w/ parcels)j Lot A s. Lott (w/ parcels) 14. Lot F h. Lots A & A-3 Lot D s. Lot E (w/ parcels) Lot N r. Lots A, A-3 & C 17 Lot W z Lot E (tie) a Lot A-3 z Lot J (tie) 9. Lot G Lot F (w/ parcels) o. Lots J & W (w/ parcels) (tie) o. Lot N (w/ parcels) (tie) Lot C w Orr ieonsumd ioiaen iN ezno ia, rs ,e on.iaaaa[or PffkfigS[ruclu,a wme a ®. PP 00 4 wo 040V Ame 44 Ii3 ° peal �'' Smith 12/23/2013 5 Cost Estimate Existing spaces Lot C (All Costs in 2012 Dollars) gp Total spaces in structure 0 359 Net new spaces 279 Approximate sq ft/space 322 Approximate total floor area (sq ft) 115,435 Total cost $ 8,345,519 Cost per new space $ 29,912 s 1) Close to core are, a Coils 1)Narrow streets w/concernsforcirculation problems 2) Second lowest cost per added space 2) Location not convenient for businesses south of Avenue and Howard area 3) Close to meeting parking short -fall 3) Location hidden in "back" visible to public of Avenue, not readily 4) Structure hidden to reduce potential negative aesthetics Impacts 5) Lowest overall cost pop Ground Floor Layout Im dt� yy yT Floors 2-5 Layout (Typical) 12/23/2013 0 12/23/2013 Lots C & a (w/ parcels) 4 �ee� aInnn„n �,=mnode Ma, 10 p� o a,a�P a , e CM 4;*,0 �✓, • �O M��Pe • vo Smith Lots C & d (w/ parcels) niate (All Costs In 2012 Dollo Existing spaces 129 Total spaces in structure 725 Net new spaces 596 Approximate sq ft/space 339 Approximate total floor area (sq ft) 245,813 Estimated land acquisition costs $1,100,000 Total cost $16,991,619 Cost per new space $28,509 12/23/2013 7 Ground Floor Layout 9 1 - Acquired parcels Floors 2-5 Layout (Typical) �,� nunlwnunwiuumunulnnuiunuimi r! 0 Lot.J (w/ parcels) �rto � miro"Ifeei Pelc9 W Mary liters red to memiy rich u) °ery /,jI Oil greet W CoosltleN W Peking 6Wvluie •' ' ' fiber * Gwmmlffl We ::fir twill too 10I fj k pw� smith 12/23/2013 f3 t! lmiuuuininuiinnmfiunmiuni�niiiiTuin IC uluinwuwiuilui4uliuuiluunnliinnu �,� nunlwnunwiuumunulnnuiunuimi r! 0 Lot.J (w/ parcels) �rto � miro"Ifeei Pelc9 W Mary liters red to memiy rich u) °ery /,jI Oil greet W CoosltleN W Peking 6Wvluie •' ' ' fiber * Gwmmlffl We ::fir twill too 10I fj k pw� smith 12/23/2013 f3 Lot j (w/ Cost Estiniate Existing spaces parcels) (All Costs In 2012 Dollni 69 Total spaces in structure 587 Net new spaces 518 Approximate sq. ft./space 322 Approximate total floor area (sq. ft.) 201,500 Estimated land acquisition costs IM12 action) $506000000 Total cost $19,816,568 Cost per new space $38,256 Pros 1) central to core area 1) ons Increased traffic congestion 2) Multiple access poiras 2) Property acquisition 3) Suitable location for retail 3) Eliminates future open -space potential 4) Future possible expansion to Lot W 4) Special design consideration for storm culvert 5) stronger support by businesses 5) Highest cost per space oftop 4locations 6) Potential revenue stream from retail leasin Ground Floor Layout � � � —Acquired parcels Floors 2-5 Layout (Typical) 12/23/2013 Lots A & AIII p wmic011Wn mW min i,u,�.��amd Nzon ial io��• �� D�gwWNnaeadbrPWq N , Arnmemial W. ®. 1 Rp= Smith Lots A � A-3 Existing spaces 184 Total spaces in structure 610 Net new spaces 426 Approximate sq ft/space 366 Approximate total floor area (sq ft) 223,335 Total cost $ 13,997,584 Cost per new space $ 32,858 12/23/2013 10 1T 1T Ground Floor Layout 12 y) ��,�_.1T—bT— �,,. Ila Floors 2-5 Layout yT--yT (Typical) Nil 1111111 eR 406 Warkshap Feedback Focus Group - Residents 1st Choice Locations so% Group #1 Group 43 "Lou" °% totimW Lot A& P-3 2nd Choice Locations iGroup#Z vara — a pop Latc&° LolL—/ 1 3rd Choice Locations 12/23/2013 11 "Lou" 12/23/2013 11 Sidewalk Survey Results How did you get to Downtown? ei�ne� e wne Iris Where did you come from? 12/23/2013 12 Workshop Feedback Focus Group - Businesses Positivia Comments Wrrrrr FF9 ® 0 Centrally located in Close proximity to core area Meets downtown employee Meets overall parking downtown parking needs demand Convenient for Potential retail opportunities downtown shoppers for pedestrian mall environment m ni' Potential circulation Circulation concerns due to Inconvenient for downtown Strong concerns over in downtown ow streets shoppers & patrons parking circulation Sidewalk Survey Results How did you get to Downtown? ei�ne� e wne Iris Where did you come from? 12/23/2013 12 Sidewalk Survey Results What brings you to Downtown? Where didryou park? Sidewalk Survey Results Where do you prefer to park? Haw far are you willing to park? •1-1/x blo�Nsorlesz •FurMertM1an l-1/3 blocks 12/23/2013 13 Sidewalk Survey Results If the City were to build a parking structure, where would you suggest it be built? Sidewalk Survey Results If Lot E & Lot J are reserved for a future park or open space, where do you suggest the structure be built? 12/23/2013 14 Sidewalk Survey Results What can be done to improve your parking experience? aa�xmg ee,m�e �x Objectives for Consideration Parking for Burlingame Avenue and north (Burlingame Avenue +Chapin/Donnelly) Parking for the core (Burlingame Avenue + Howard) Ultimate goal of parking structure Focus on short-term parking Focus on long-term parking Combination of short-term and long-term Ease of access Easy to find/identify 12/23/2013 15 Cbl't1mission Goals January: Continue to gather public input. Establish and agree upon objectives to use in top locations selection. February: Discuss and analyze the top locations. Finalize and make recommendations to Council regarding the Commission's top locations. 12/23/2013 16 COMMUNICATIONS -ITEM 9.1 loribunda Ca6ita , Inc. 1515 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE • BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 _ 47 2 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL -501 PI2IMROS RC_- MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Td: (fi50) SSS- 7230 SURLtNGAW, CALIFORNIA 94011-3997 TEL (650) 550-7670 Farz: (650) 605-9310 Website: ym besiip acze_are RESIDENTUX TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM RESIDENTIAL TRAFMC CALMING APPLICATION DATE: CA �G nuc: e�^� -/�a�%' ,� a� -C,pi ,-,4-74 2 DA AApf JC 7 ADDRESS: Ott Av&-*lC)l LOCATION: � � �'Yt'-A`i7� �'c9 � � lt/V\ tz� DESCIPTIDnT OF PR®ELEtL14%): kq;�TT t FYh�a col>BpieSesi, plar�se r�Eaarll t®: I i n 01 Primrose'. d. urbingame, CA 94010 ttentionmTraMeE _ Residential Traffic Calming Program. On Floribunda Avenue and Almer Rd Description of problems We, the residents of Floribunda Ave and Almer Ave. are concerned about the safety of our streets. There is a tendency for cars to speed on these streets and we are requesting the City of Burlingame to improve safety due to the following reasons. *Traffic is extremely heavy on Floribunda Avenue and visibility of cars and/or pedestrians is low due to the curves of the street. Despite the posted speed limit of 25 MPH, the majority of cars drive 35-50 MPH as they make their way to/from EI Camino or Hillsborough. * It is dangerous for: 1. Families and children who are crossing Floribunda Ave on the way to McKinley Elementary School, Between EI Camino and Primrose Street there are no marked pedestrians crosswalks, 2. Many Hillsborough and West Burlingame residents, many who are Seniors, who cross Floribunda Ave on foot on the way to downtown Burlingame. 3. Residents on Floribunda and Almer Avenues who are exiting their garages and entering the streets (Floribunda and Almer Avenues) are curved and offer low visibility due to parked cars and trees. We are proposing for City of Burlingame: * Install, or allow the residents to install, a traffic calming device to mitigate speeding and reduce the risk of accident, injury, or potential death. * Install speed humps * Mark up pedestrian crosswalks on Floribunda/Almer and Floribunda/Angel intersections. * Install additional visible speed regulatory signs and warning sighs as "Curve" and "Pedestrian Crossing". Respectfully, The Residents of Floribunda Ave and Almer Ave. The City of Burlingame RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC CALMING APPLICATION t515 FJ0QAd3 =;&)DA We, the undersigned, herby petition the City of Burlingame to evaluate i°1V _(street) between _& C ,W -k'1 (street) and (street) for traffic calming. The best day/time of the week to conduct the traffic study wo M 2 RESIDENT NAME (PLEASE PRINT) A minimum of 10 households (nue signature per household) are required to demonstrate support ADDRESS OF 1 HOUSEHOL R ,HONE NUMBER SIGNATURE crnaracrPERSON i i �+'v2 boV � aO`� f�Ju'3 �'i� - :•� e SU: W'E Zai? Piz CDWARZ l.IEceNuk /Si5 FYo.eiau ✓ 2a8 6so 393-5860 E,q��(u*-+L J�it'/V �,e7 �tdCyUiri(J✓a•�-h3l,3 - `US�� P�Ics. ISIS ��a.r��.•e lo'L�S �1� �uOL- LC) A v/sZO �01?i1r.4:��4 AZ'J � �Sn 3 n U nel1 5t - 3�i 1406 is , 343 7t 3 s. When completed, please return to: City of Bnelingame Public Works Department Engineering Division 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Attention: Traffic Engineer Phone (650) 558-7230 and start the proces Residential traffic calming application. Signature list. #� s NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE /S/sr a=yY�-7y5 L L5 F6(� uod Of oZ0 f 0we62�2 1 c Ror,i��1�E� )� 2 r 6`�®�-t� 72 Vs 11iIL1RONur 2HUU 1515 Flunbuniia Ave Art 105 {�bbccSItiti 1�y5 rlorb ncic �v� �r .3i`j 3 EU41b �/ � �5 lc'k4 L 4r,1 g1Z214 ZP J COMMUNICATIONS -ITEM 9.2 PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine From: TSPC@Burlingame.org Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 7:37 PM To: PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine; Caroline Serrato (carol ine94010@me.com); Jeff Londer (wlonder@aol.com); Mark Noworolski Ornarkn@gmail.com); Nick Akers (nicklas.akers@gmail.com); Howard Wettan (hwettan@gmail.com); PW/ENG-Wong, Andrew Subject: FW: Los Angeles Police Department Bicycle Training Video Attachments: image001.gif From: Laurie Simonson[SMTP:LKSIMONSON(a�YAHOO.COMI Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 7:36:41 PM To: TSPCABurlingame.org Subject: Los Angeles Police Department Bicycle Training Video Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear TSPC, I am wondering if at your next meeting you could ask the Traffic Sargent if the Burlingame Police Department has a training video like the one in the link below from the LAPD. I watched it and it seemed very helpful. Thank you and happy holidays. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: Below is a link to a 14 minute officer awareness training video used by LAPD. There are gaps in the sound where testing is to take place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m 1N3Q3lLBIk COMMUNICATIONS -ITEM 9I3 PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine From: TSPC@Burlingame.org Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 4:52 PM To: PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine; Caroline Serrato (caroline94010@me.com); Jeff Londer Qwlonder@aol.com); Mark Noworolski Omarkn@gmail.com); Nick Akers (nicklas.akers@gmail.com); Howard Wettan (hwettan@gmail.com) Subject: FW: Pedestrian signals From: Mary Kroll[SMTP:MAKROLL@ATT.NET] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 4:50:37 PM To: TSPC(a@Burlingame.org Subject: Pedestrian signals Auto forwarded by a Rule 1) Will there be some kind of pedestrian signals placed at the new traffic lights at Primrose and Burlingame Aves? Before the construction, it seemed that folks paid attention to whether their was a white pedestrian symbol or a red hand symbol. Now the pedestrians walk as they please - green or red light!! I've seen it happen many times. 2) Once construction is complete, is there a way to add crosswalks on Primrose close to the Safeway drive as well as somewhere on Lorton, perhaps somewhere by II Fornaio restaurant? People are ALWAYS jaywalking in these areas and I feel like I'm playing dodge'ems on these streets. Folks need some crosswalks! And it may slow down the cars that fly down these streets. I SEE IT DAILY! 3) Has anyone considered pedestrian and bicycle education??? It is SO difficult driving in downtown Burlingame. But when you add bikes that run stop signs, skateboarders on there phones riding in the middle of the street, pedestrians that do not look up from texting while jaywalking or against the light, it can be even MORE challenging! Mary Kroll 1457 Bellevue Ave #17 Burlingame, CA 94010 COMMUNICATIONS -ITEM 9.4 PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine From: TSPC@Burlingame.org Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 9:38 AM To: PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine; Caroline Serrato (caroline94010@me.com); Jeff Londer (jwlonder@aol.com); Mark Noworolski Omarkn@gmail.com); Nick Akers (nicklas.akers@gmail.com); Howard Wettan (hwettan@gmail.com) Subject: FW: Safety on California Drive Attachments: RE: California Dr Sharrows - injured cyclist tonight; Delays on California Drive.pdf; Turning Movement Counts 2013.07.pdf; Driver Behavior on California.pdf From: M V[SMTP:CHITOV@MSN.COM] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 9:35:38 AM To: PW/ENG-Murtuza, Syed Cc: TSPC@Burlingame.org, PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine, PW/ENG-Wong, Andrew, MGR- Goldman, Lisa; PW/ENG-Morimoto, Art; COUNCIL-Keighran, Ann Subject: RE: Safety on California Drive Auto forwarded by a Rule Syed, This latest incident is far from isolated. There was this collision I referenced in 2012, another one I was not able to snap a picture of and several others that are not reported. It does not help to make statements like "Removing left turn pockets along the roadway will cause traffic back-up, queuing and potential hazardous conditions for rear end collisions". I have to ask where is the study to back up that statement. I'm attaching a graphic showing the actual traffic turning volumes you had collected. The left turn volumes are not at all that heavy. It's between 1-2.5 cars every minute. At Dufferin, there was a maximum of 0.28 turning cars a minute during the height of the evening commute —that's 1 car turning every 4 minutes! And as far as back up and queuing, cars would be delayed by less than a second based on a basic modelling of your traffic volumes. You could barely notice it on the graph. Even if cars were delayed an extra 5 seconds on average, is that really significant to justify the dangerous status quo? Regarding "potentially hazardous conditions", please see the attached chart on driver behavior. Of the cars I observed passing over the centerline are 4 police cars on non -emergency calls (no sirens) so it's clearly not an enforcement issue — it is a design issue and those left turn pockets are clearly a problem. I'd like to hear and see more about what you've 'monitored' and measured at the next TSPC meeting. Maybe it even merits a separate agenda item because of the serious nature of the problem. I cannot stress enough the importance of going on California as a bicyclist or even as pedestrian on the sidewalk for more than 10 minutes to truly understand the hazards. You and I met at Murchison a few months back which I appreciated. Andrew actually rode with me and even he was surprised to see what was happening. There is no substitute to actually being out there. So I extend my offer again to you all to meet on site and observe conditions. How about the week of November 18? Manito From: PW/ENG-Murtuza, Syed [mailto:SMurtuza@burlingame.org] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:56 AM To: Manito Velasco Cc: TSPC@Burlingame.org; PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine; PW/ENG-Wong, Andrew; MGR- Goldman, Lisa; PW/ENG-Morimoto, Art; COUNCIL-Keighran, Ann Subject: RE: Safety on California Drive M an LO, I'm very sorry and saddened to learn about this tragic and unfortunate accident on California Drive. Staff is coordinating with the Police Department to understand the details and to determined what happened. Once we have the necessary information, we'll determine the next steps. Thank you, Syed From: Manito Velasco [mailto:chitov(almsn.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:28 AM To: COUNCIL-Keighran, Ann Cc: TSPC(cbBurlingame.org; PW/ENG-Murtuza, Syed; PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine; PW/ENG-Wong, Andrew; MGR- Goldman, Lisa Subject: Re: Safety on California Drive All, I warned you all this was going to happen. There was a bicyclist lying face down in a pool of blood this morning This is where there is a left turn pocket at Murchison. I called to your attention the value of the left turn pocket there when it clearly put cyclists at risk. Mayor Keighran, what are you waiting for? What exactly is staff monitoring and measuring before deciding to take action? This is not just a speeding issue that radar signs and enforcement alone can fix. This was a block away from BPD so they already patrol California by default. Please narrow the lanes, stripe bike lanes and remove left turn pockets that gain people inly a few seconds of delay at the expense of safety. You need to take leadership here because more of this will happen. Not less. This was gruesome, Manito Sent from my