HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2011.03.10BURLINGAME TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
AGENDA
March 10, 2011
7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —February 10, 2011
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 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 Devereux Drive/Lincoln School Traffic Flow —Discussion to improve on
traffic flow during school hours
7.2 Commission Appeals Policy Document —Update, discussion and approval
7.3 Pedestrian Corridors —Initial discussion to identify possible ways to
improve pedestrian safety
8. INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
8.1 Engineer's Report -Update on various traffic items brought to Commission
at past meetings
8.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report -General/Selective Traffic Enforcement Report
8.3 Commissioners' Comments and Concerns
9. COMMUNICATIONS
Report by Staff or Commissioners of citizen concerns or complaints regarding traffic, safety and parking
issues that are within the Commission's jurisdiction.
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.
10.2 Neighborhood Parking Working Group
10.3 Website/Communications Subcommittee
11.
FUTURE AGENDA
ITEMS
regarding any
item on this agenda
Dates for discussion to be
determined
later by Staff or Commissioners.
11.1 Burlingame Avenue 2 -Hour Parking Evaluation (Pending date)
11.2 Burlingame Avenue/Downtown Parking Study (Pending date)
11.3 Trousdale Drive Traffic (April)
11.4 Electric Vehicle Charging Station Presentation (April)
12. 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.
-2-
MINUTES -ITEM 5
City Of Burlingame
CALIFORNIA 940103997
ww .burlingame.org
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Commissioners Present: Jeff Londer, Chair
Laurie Simonson, Vice Chair
Nicklas Akers
Mark Noworolski
Commissioners Absent: Caroline Serrato
Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works
Sergeant Ed Nakiso, Police Department
Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works
Visitors: Laura Held, Principal, Mercy High School
Velvet Hewett, Mills Peninsula Health Services
Helen Chaknova, Mills Peninsula Health Services
Bob Hortop, Mills Peninsula Health Services
Ben Cohn, 2018 Trousdale Drive
John Funghi, 2805 Adeline Drive
1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:04 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
3. ROLL CALL. 3 of 5 Commissioners present. (Commissioner Akers late, Commissioner
Serrano absent)
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Chair Londer thanked former Chair Noworolski for his fine job as Chair this past year.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -
Motion: To accept the minutes of January 13, 2011 with the following amendment:
Item 10.3 Neighborhood Parking Working Group —Chair Noworolski reported that
minor work was done but no formal meeting had taken place.
M/S/C: Simonson/Noworolski; 3/0/2 (Akers not present, Serrano absent)
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Cohn spoke regarding the traffic and safety concerns on Trousdale Drive below Sequoia
Avenue, Mr. Cohn shared a copy of the petition that was circulated amongst the residents of
this area. Mr. Cohn said he has also been communicating with Officer Witt regarding these
concerns and will be bringing this item to the City Council.
7. CURRENT BUSINESS
7.1 Trousdale Drive/Marco Polo Way — Discussion of possible on -street parking
modifications
Commissioner Akers recused himself from discussion and vote.
Mr. Chou presented a staff report providing background on this request, with a
recommendation to receive public comments and review staff analysis in order to
determine if a change to the current on -street parking situation was feasible or
necessary for the curb area surrounding 1875 Trousdale Drive.
Mr. Hortop provided photos of the parking and visibility situation at this facility. Mr.
Hortop requested that the two spaces on Trousdale Drive and two spaces on Marco
Polo Way be limited to 2 -hour parking and supported red zoning the parking space on
the right side of the exit driveway on Trousdale to improve visibility.
Discussion occurred amongst the Commissioners about maximizing the existing red
zones without losing parking spaces to enhance visibility.
Motion: To accept the staff report and a make recommendation to City Council to
implement 2 -hour time restrictions Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for the
four on -street parking spaces surrounding 1875 Trousdale Drive (two on Trousdale
Drive and two on Marco Polo Way). And, additionally to extend the red curb as far as
practical while maintaining the on -street parking space on the right as you exit the
facility at 1875 Trousdale Drive.
M/S/C: Noworolski/Simonson; 3/0/2 (Akers —
recused, Serrano —absent)
7.2 Alvarado Avenue — Discussion of single red curb removal near south/west
Alvarado/Adeline corner
Mr. Chou presented a staff report seeking Commission action to either support
the staff
recommendation to maintain the new red zone, or for the Commission to determine a
possible alternate solution.
Mercy Principal Laura Held gave a summary
of steps Mercy High School took to
address traffic concerns since the last time they came before the Commission. Ms. Held
reported that the traffic conditions for entire neighborhood were greatly improved due to
the measures taken. She added that the installation of the single red curb on Alvarado
2
Avenue at Adeline Drive helped to improve the traffic flow at the intersection.
Mr. Funghi entered a letter for the record. Mr. Funghi requested the return 18of on -
street parking on Alvarado Avenue and Adeline Drive in front of his property at 2805
Adeline Avenue. He stated that the City:
1. Incorrectly interpreted the Planning Commission Mercy High School Resolution of
July 26, 2010
2. Created a critical safety issue by promoting the "stacking" of vehicles in front of a
Fire Hydrant for the morning and evening peak student commutes
3. Relied on traffic data prepared by unlicensed engineers in accordance with the
State of California Professional Engineer's act
4. Relied on a traffic study that was prohibited from looking at internal re-routing
within the mercy Campus that would alleviate the external congestion at the
Alvarado Gate
5. Allowed a commercial entity to use his property frontage as a "kiss and drop-off'
point
The Commissioners asked Mr. Funghi for clarification regarding his statement to relocate
his driveway from Adeline Drive to Alvarado Avenue since he stated that he would need
the remaining curb spaces on Alvarado for a new driveway. He explained that there
were no officials plans submitted at this time.
The Commissioners asked for clarification of Mr. Funghi's assertion that the traffic data
was prepared by an unlicensed engineer. He stated that the studies should not be
considered valid. Mr. Chou clarified that some of the type of studies conducted did not
require licensing stamps.
Mr. Chou also explained that a simple and obvious test of whether the new red zone
helps with traffic now would be to park a vehicle in the space during the peak morning
and afternoon times.
Chair Londer requested staff to also consider extending the red zone across the street if
it could be done without losing any additional parking spaces, and for staff to report back
to the Commission.
Motion: To accept the staff recommendation to maintain the new single red zone at
Alvarado Avenue
M/S/C: Akers/Simonson; 4/0/1 (Serrano —absent)
Chair
Londer
asked for
Commission
concurrence to move Item 8.1
to precede Item 7.3
so as
to allow
Mr. John
Root to hear
the
update and
go
home early.
Motion: To move Item 8.1 to precede Item 7.3
M/S/C: Simonson/Akers; 4/0/1 (Serrano absent)
e'
7.3 2011 Goal Setting for Commission — Further discussion of possible goals
Mr. Chou sought input and/or clarification of the potential goals established at the last
Commission meeting. He asked if there should be any changes to the list established
at the Commission's last meeting. The Commission felt that the goals identified were
sufficient.
Chair Londer noted that there was a Council Goal Setting session this past Saturday
and two of their goals related to this Commission were:
1. Establish parking permits for employees of Broadway to park in Lot S
2. Look at options for new parking meters that accept credit cards
The Commissioners determined the broad goal of the Commission was to work with
Council in achieving Council goals, improve Council/Commission communication, and
serve a more active role on items related to parking and traffic.
8. INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
8.1 Engineer's Report —Update on various traffic items brought to Commission at last
meeting
Mr. Chou gave an update on the following three items which were brought to the
Commission by Mr. John Root:
Traffic stop signs at Floribunda & Primrose — staff has put out a traffic counter at
this intersection and has collected approximately a week's worth of data which will
be broken down and reviewed to see if it warrants a stop sign.
Consider additional crosswalks at Oak Grove — enhancements were made just prior
to school starting and staff is considering a crosswalk at Arundel. Pedestrian counts
will be performed to further substantiate a crosswalk
Sight visibility & shrubbery at Carmelita & Paloma — awaiting response from Parks
& Rec as to whether or not this is within their scope of work. If not, a letter will be
sent to property owners.
Chair Londer sought public comment. Mr. Root suggests a stop sign as opposed to a
yield sign on Primrose at Floribunda. He also suggested installing a crosswalk at
Ansel & Oak Grove.
Mr. Root expressed his frustration with the slow process to correct the foliage issue at
Paloma & Carmelita. He said this was first brought to the attention of the City in early
2009, and turned over to the Parks Department eight months ago and nothing has
been done to date.
4
8.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report— General/Selective Traffic Enforcement Report
Sergeant Nakiso reported that selective enforcement has been working with San
Mateo Police Department to saturate areas in both San Mateo and Burlingame twice a
month.
8.3 Commissioners' Comments and Concerns
None.
9. COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. COMMISSION &COMMITTEE REPORTS
10.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory committee (B/PAC)
Mr. Chou and Vice -chair Simonson reported that there was no meeting this month.
10.2 Website/Communications Subcommittee
Mr. Chou reported
that he would
be
contacting
each
Commissioner to determine if
there is agreement
to consider use
of
an outside
email
for the entire commission.
10.3 Neighborhood Parking Working Group
Commissioner Noworolski reported that there was a request to Sergeant Nakiso to
collect parking related data in preparation for discussion with DBID for Burlingame
Avenue.
11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
11.1 Devereux Drive/Lincoln School Traffic Flow (March)
11
.2 Pedestrian Corridors (March)
11
.3 Burlingame Avenue 2 -Hour Parking Evaluation (pending date)
11.4 Burlingame Avenue/Downtown Parking Study (pending date)
12. ADJOURNMENT 10:53 p.m.
5
CURRENT BUSINESS -ITEM 7.1
Meeting
STAFF REPORT Date: March 10, 2011
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
TO: Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
DATE: March 4, 2011
FROM: Augustine Chou, Transportation Engineer
SUBJECT: Item 7.1 — Devereux Drive/Lincoln School Traffic Flow
RECOMMENDATION: For the Commission to receive public comment and input, and review staff
analysis regarding the traffic flow situation on Devereux Drive at Lincoln School; and, that both Police
and Engineering staff continue to work with the school administration. No other action to be taken at this
time.
DISCUSSION: The City received a request from Ms. Hannah Klein -Connolly regarding consideration of
One -Way designation for Devereux Drive during school hours at Lincoln School. Her concern is that the
traffic gridlock created as a result of certain cars traveling in the westbound direction causes traffic
safety problems. A video clip link was also included in the email message to help illustrate her
concerns.
http://sharing.theflip.com/session/6439511016c76d7e4fO44fbl a7182589/video/39299821
For this request, staff examined the video clips as well as conducted several site visits to evaluate the
current situation. Staff observed that the most severe traffic congestion occurred during the afternoon
pickup period. Traffic generally travels in the eastbound direction of Devereux during this time period.
The gridlock occurs, however, when one or two vehicles travel in the westbound direction.
Roadway Conditions:
Devereux Drive is 30' wide. The effective travel -way width is reduced to 14' when the 8' wide on -street
parking lanes are occupied on both sides of the street. The minimum lane width for a single travel lane
is 10'. Therefore, during the school pickup and drop off times when cars are parked on both sides of the
street, the width of the effective travel way is reduced to one -lane. Multiple curb areas less than 10' long
have also been red curbed to allow for makeshift "pull-outs" for traffic. A passenger loading zone
currently exists along the frontage of the school. It serves as a student drop-off and pick-up area. Also,
in 2005, the City worked with the school administration and installed high -visibility, marked crosswalks
and SCHOOL CROSSING signs across Devereux Drive, at Lincoln School, in order to highlight and
increase pedestrian safety.
Observations and Analysis:
The majority of the traffic flow along Devereux was observed to be in the eastbound direction. School
Principal Diane Garber was present during these times to help direct traffic and remind parents to move
forward and not contribute to the traffic congestion. Occasional westbound traffic was also observed;
however, this traffic was mostly attributed to parents who arrived early and legally parked in the
westbound direction along the corresponding curb. Regarding school hours, Lincoln School operates on
several start and dismissal "shifts". The start times begin at 8:30 AM and 9:30 AM, with a 10:15 AM start
Page 1 of 2
S:\A Public Works
Directory\TSP
Commission\Staff Reports\2011\3-10-11
SR -7.1 Devereux -Lincoln Traffic.doc
for kindergarteners on Tuesdays. The dismissal times are at 12 noon, 1:50 PM, and 3:00 PM, with
11:25 AM for kindergarteners and 2:00 PM for everyone else on Tuesdays. A designated white,
passenger loading zone runs along the frontage of the school property on Devereux. Usage of the
passenger loading zone is very high and very consistent during drop-off and pick-up times. Occasional
double-parking was observed, which caused temporary gridlock on the street. This was quickly
responded to by school personnel. Incidents of temporary parking across residential driveways were
also observed.
The school administration has worked hard to educate and inform driving parents about voluntarily
coming from the eastbound direction of Devereux Drive. As stated, instances of observed westbound
vehicles usually were the result of early -arriving parents who parked and were now leaving. Staff
observed the traffic congestion to last about 5-10 minutes. Staff also observed that the permanently
staggered, start/dismissal schedule helped reduce the traffic impact on Devereux by spreading the total
amount of school traffic into several periods.
Designating Devereux Drive as a one-way street, either permanently or for specific hours may not
alleviate the traffic congestion situation. First, the City would have to establish a method to gain and
maintain residential support for such a restriction. Compliance might be a problem, as residents along
this portion of Devereux would need to realize that during these times, some of them would be required
to drive to the far end of the street in order to enter or leave their homes. Second, there could be a
problem with enforcement since Police personnel are also needed at all the other schools at the same
time. Without vigilant enforcement, the congestion problem would return conditions to present day.
Third, implementing a one-way street even for certain hours, would mean increasing traffic congestion
on the approach streets by focusing all incoming vehicles on those streets, essentially spreading the
congestion to some outlining streets. Staff strongly believes that these issues would need to be
addressed and resolved before further consideration of such an option.
Page 2 of 2
S:W Public Works Directory\TSP Commission\Stall Reports\2011\3-10-11 SR -7.1 Devereux -Lincoln Traffic.doc
EXHIBIT 7.1A -CORRESPONDENCE
PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine
From: Hannah Klein Connolly [hannah@hannahk.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 7:04 PM
To: PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine
Cc: Diane Barber; Michael Brownrigg; Jeff Londer
Subject: video from infront of Lincoln School at drop off/pick up
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Blue
Hi Andrew.
Thank you for your email.
I video taped Devereux Drive at school drop off and pick up
You can see from these videos how terrible traffic becomes when one car travels west on
Devereau infront of Lincoln School. As you can see, this isnot only a traffic issue, but a safety
concern as well.
Please let me know what our next steps might be to have the block in question made into a ONE
WAY street during school hours?
best,
Hannah
New Flip Video
Message from brena:
here
I 2 videos
'i �
I
i;
;'{ Untitled
2:39
3/7/2011
Shaot Anything, Share Evorything
Flip Video Store � Find a Retail+
Untitled
3:45
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2
PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine
From: Hannah Klein Connolly [hannah@hannahk.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:34 PM
To: PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine
Subject: Re: Lincoln School Traffic Situation
Thank you, Augusfine. I look forward to meeting you.
best,
Hannah
On Feb 25, 2011, at 11:29 AM, PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine wrote:
Hello, Hannah
Public notices to the neighborhood should be going out next week. I will also make sure
that the video is available to the Commission both before and at the actual meeting. The
meeting date is Thursday, March 10, at 7PM in the Council Chambers. I look forward to
meeting you then.
Regards,
AUGUSTINE CHOU -TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS -ENGINEERING DIVISION
CITY OF BURLINGAME
50 t PRIMROSE ROAD
(650) 558.7236
From: Hannah Klein Connolly [mailto:hannahCalhannahk.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 6:52 PM
To: PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine
Cc: Jeff Londer; Diane Barber; Deanna Kroetz
Subject: Re: Lincoln School Traffic Situation
Hi Augustine,
I wanted to send out an email to folks at Lincoln to make sure a few individuals can
attend. Just double checking to see if we are still on the agenda?
I also wanted to be sure that you have the video to provide/show the commission?
best,
hannah
On Jan 21, 2011, at 12:04 PM, PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine wrote
Hello. Hannah Klein.
Thank you for your message regarding the traffic situation on Devereux
and Lincoln School. This matter has been scheduled on the City's Traffic Safety and
Parking Commission agenda for the March 10 meeting. As part of the public discussion
process, the surrounding neighborhood and school representatives will also be invited. The
Commission will explore the various options to address your concerns about traffic
congestion and safety on Devereux, including your suggestion into temporary one -streets.
Please
feel
free
to contact
me
directly if you have
any other questions about this matter,
and we
will
see
if they can
be
resolved together.
3/7/2011
Page 2 of 2
Regards,
AUGUSTINE CHOU -TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS -ENGINEERING DIVISION
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
(650) 558-7236
3/7/2011
CURRENT BUSINESS -ITEM 7.2
Meeting
STAFF REPORT Date: March 10, 2011
AGENDA ITEM 71
TO: Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
DATE: March 4, 2011
FROM: Augustine Chou, Transportation Engineer
SUBJECT: Item 7.2 — Commission Appeals Policy Document
RECOMMENDATION: For the Commission to review, discuss and/or modify, and accept the attached
Commission Appeals Policy.
DISCUSSION: In 2008, the Commission and staff put together several Commission policy documents.
The current Appeals Policy was one of those documents. Staff has determined that "Section III —
Appeals Process to City Council" of this policy would benefit from additional clarification.
The proposed modifications to the document are shown through strikeout for deletions and through bold,
italic, underline for additions. Review, comment, modification, and acceptance of the proposed changes
would mean that this and other Commission policy documents can be added to the City's website
immediately upon completion of updating the Commission's portion of the website.
Page 1 of 1
S:W
Public Works
Directory\TSP
Commission\Staff Reports\2011\3-10-11
SR -7.2
Appeals
Policy Modification.doc
EXHIBIT 7.2A -POLICY DOCUMENT
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
APPEALS PROCESS
Appeals
The Chair will announce the rights of appeal of the decision as established by the
Commission following a final decision. Persons interested in appealing a
Commission decision should contact the Public Works —Engineering Department
the next business day to make sure that the appeal process, any fees, and time
requirements are understood.
II. Appeals Process Back To Commission
A. Appeals from the Public —Any determination and/or decision made by the
Commission shall stand for a period of six months. There shall be a six-
month moratorium on appeals for that particular matter, and the
Commission will not entertain any requests directly from the public for
appeals on that particular matter for the six-month period after the initial
determination of the matter. At the end of the six-month period, any person
may present an appeal and request for a review from the Commission.
B. Reviews from the Commission —Any Commission member may request
that a previously acted -on matter be revisited for review.
1: A Commissioner may request, at a subsequent regular meeting,
that a matter be reviewed by the entire Commission based on new
or changing evidence that may have a direct bearing on the matter
and the determination voted on at the previous meeting. A vote
will then be taken on whether to approve the revisiting of the
matter and have it placed on the agenda for the next regular
meeting.
2. The Commission Chair has the authority to have a matter placed
directly on a subsequent agenda for the next regular meeting. A
vote will then be taken on whether to approve the revisiting of the
matter and have it placed on the agenda for the next regular
meeting.
3. In either situations described above in Section B-1 and B-2, if the
six-month time period is applicable, after being reviewed and
denied, the original matter will be subject to a new six-month time
period.
-1-
Approved on May 8, 2008
III. Appeals Process To City Council
A. After a determination and decision by the Commission, any person may
appeal the Commission decision to the City Council. An appeal must be
filed by the eRd es the ne)d Gity reu n6l meeting Within 10 working days
decision to the office of the City Clerk. The following must UOUubmitted in
order for the appeal to be effective:
The appeal must be in writing.
2.
The written
appeal #must be
submitted
to
beth the Public Works —
Engineering
Department
and to
the office
of
the City Clerk,
3. A required fee must be included to the submission to the City Clerk.
The fee amount shall be determined by the City's Fee Schedule. (If
a request for review or an appeal is presented or advocated by a
Commissioner or staff, no fees are required.)
B. At its next regular meeting following the appeal or �"^ ��^^^��^^ "+"^
GOunGqI,eF taan.i meeting thereafter to wh'eh the ma#er m he nen+'n cell
the council shall may conduct a hearing thereon. After having held such
hearing, the council shall make and file its order determining the matter and
may approve, disapprove or modify the order of the commission.
-2-
Approved: May 8, 2008
Revised: