Loading...
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: