Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2010.05.131. CALL TO ORDER I_T X► E_I May 73, 2070 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -April 8, 2010 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 fill 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 Adeline/Cortez Intersection &Pedestrian Access —Discussion 8. INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 8.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 8.1.1 101 Auxiliary Lane Project —Staff Update 8.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report 8.2.1 General/Selective Traffic Enforcement Report —Staff Update 8.3 Commissioners' Comments and Concerns 8.3.1 Miscellaneous 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. 1UO COMMISSION IN COMMITTEE REPORTS 10.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian AdvisoryCommittee (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 Dates for discussion to be determined later by Staff or Commissioners. 11.1 Temporary street closures for pedestrian mall concept (June) 11.2 Burlingame Avenue 2 -Hour Parking Evaluation (October) 11.3 Radar Speed Trailer —Future Procurement (Discussion Date Pending) 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- CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org Meeting Minuteapproved Thursday,April 8, 2010 Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Mark NoworolskiI Chair Jeff Londer, Vice Chair Nicklas Akers Laurie Simonson Caroline Serrato Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Sgt. Don Shepley, Police Department Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Visitors: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Jok Legallet, 1474 Alvarado Avenue Kim Rosales, 1504 Cortez Avenue Joe Galligan, 2404 Easton Avenue Peter Comaroto, 1576 Cypress Avenue Michael Rudolph, 1435 Alvarado Avenue Stanley Kubiak, 6 Blackhawk Lane Alexandra Kromelow, 2621 Adeline Drive 1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 5 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Motion: To accept the minutes of March 11, 2009 with the correction of item 10.2, rnmmigciLnner Akers �inll intePred to terve nn the Website/Communications Subcommittee. M/S/C: Akers/Conder; 4/0/1 (Commissioner Simonson abstained) Ow PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 7. CURRENT BUSINESS 7.1 Mercy High School: Alvarado/Adeline Traffic — Discussion Mr. Chou provided background information and a staff report with a recommendation for this commission to recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the Conditional Use Permit with amendment to increase student enrollment by 40 students and 3 faculty; and, for Mercy to implement certain conditions. Chair Noworolski opened the floor for public comment. Alexandra Kromelow stated the residents have been very patient and expressed the need to reduce the amount of traffic in the area as it has become unbearable in the neighborhood. Ms. Kromelow felt that the traffic needs to be reduced by 20% or at least reduce their student body by this amount. Ms. Kromelow felt it is up to the City of Burlingame to require Mercy to make changes in their traffic patterns. Ms. Kromelow felt that any changes towards improving the traffic should be reviewed again in a year. Chair Noworolski invited school representatives to speak to make a clarification. Leigh Prince, attorney for Mercy, stated she wanted to clarify that this is the first time that Mercy is asking for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with an increase in enrollment, as opposed to what was suggested in the staff report. In 1979, the CUP allowed an enrollment of 530 of which 30 were Montessori students. The 2007 figures reported were baseline numbers. From 2003 — 2010, the number of vehicles did increase but primarily due to the change in DMV laws restricting drivers under 18 from carrying non -licensed, under -21 passengers. Ms. Prince also stated that there are no planned future expansions or increases in enrollment. Stanley Kubiak expressed his concern that the traffic in the area had clearly changed in the last year, and that there was a need for someone to direct traffic. Mr. Kubiak stated that he did not believe that emergency vehicles could get through Avarado. He urged that actual numbers be checked to know what is really going on and to not rely from memory for this information. Michael Rudolph stated he only received notice of this meeting 24 hours prior and felt that was not adequate notice. Mr. Rudolph felt the options brought forward were not necessarily bad, but that there was a need for enforcement to slow people down. Peter Comorato stated that traffic at all Burlingame schools should be looked at. He was concerned that since Mercy is a private school, it seemed that this situation was being put under a microscope. Mr. Comorato stated the City should expand this review process to all public schools and have this scope in mind when considering how to proceed forward. Joe Galligan, Mercy Board Member, stated that Mercy spends $25,000 annual in support of the Shuttle program. He added that traffic patterns are discussed every year at every school. Mr. Galligan felt that if they could change the traffic flow it would help greatly. Jok Legallet stated traffic has increased with more students driving when compared to 5 years ago. Mr. Legallet felt the increased enrollment which Mercy is asking for would make the traffic situation much worse. Chair Noworlski acknowledged letters received from Jeb Gibney, Aria KasugaI Steve and Wendy Ehrlich, Carol Gaul and Tracy Borman. Discussion occurred amongst the Commissioners regarding various conditions including trained individual to direct traffic, off-site drop off on Hillside, and speed enforcement options. After several unsuccessful attempts to formulate a passing motion, one was finally made: Motion: WHEREAS Mercy High School (the HIGH SCHOOL) and the Sisters of Mercy (the SISTERS) have applied to the Planning Commission for an amendment (the AMENDMENT) to the conditional use permit (the CUP) for 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive (the PROPERTY) that would authorize an increase in enrollment at the HIGH SCHOOL; WHEREAS, the Commission has received and considered all written documentation and oral testimony submitted from all interested persons, and WHEREAS it has also visited the site and spoken with neighbors and the APPLICANTS, WHEREAS the present operation of the HIGH SCHOOL creates traffic congestion along both Adeline and Alvarado. WHEREAS residents have informed the Commission that vehicles parked along the street have been struck, and that vehicles traveling to and from the HIGH SCHOOL along Alvarado frequently do so at an excessive rate of speed; WHEREAS it is the sense of the Commission that, given the existing commuting patterns amonU HIGH SCHOOL students, the increase in enrollment that would be permitted by the AMENDMENT will have a substantial traffic impact on the community; and WHEREAS the Commission believes that the conditions att ached to a CUP should be designed to provide the City with the flexibility to implement a mix of approaches to mitigate the traffic impacts of the HIGH SCHOOL; The Commission therefore respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission should grant the amendment with the following conditions: a The High School shall achieve at least a 10% reduction in traffic through the Alvarado Gate during morning and afternoon peak hours: • The City may designate one or more offsite drop off locations at which students may be picked up or dropped off. ® A representative of Mercy High Alvarado Gate duri Alng the morning expense provide the staff member requested by the Police Department. School shall direct traffic entering and exiting the end afternoon hours. The High School shall at its or representative with any training or equipment ® That the Planning Commission should also require the HIGH SCHOOL to study and report back concerning the possibility and feasibility of reconfiguring: (a) The turnaround in front of the HIGH SCHOOL; (b) The access road between the gate located at Alvarado and Adeline (the ALVARADO GATE) and the turnaround; and/or (c) The adjacent HIGH SCHOOL parking lots in order to improve traffic flow and reduce backup onto city streets at the beginning and end of the school day. The Planning Commission should consider mandating such reconfiguration as a further condition of approval for the proposed CUP. M/S/C: Akers/Conder; 4/0/1 (Noworolski abstained) 7.2 Ray Drive/EI Camino Real Intersection Evaluation —Discussion Mr. Chou presented a staff report which recommended that staff work with a TSPC subcommittee to develop a citywide collision "pin map". Police and Engineering staff would provide data. Chair Noworolski volunteered to serve on this subcommittee. 7.3 Adeline/Cortez Intersection &Pedestrian Access —Discussion Mr. Chou presented a staff report that recommended no further action be taken at this time based on results from traffic studies performed at this intersection. Commissioner Akers stated that he received feedback from ten residents who are strongly in support of a crosswalk. Kimberly Rosales spoke in support of a crosswalk. She said that a good number of children cross at the intersection and that there was a large amount of traffic. The Commission discussed continuing this item to allow for more public comment since this meeting was right around the spring break for schools. Motion: Move to table this matter and continue this item to the next month's meeting. M/S/C: Simonson, Serrato; 5/0/0 Staff Reports 8.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 8. 1.1 101 Auxiliary Lane Project — Staff Update Mr. Chou reported on the NO RIGHT ON RED sign problems that have been occurring at Rollins Road and Broadway. He stated that traffic congestion has lightened up since the removal of the signs. Mr. Chou also reported that Caltrans work was still continuing for the Peninsula Avenue area. He said that the concrete barrier on the north wall still needed to be poured before traffic could be switched over on the overpass. 8.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report 8.2.1 General/Selective Traffic Enforcement Report — Staff Update Sergeant Shepley reported that the Police Department was working with the Alcohol Beverage Control in hopes of getting another grant to fund the purchase of a ticket machine. Sergeant Shepley also provided the current Selective Enforcement list. 8.3 Commissioners' Comments and Concerns Commissioner Simonson inquired about the status of Lot C. Mr. Chou responded that the contractors still needed to fill in a section of the "rain garden" and found that the top soil was too acidic. Mr. Chou stated that the completion should occur in the next 2-3 weeks. Commissioner Simonson inquired if Sergeant Shepley had any information regarding a bicyclist accident that occurred near the Burlingame train station. Commissioner Londer reiterated that the Drive Less Challenge would be held on April 22�dHe added that interested parties could sign up and participate at the website, www. drivelesschallenge.com. 9. COMMUNICATIONS Chair Noworolski stated that he had received a communication from Councilmember Brownrigg pertaining to crosswalks at Adeline and Cortez. Its] k& I LTJ 16101 Lei 0i 10.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory committee (B/PAC) Commissioner Simonson reported that she att ended the National Bike Summit in Washington DC. She explained that the convention allowed attendees to learn what other cities were doing for bicycle pedestrian advocacy. 10.2 Website/Communications Subcommittee None. 10.3 Neighborhood Parking Working Group None. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 10.4 Burlingame Avenue 2 -Hour Parking Evaluation (October) 10.5 Radar Speed Trailer —Future Procurement (Discussion date pending) 11.ADJOURNMENT 10:21 pm LUAWAUAL0=9• CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org Meeting Minutes Unapproved Thursday,April 8, 2010 Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Mark NoworolskiI Chair Jeff Londer, Vice Chair Nicklas Akers Laurie Simonson Caroline Serrato None Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Sgt. Don Shepley, Police Department Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Visitors: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Jok Legallet, 1474 Alvarado Avenue Kim Rosales, 1504 Cortez Avenue Joe Galligan, 2404 Easton Avenue Peter Comaroto, 1576 Cypress Avenue Michael Rudolph, 1435 Alvarado Avenue Stanley Kubiak, 6 Blackhawk Lane Alexandra Kromelow, 2621 Adeline Drive Leigh Prince, Mercy High School Laura Held, Mercy High School 1. CALL TO ORDER. 700 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 5 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Motion: To accept the minutes of March 11, 2009 with the correction of item 10.2, Commissioner. Akers volunteered to serve on the Website/Communications Subcommittee. M/S/C: Akers/Londer; 4/0/1 (Commissioner Simonson abstained) 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 7. CURRENT BUSINESS 7.1 Mercy High School: Alvarado/Adeline Traffic — Discussion Mr. Chou provided background information and a staff report with a recommendation for this commission to recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the Conditional Use Permit with amendment to increase student enrollment by 40 students and 3 faculty; and, for Mercy to implement certain conditions. Chair Noworolski opened the floor for public comment. Alexandra Kromelow stated the residents have been very patient and expressed the need to reduce the amount of traffic in the area as it has become unbearable in the neighborhood. Ms. Kromelow felt that the traffic needs to be reduced by 20% or at least reduce their student body by this amount. Ms. Kromelow felt it is up to the City of Burlingame to require Mercy to make changes in their traffic patterns. Ms. Kromelow felt that any changes towards improving the traffic should be reviewed again in a year. Chair Noworolski invited school representatives to speak to make a clarification. Leigh Prince, attorney for Mercy, stated she wanted to clarify that this is the first time that Mercy is asking for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with an increase in enrollment, as opposed to what was suggested in the staff report. In 1979, the CUP allowed an enrollment of 530 of which 30 were Montessori students. The 2007 figures reported were baseline numbers. From 2003 — 2010, the number of vehicles did increase but primarily due to the change in DMV laws restricting drivers under 18 from carrying non -licensed, under -21 passengers. Ms. Prince also stated that there are no planned future expansions or increases in enrollment. Stanley Kubiak expressed his concern that the traffic in the area had clearly changed in the last year, and that there was a need for someone to direct traffic. Mr. Kubiak stated that he did not believe that emergency vehicles could get through Avarado. He urged that actual numbers be checked to know what is really going on and to not rely from memory for this information. Michael Rudolph stated he only received notice of this meeting 24 hours prior and felt that was not adequate notice. Mr. Rudolph felt the options brought forward were not necessarily bad, but that there was a need for enforcement to slow people down. Peter Comorato stated that traffic at all Burlingame schools should be looked at. He was concerned that since Mercy is a private school, it seemed that this situation was being put under a microscope. Mr. Comorato stated the City should expand this review process to all public schools and have this scope in mind when considering how to proceed forward. Joe Galligan, Mercy Board Member, stated that Mercy spends $25,000 annual in support of the Shuttle program. He added that traffic patterns are discussed every year at every school. Mr. Galligan felt that if they could change the traffic flow it would help greatly. Jok Legallet stated traffic has increased with more students driving when compared to 5 years ago. Mr. Legallet felt the increased enrollment which Mercy is asking for would make the traffic situation much worse. Chair Noworlski acknowledged letters received from Jeb Gibney, Aria Kasuga, Steve and Wendy Ehrlich, Carol Gaul and Tracy Borman. Discussion occurred amongst the Commissioners regarding various conditions including trained individual to direct traffic, off-site drop off on Hillside, and speed enforcement options. After several unsuccessful attempts to formulate a passing motion, one was finally made: Motion: WHEREAS Mercy High School (the HIGH SCHOOL) and the Sisters of Mercy (the SISTERS) have applied to the Planning Commission for an amendment (the AMENDMENT) to the conditional use permit (the CUP) for 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive (the PROPERTY) that would authorize an increase in enrollment at the HIGH SCHOOL; WHEREAS, the Commission has received and considered all written documentation and oral testimony submitted from all interested persons, and WHEREAS a has also visited the site and spoken with neighbors and the APPLICANTS; WHEREAS the present operation of the HIGH SCHOOL creates traffic congestion along both Adeline and Alvarado. WHEREAS residents have informed the Commission that vehicles parked along the street have been struck, and that vehicles traveling to and from the HIGH SCHOOL along Alvarado frequently do so at an excessive rate of speed, WHEREAS it is the sense of the Commission that, given the existing commuting patt erns among HIGH SCHOOL students, the increase in enrollment that would be permitted by the AMENDMENT will have a substantial traffic impact on the community; and WHEREAS the Commission believes that the conditions attached to a CUP should be designed to provide the City with the flexibility to implement a mix of approaches to mitigate the traffic impacts of the HIGH SCHOOL; The Commission therefore respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission should grant the amendment with the following conditions: ® The High School shall achieve at least a 10% reduction in traffic through the Alvarado Gate during morning and afternoon peak hours. ® The City may designate one or more offsite drop off locations at which students may be picked up or dropped off. ® A representative of Mercy High Alvarado Gate during the morning expense provide the staff member requested by the Police Department. School shall direct traffic entering and exiting the and afternoon hours. The High School shall at its or representative with any training or equipment ® That the Planning Commission should also require the HIGH SCHOOL to study and report back concerning the possibility and feasibility of reconfiguring: (a) The turnaround in front of the HIGH SCHOOL; (b) The access road between the gate located at Alvarado and Adeline (the ALVARADO GATE) and the turnaround; and/or (c) The adjacent HIGH SCHOOL parking lots in order to improve traffic flow and reduce backup onto city streets at the beginning and end of the school day. The Planning Commission should consider mandating such reconfiguration as a further condition of approval for the proposed CUP. M/S/C: Akers/Conder; 4/0/1 (Noworolski abstained) 7.2 Ray Drive/EI Camino Real Intersection Evaluation —Discussion Mr. Chou presented a staff report which. recommended that staff work with a TSPC subcommittee to develop a citywide collision "pin map". Police and Engineering staff would provide data. Chair Noworolski volunteered to serve on this subcommittee. 7.3 Adeline/Cortez Intersection &Pedestrian Access —Discussion Mr. Chou presented a staff report that recommended no further action be taken at this time based on results from traffic studies performed at this intersection. Commissioner Akers stated that he received feedback from ten residents who are strongly in support of a crosswalk. Kimberly Rosales spoke in support of a crosswalk. She said that a good number of children cross at the intersection and that there was a large amount of traffic. The Commission discussed continuing this item to allow for more public comment since this meeting was right around the spring break for schools. Motion: Move to table this matter and continue this item to the next month's meeting. M/S/C: Simonson, Serrato; 5/0/0 8. Staff Reports 8.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 8. 1.1 101 Auxiliary Lane Project — Staff Update Mr. Chou reported on the NO RIGHT ON RED sign problems that have been occurring at Rollins Road and Broadway. He stated that traffic congestion has lightened up since the removal of the signs. Mr. Chou also reported that Caltrans work was still continuing for the Peninsula Avenue area. He said that the concrete barrier on the north wall still needed to be poured before traffic could be switched over on the overpass. 8.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report 8.2.1 General/Selective Traffic Enforcement Report — Staff Update Sergeant Shepley reported that the Police Department was working with the Alcohol Beverage Control in hopes of getting another grant to fund the purchase of a ticket machine. Sergeant Shepley also provided the current Selective Enforcement list. 8.3 Commissioners' Comments and Concerns Commissioner Simonson inquired about the status of Lot C. Mr. Chou responded that the contractors still needed to fill in a section of the "rain garden" and found that the top soil was too acidic. Mr. Chou stated that the completion should occur in the next 2-3 weeks. Commissioner Simonson inquired if Sergeant Shepley had any information regarding a bicyclist accident that occurred near the Burlingame train station. Commissioner Louder reiterated that the Drive Less Challenge would be held on April 22nd' He added that interested parties could sign up and participate at the website, www.drivelesschallenge.com. 9. COMMUNICATIONS Chair Noworolski stated that he had received a communication from Councilmember Brownrigg pertaining to crosswalks at Adeline and Cortez. 10. COMMISSION &COMMITTEE REPORTS 10.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory committee (B/PAC) Commissioner Simonson reported that she att ended the National Bike Summit in Washington DC. She explained that the convention allowed attendees to learn what other cities were doing for bicycle pedestrian advocacy. 10.2 Website/Communications Subcommittee None. 10.3 Neighborhood Parking Working Group None. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 10.4 Burlingame Avenue 2 -Hour Parking Evaluation (October) 10.5 Radar Speed Trailer —Future Procurement (Discussion date pending) 11.ADJOURNMENT 10:21 pm r s � TO: Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission DATE: May 10, 2010 FROM: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Item 7.1 —Adeline/Cortez Intersection &Pedestrian Access Meeting Date: May 13, 2010 RECOMMENDATION: To concur with staff on the installation of SCHOOL CROSSING signs (S1-1 and W16JP) and SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT signs (S4 -3P, R2-1, and S3 -2P) on Adeline Drive at the approaches to the Adeline Dr/Cortez Ave intersection. BACKGROUND: The City was approached by some residents through Council to examine the current pedestrian/student crossing situation at Adeline and Cortez. Specifically, staff was to look into pedestrian safety at the intersection. The concern is that this intersection is used by students of Lincoln Elementary School and does not have any marked pedestrian crosswalks. Several field studies were conducted to determine the level and amount of pedestrian usage at this intersection. DISCUSSION: Physical conditions are such that Adeline Drive is a collector street situated roughly in the east/west orientation, with Cortez Avenue intersecting it roughly in the north/south direction. The intersection is a 2 -way stop controlled intersection with both approaches along Cortez being controlled by stop signs. Adeline Drive has no control and traffic on this street has the right-of-way. Lincoln Elementary School and Ray Park are located roughly north of Adeline Drive. Pedestrian access to both sites is available from Cortez Avenue, as well as from parallel streets (Cabrillo Avenue and Balboa Avenue). An examination of the adjacent intersections along Adeline show that they are fully controlled by 4 -way stoV s and have four fully marked crosswalks installed. These intersections are Adeline/Cabrillo and Adeline/Balboa. The residential request stemmed from a desire to improve pedestrian visibility and reduce high vehicle speeds at the intersection. This request involved the installation of marked crosswalks at the intersection. In order to begin the evaluation, staff conducted a pedestrian count to get an accurate picture of the pedestrian usage at the intersection. Afterwards, a determination would be needed to see if marked crosswalks were needed or warranted. Seven pedestrian crossing counts were conducted at the Adeline/Cort ez intersection. Two counts were done during the afternoon period and five were done for the morning period. All counts were done on typical school days. The counts were done to determine the volume of pedestrians using the intersection during the start and end times of Lincoln School. The results showed that an average of six pedestrians (and no more than four students from Lincoln Elementary School) used this intersection to cross during the morning period. Fieid observations further revealed that a greater number of pedestrians (students and parents) use the two adjacent stop - controlled intersections of Adeline/Cabrillo and Adeline/Balboa. This is most likely due to the fact that these two intersections provide better and safer access points to the school than does the intersection at Cortez and Adeline. Page 1 of 3 S:W 0ublic Works Directory\TSP Commice ion\Stoff Reports\2010\5-13-10 SR -7.1 Adeline -Cortez Ped Safetydoc Next staff evaluated the installation of marked crosswalks at the intersection, but determined that this installation cannot be justified or supported because the conditions are contrary to the standards and guidelines set forth in the 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). ® Marked crosswalks should be used at controlled intersections such as signalized or STOPNIELD controlled intersections. ® Marked crosswalks are used to indicate to pedestrians that a particular location is recommended to be safer or otherwise preferred by the City for use over other locations. Essentially, a marked crosswalk implies to the public that this is the "best" or most preferred point for crossing a roadway. ® This intersection is bounded on both sides with full, 4 -way stop -controlled intersections which already have marked crosswalks. ® This intersection does not have significant pedestrian volumes throughout the day as compared to other intersections. There have been no engineering studies to demonstrate that installing marked crosswalks at uncontrolled, low -pedestrian volume intersections makes it safer for pedestrians. Rather, such installations may instead, create a false sense of security for pedestrians. Furthermore, such installations can create a greater hazard by decreasing pedestrian diligence, increasing over reliance that painted lines will stop cars, and that drivers will always assume pedestrian presence at all marked crosswalks at all times. Regarding vehicle speeds, there has been no determination on whether there is a widespread speeding problem on this part of Adeline Drive. Field observations have revealed that during the study time periods, the vast majority of the vehicle speeds have not exceeded the 25 mph speed limit. Staff has, however, observed at least one occasion when a vehicle did accelerate from Cabrillo to Balboa, exceeding 30 mph. Staff believes that a better alternative to addressing the concerns would be to install warning signs along Adeline Drive between Cabrillo and Balboa, along the approaches to Cortez Avenue. The new signs would be used to advise drivers that they are still near a school zone by way of the SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT sign assembly (S4 -3P, R2A, and S3 -2P); and, by warning them that school students may be present at the unmarked crosswalk through the use of the SCHOOL CROSSING sign assembly (SlA and W16 -7P). (See attachment for diagrams.) Page 2 of 3 S:W Public Works Directory\TSP Commission\Staff Reports\2010\5-13-10 SR -7.1 Adeline -Cortez Ped Safety.doc School Advance Warning Assembly 51-1 Ni6.9p OR i 3 W16 -2a )R I W16-2 EET )R DMIWM2a )R T� 1 W1 G-2 S3.1 S�8.5 J\r16-Tp SCHOOL; SPLED LIMIT A �'�. 0 a km/h WHEN FLASHING 11 54-1 DR A��RME�� ���NnE9Y.11i S4_2 OR FLA8rC1""I OR MON-FRI S4-6 S�1-ba C+1;1 ENti SCHOOL ZONE S6.2 _scHOOL SA•3 SPEED LDIMIT o km/h 930 AM t0 op Phi A2-1 54-1 Page 3 of 3 S:W Public Works Directory\TSP Commission\Staff Reports\2010\5-13-10 SR -7.1 Adeline -Cortez Ped Safety.doc !I MINE 111, 111 11,111 111,111 1111111 MINE 111111 11 11 IIK Pill 114 a 1, `" 2009 Edition Section 38.18 Crosswalk Markings Support: of Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops. 02 In conjunction with signs and other measures, crosswalk markings help to alert road users of a designated pedestrian crossing point across roadways at locations that are not controlled by traffic control signals or STOP or YIELD signs. 03 At non -intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk. Standard: 04 When crosswalk lines are used, they shall consist of solid white lines that mark the crosswalk. They shall not be less than 6 inches or greater than 24 inches in width. Guidance: 05 If transverse lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the gap between the lines should not be less than 6 feet. If diagonal or longitudinal lines are used without transverse lines to mark a crosswalk, the crosswalk should be not less than 6 feet wide. 06 Crosswalk lines, if used on both sides of the crosswalk, should extend across the full width of pavement or to the edge of the intersecting crosswalk to discourage diagonal walking between crosswalks (see Figures 3B47 and 3849). 07 At locations controlled by traffic control signals or on approaches controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, crosswalk lines should be installed where engineering judgment indicates they are needed to direct pedestrians to the proper crossing path(s). m December 2009 Sect. 3B.18 Crosswalk liiaes should not be used indiscriminately. An engineeriiag study shoaild be performed before a marked crosswalk is installed at a location away from a traffic control signal or an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign. The engineering study should consider the number of lanes, the presence of a median, the distance from adjacent signalized intersections, the pedestrian volumes and delays, the average daily traffic (ADT), the posted or statutory speed limit or 85" percentile speed, the geometry of the location, the possible consolidation of multiple crossing points, the availability of street lighting, and other appropriate factors. New marked crosswalks alone, without other measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, enhance driver awareness of the crossing, and/or provide active warning of pedestrian presence, should not be installed across uncontrolled roadways where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph and either: A. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel without a raised median or pedestrian reficge island and an ADT of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater; or B. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 15,000 vehicles per day or greater. Sect. 313 .18 December 2009 PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine From: Tommy Hawkins [tommyhawkins@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:58 PM To: PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine Subject: Comments for the Adeline/Cortez Pedestrian Safety meeting May 13 2010 10 May 2010 Burlingame Traffic Safety and Parking Commission RE: Adeline/Cortez Pedestrian Safety Commission Members, Page 1 of 1 1 have lived near this intersection for close to 19 years now. Frankly, as during the previous discussion on this intersection, 5 or 6 years ago as I recall, I see no ongoing problem or critical concern here. The last time this topic arose the commission members wisely overruled a proposal for a Stop sign at this intersection. Anew Stop sign then, as now, is unlikely to resolve whatever incident prompted this latest meeting. Anew Stop sign then, as now, would not be a fair sharing of the road by vehicle and pedestrian alike along Adeline. I understand that Cortez leads to an entrance to Ray Park and Lincoln School near here and for that reason there are often children in the area. However, within one block in either direction are intersections that already have Stop signs and painted intersections (Adeline/Cabrillo and Adeline/Balboa) and provide easy access to the school and park. Anyone with a critical concern they cannot safely cross Adeline at Cortez needs only to add one very short block to their walk. If there is a safety issue in this area it's that a fair number of drivers fail to make a full stop at the existing Stop signs at Adeline/Balboa and Adeline/Cabrillo. It's no more likely they would perform better if a 3�d such stop was added at Adeline/Cortez. In my observations the biggest offenders of failing to come to a complete stop at the Stop signs are parents who are late dropping off their kids at school at Lincoln or up Adeline at Mercy. A reasonable and fair plan to improve safety in this area would be to: 1. Paint Yellow cross walks at the Adeline/Cortez corner for greater visibility. This approach seemingly has worked well at the two entrances to Lincoln School on Devereux and to Ray Park at the corner of Devereaux/Balboa where no Stop signs are currently in use. 2. Have some occasional enforcement of the Stop signs on the full length of Adeline. 3. Consider closing the Cortez entrance to the park thus funneling pedestrians to the stopped corners of Adeline/Cabrillo and Adeline/Balboa though this seems a bit extreme to me. I thank you for taking my comments into consideration in this matter. Regards, Tommy Hawkins 1465 Cabrifio Ave Burlingame 5/10/2010