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