Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - TSP - 2020.08.131 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Approved Minutes Regular Meeting of Thursday, August 13, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Bush, Israelit, Londer, Martos, Wettan MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) July 9, 2020 Meeting Minutes Meeting minutes to be approved at the September 10, 2020 TSPC meeting. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA Mayor Beach thanked the Commission for the work they do on behalf of the City. She acknowledged that there is a lot going on in the City in regards to traffic safety and parking issues. Mayor Beach stated she appreciates all the feedback from the Commission and thanked the Commission again for their ongoing efforts. Chair Israelit thanked the Mayor for joining the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) this evening. 6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS a) Community B/PAC Update (Informational Only) No update. 2 b) Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Update Mr. Wong stated the Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan open house link was sent to TSPC and B/PAC, but it is not scheduled to go live to the public until August 20 for a period of two weeks. Mr. Wong turned the presentation over to the City’s consultant, Otto Melara with Alta Planning + Design, Inc. Mr. Malera stated the focus of the evening’s presentation is to go over the draft network recommendations, the virtual open house, and review the study corridors/alternatives. Mr. Malera stated there are 27.4 miles of proposed bike improvements which consist of bicycle boulevards (3B), Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 bike routes, and study corridors. He indicated the idea is to provide different alternatives for residents and stakeholders to vote on the various conceptual designs. Mr. Malera stated with the current network and proposed improvements, the City would essentially have roughly 42 miles of bikeways in Burlingame. He also indicated there are proposed enhancements to the pedestrian network on the various arterial, collector, local, and high volume streets. Commissioner Martos asked if the slides from the presentation could be part of the virtual open house tool as he found them to be very helpful. Mr. Malera then proceeded to provide a tour of the virtual open house website. He pointed out there is a “how to” video on the home page to assist people in navigating the site. Mr. Malera explained the site introduction goes over high level plan goals, then reiterates themes and takeaways heard from stakeholders, provides a review of recommendations, and goes over various proposed facilities in the toolkit, including photos and explanations of the various proposed treatments. Similarly, he said there is a pedestrian facilities toolkit. Mr. Malera then walked through some of the maps and questions posed of the proposed bike and pedestrian improvements. [Please see attached presentation for additional details, including the draft network recommendations, spot improvements, corridor types, etc.] Commissioner Martos stated he liked the interactive website and survey. He also felt the YouTube video was very well done to guide people through website. Commissioner Martos inquired about the representation of the colors in the video/survey as he said it threw him off—he was looking for a legend. Commissioner Martos said that with the amount of data for the bike routes and pedestrian projects, it was hard to sort it all out and suggested layers you can turn on and off to see things individually (similar to the police crime statistics map). He said another consideration for the survey/charts is to label the segments (one of two, two of two, etc.). He indicated California Drive has six segments and it would be helpful to be able to see how they all integrate. Commissioner Martos also suggested to label the studies with more detail (future study, current study). With the amount of data on the pedestrian side, he made the same suggestion to add layers and a legend in order to better sort through and review the data. Overall, Commissioner Martos felt the survey was good—he would just like to make it simpler for everyone to digest all the information provided. 3 Commissioner Bush stated he appreciates all the work put into the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan effort and is excited to see the plan come to fruition. He then inquired about the plan impacting the City’s ability to apply for grants. Mr. Wong explained this is a higher level planning effort, which will help, but the City would still have to do additional work to enhance specific project plans in preparation for a grant opportunity. Commissioner Bush inquired about default priorities based on feedback from the public. Transportation Engineer Michael Tsai responded to explain that the study corridors reflect those priority areas based on community outreach and with the online tour and survey, the public can weigh in again on their preferences. Mr. Tsai also stated the improvement areas are not presented in order of priority. Mr. Malera explained that at the end of the online process, the City will be able to move into the prioritization of projects by accessibility, connectivity, feasibility, etc. and also identify what projects would be considered short-term or long-term improvements. Commissioner Bush asked what the factors that make this online tool successful are. Mr. Malera stated that first it is getting the information out through online/social media platforms. Additionally, he stated the importance to engage stakeholders and have them talk to their constituent groups. Lastly, Mr. Malera said that breaking down the information into simple terms and maintaining transparency was a factor in the online tool being successful. Although it is not part of the current plan, Commissioner Bush suggested a live Q&A session as part of the overall effort. Commissioner Londer shared similar sentiments of Commissioners Martos and Bush. He did indicate he was happy there are two weeks for people to go through and digest all the information being provided. Commissioner Londer mentioned there is a current call for projects from the Transportation Authority that was announced in early August and the deadline is September 13. He wondered if the City could apply given the status of the bike and pedestrian planning efforts and said the call for projects occurs every two years. Additionally, Commissioner Londer stated that the B/PAC has a list of early action projects already prepared. He asked for clarification of the total miles of existing and proposed bike improvements, as he thought there might be some overlap since the numbers don’t add up. Mr. Malera said he would look into his inquiry. Lastly, Commissioner Londer said he appreciated the presentation is anxious to see what the response is from the community. Vice-Chair Wettan said the online tool/open house was the best option given the conditions surrounding Covid-19, but he asked if any thought has been put into how to ensure we are getting feedback from segments of the population that are less likely to use the online tool, such as the student population and senior citizens. Mr. Malera said it is difficult to address given the current constraints, but he went back to what led us to this point, explaining we are deep into the outreach phase of the project. He also stated that they worked with the B/PAC and safe routes to school coordinator and was able to hand out surveys and an engagement activity at BIS where students drew their favorite route to bike or walk to school. Additionally, Mr. Malera said there was engagement at the Farmers Market and to many other groups up until this point. He acknowledged it is difficult to guarantee they have hit all the necessary groups though. Vice-Chair Wettan encouraged 4 use of the City newsletter and newsletter/announcements through the school district/high school community to continue to solicit feedback. He also thought there may be a way to have a focus group for high school students and the senior community to obtain more feedback. Overall, Vice-Chair Wettan felt the website was a well-constructed tool and appreciated the creativity given current conditions. Chair Israelit echoed Vice-Chair Wettan’s comments regarding the online tool possibly not capturing certain groups that utilize the bike and pedestrian network and therefore the number of participants might be low. She wanted to be sure that those that are responding aren’t skewing the results by omitting seniors and school-aged children. Chair Israelit suggest reaching out to the PTA and possibly providing flyers at various apartment complexes as she said it is important to engage all stakeholders. Additionally, Chair Israelit felt two weeks is not long enough for the online open house and suggested extending it to three weeks to help give people a little more time to review the amount of information provided. She also pointed out the bike path in Burlingame Hills off of Trousdale and felt although it could be considered a low hanging fruit, she is not excited about painting sharrows on the streets in that area and felt the money could be better spent towards improvements on a main thoroughfare such as California Drive. Chair Israelit brought up the Oak Grove/Carolan intersection, stating it is one of the worst intersections for cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians and talked about revamping that intersection. Mr. Wong said they are working on designing a signal at that intersection and it is also included in the online survey comments. Mr. Malera responded to the comment regarding sharrows in the Burlingame Hills area and stated that the online tool should shake out the low priority suggestions. Chair Israelit opened public comment. Madeline Frechette provided a comment via email which was read into the record by Lilliana Cifuentes. There are several sections of the latest bike/ped master plan, like CA drive, where different options are being studied. While I’m happy to see bike lanes along most of the CA Drive corridors, I’m disappointed that many of the alternative options listed pit “traffic lane removal” against “parking removal” without any context as to why both can’t be done. CA drive south of Broadway doesn’t need four lanes of traffic and if we’re being honest with ourselves the northbound parking should have been repurposed into a protected bike lane years ago (unless of course you’re a fan of public roads being used to store people’s private property for free). This update is once in a decade— actually likely the only update for a few decades. And so I have a few lenses for you to review this updated plan with: 1) For high traffic roads — does the suggested bicycle facility prevent drivers from driving, stopping, or parking in the bike lane? 5 2) If a bicycle facility requires police enforcement to keep it clear of drivers and other hazards— that’s a failure. Its 2020, read the room. Safer streets aren’t safe for everyone if it means increased policing. 3) Lynn incorrectly stated at a TSPC meeting a couple months back that most people who bike in Burlingame are children, which is of course not true. Bicycle facilities aren’t just for the children of Burlingame to use recreationally— many folks bike as their sole means of transportation (yes we exist). And if Burlingame was serious about streets that are safe enough for children, well, then— we would probably be enjoying those benefits by now. B/PAC Chair Ms. Beatty stated the B/PAC group discussed the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan online tool earlier and created their own prioritization list. She said they liked that the plan identified a distributed network of low stress bike facilities. However, they are interested in the idea of bike boulevards. She said B/PAC focused their feedback around California Drive and they would like to see a bicycle boulevard on Laguna Avenue because the residents have asked for traffic calming and other features that would make that street more bike and pedestrian friendly. Ms. Beatty said they also focused on traffic calming on Oak Grove, Carmelita, and Cortez Avenues. Additionally, she stated B/PAC is interested in improvements in the Trousdale and Murchison area between El Camino Real and the schools. In regards to the pedestrian related projects, Ms. Beatty said they are more focused on the crossings and implementing standards that allow for upgrades to facilities as things are repaved. In closing, Mr. Wong stated the City is aware of the Transportation Authority call for projects and the City is looking into possible candidates for the grant opportunity. c) Burlingame Avenue & Broadway Street Closure Pilot Program Updates Mr. Wong provided an update to the Commission regarding the latest efforts surrounding the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Street Closure Pilot Programs. Mr. Wong stated the original cutoff date for the pilot programs was September 30, but there is no end date at this point. He said there have been changes to the Burlingame Avenue closure which are now revised to Saturday from 8 am to Sunday at 10 pm. He explained the City decided to remove Fridays from the closure as a lot of people, including the merchants, were concerned with people not complying with the health and safety orders. Mr. Wong indicated the Broadway closure remains the same—Saturday at 4 pm to Sunday at 10 pm. He said at the next City Council meeting, Council will discuss reopening Burlingame Avenue and adding parklets because of the new order for restaurants to only operate outdoor dining (and take-out). Mr. Wong went over a map of the possible parklets on Burlingame Avenue and stated they anticipated a parking loss of about 63 with the proposed parklets. With the parklets that are currently on the side streets, Mr. Wong said it accounted for a loss of approximately 31 parking spaces. 6 Commissioner Londer asked about the maximum number of spaces we can have parklets in. Mr. Wong stated the City tried to make it fair for each business regardless of their frontage. No limit to how many parklets and will be discussed in more detail at the upcoming City Council meeting. Mr. Wong continued through the remaining slides, sharing that there would be one parklet for each business and the parklet may not be directly in front of their business. He indicated there would be no parklets allowed on California Drive. In closing, Mr. Wong said the total loss of parking if all parklets are utilized would be approximately 90 spaces. Chair Israelit asked if we would be gaining some parking due to loss of employee parking with some the businesses on Burlingame Avenue closing permanently. Mr. Wong stated he would take a look at that and noted there has been parking capacity in Lots A and C. Vice-Chair Wettan asked if any feedback was received from the DBID or Chamber of Commerce regarding the impact on take-out services from the closure of Burlingame Avenue. Mr. Wong stated there was no feedback on that particular topic but he did receive feedback that retailers are having a hard time with the closure. Vice-Chair Wettan also asked if there were any observations of parking constraints considering that current conditions are very different. Mr. Wong said based on observations, there is still adequate parking available. Vice-Chair Wettan shared that when he went for take-out on Burlingame Avenue, he observed a lot of people on the street and that restaurants have closed their back doors. He indicated he would have preferred not to be forced into the crowd of people on Burlingame Avenue to pick up food and suggested he could have gone to the back door for take-out services. Vice-Chair Wettan said to continue to press to engage with the restaurants downtown to ensure for their sake it’s not hard for them to provide take-out services and also mentioned possible challenges for “door dashers”. He is concerned with forcing people on Burlingame Avenue from a public safety standpoint. Mr. Wong said that the restaurants could be closing the back entrances due to concerns with people using the restrooms. Vice-Chair Wettan felt it would be worthwhile to address those concerns. Chair Israelit confirmed the Friday closure on Burlingame Avenue was dropped due to concerns and bad press surrounding people not following the health and safety rules. Mr. Wong shared that the Economic Development Subcommittee discussed that Burlingame Avenue was becoming a destination and many people were not following the health and safety orders. Chair Israelit stated she was concerned from a public safety standpoint that most restaurants have set up tables on both sides of the sidewalk so pedestrians walking down Burlingame Avenue only have about four feet to walk by unmasked diners—she felt it was not safe for passage. Chair Israelit said the permanent parklets might solve the issue but the City should ensure there is 6 feet clearance for pedestrians from the unmasked people eating. Mr. Wong stated the encroachment permit only allows them to go into the area of the parking spaces and ADA access must be maintained—he said he would look into the matter. No public comments received. 7 7. INFORMATION ITEMS a) Engineering Division Reports • Broadway Grade Separation – The Joint Powers Board (JPB) has received the proposal for final design. The evaluation team is working on reviewing the proposals. The City was not successful in obtaining the $125 million dollar INFRA Grant. We are still awaiting results on our $7.9 million dollar BUILD Grant for the Broadway Station portion of the project. • Lots F and N Construction Update – Scheduled to begin work on the residential housing project; the contractor closed Lot F on April 1. For the parking garage portion of the project, Mr. Wong indicated the contractor is currently working on the third deck and the City anticipates the garage to be open in spring of 2021. • Hoover Elementary School – Staff currently finalizing the design on a project to repair sections of the path along Easton Drive. It is anticipated that this project will be constructed as part of an upcoming resurfacing project. • TSPC Priority List (revised June 2020): TSPC Led Effort 1 Downtown Parking and Access 6/11/20: Item 7a 2 Bike\Ped Plan Update: fwd to BPAC 1/9/20: Item 6c 3 School Traffic and Safety Issues 3/12/20: Item 7a 4 Neighborhood Traffic Calming 5/14/20: Item 7a 5 Broadway Parking 3/12/20: Item 7a 6 Citywide Transportation Alternatives 2/13/20: Item 6c 7 Bay Trail Improvements 8 Electric Vehicles 12/12/19: Item 6b 9 Bike Share Feedback 12/12/19: Item 6b Staff Update via Report 1 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor 2/13/20: Item 7a 2 Hoover School Update 6/11/20: Item 7a 3 Downtown Parking Strategies 3/12/20: Item 7a 4 City Hall Traffic Calming/Floribunda 4/11/19: Item 6b 5 California Roundabout 5/9/19: Item 7a 6 Oak Grove/Carolan Traffic Signal 10/10/19: Item 7a 7 Bike\Ped Plan Update: fwd to BPAC 1/9/20: Item 6c 8 Rec Center Parking 9 Old Bayshore Corridor Study 12/12/19: Item 7a 10 Grant Opportunities 6/11/20: Item 7a 8 11 Broadway Grade Separation 6/11/20: Item 7a 12 San Mateo's Peninsula Ave OC 13 School Speed Limit Updates 6/13/19, Item 7a 14 School Safety Improvements 3/12/20: Item 7a 15 Lyon-Hoag Neighborhood Traffic Calming 56/11/20: Item 7a 16 300 Burlingame Point Traffic Impacts 8/8/19: Item 7a 17 Broadway/California Update 2020 Agenda Item Action Status 1 Council Direction Regarding Improving Short-Term Parking in the Burlingame Avenue Downtown Area Poles and SMART meter have been installed and are currently being programmed. Commissioner Londer inquired about the project status of San Mateo’s US 101/Peninsula Interchange Project. Mr. Wong stated he would look into his inquiry. b) Police Department Reports The collision report was distributed prior to the meeting as part of the agenda packet. Sergeant Perna stated there were 18 collisions for the month of July, four of which were injury accidents. He said two of the injury accidents involved pedestrians and one involved a bicyclist. Vice-Chair Wettan asked about the accident on Laguna Avenue involving the vehicle and bicyclist. Sergeant Perna said the accident occurred right before Broadway closure in the afternoon—shortly before 4 pm. He said the bicyclist was riding westbound on Broadway and a big rig truck brushed against the bicyclist, causing the rider to fall over. Sergeant Perna stated the driver of the truck was at fault. Commissioner Martos asked Sergeant Perna to elaborate on the accident at Howard Avenue and Lorton Avenue that involved a vehicle and pedestrian. Sergeant Perna stated the car was traveling northbound on Lorton Avenue to westbound Howard Avenue. He said the pedestrian was crossing outside of crosswalk and the driver had possession of the intersection. He also said the driver attempted to stop but it was a little too late—the pedestrian was bumped by the car and the injuries were minor. Commissioner Martos was also interested in the other accident involving a vehicle and pedestrian at El Camino Real and Howard Avenue. Sergeant Perna said that accident was considered a major accident due to the injuries sustained by the pedestrian. He said the vehicle was traveling northbound on El Camino Real in the number one lane and the pedestrian was crossing the street in the crosswalk eastbound. According to witnesses and the investigation, Sergeant Perna said it was determined the pedestrian was crossing against the walk arrow. Chair Israelit asked if a pedestrian is at fault if they are in the crosswalk without the 9 permission light. Sergeant Perna said that it is difficult to determine after the fact, but it could be interpreted as a pedestrian violation. c) Farmer’s Market No update. The Commission is currently not participating in the Farmer’s Market given the current conditions surrounding COVID-19. d) TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communications No updates. 8. COMMISSION & SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS a) Downtown Parking (Martos & Wettan) No update. b) Broadway Parking (Bush & Israelit) No update. c) School Traffic (Israelit & Londer) No update. d) Citywide Transportation Alternatives (Londer & Wettan) No update. 9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • California Drive and Broadway intersection • Oak Grove Avenue and Carolan signal design Per Ms. Mai the City is working on the final design which will be submitted to Caltrain for review and then they will conduct a field meeting. She indicated staff will come back to the Commission once everything is vetted with Caltrain. • Update on parklets and street closures 10. ADJOURNMENT 9:03 p.m. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 8/13/2020 Joint BPAC & TSPC Meeting Recommendations Update AUGUST 2020| 2 OVERVIEW Approach and Themes Draft Network Recommendations Virtual Open House Study Corridors Next Steps AUGUST 2020| 3 Draft and Final Plan APPROACH Existing Conditions Public OutreachNeeds Assessment DRAFT Recommendations Prioritization FINAL Recommendations AUGUST 2020| 4 KEY THEMES Connectivity Neighborhood Accessibility Access to Major Destinations Safety •Major barriers •Connection Gaps •Lack of low-stress routes •Uncomfortable crossings •Collision patterns on major corridors •Public sentiment •Safe Routes to School Parks, Transit •Auto-oriented land use AUGUST 2020| 5 LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY Top 10 corridors with the most public comments in support of bicycle and pedestrian improvements: California Drive Bay Trail Rollins Airport Boulevard Oak Grove Avenue Howard Avenue Broadway Old Bayshore Road El Camino Real Lincoln Avenue/Laguna Avenue NOVEMBER 2019| 7 DRAFT NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS AUGUST 2020| 8 PROPOSED BIKEWAYS Bike Route Bike Lane Separated Bike Lane Bike Boulevard Buffered Bike Lane Shared-Use Path Low Stress Facilities AUGUST 2020| 9 DRAFT BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING BIKEWAYS 27.6 miles of existing bikeways AUGUST 2020| 10 DRAFT BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTSDRAFT BIKE IMPROVEMENTS 27.4 miles of recommendations AUGUST 2020| 11 DRAFT BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTSDRAFT BIKE IMPROVEMENTS WITH EXISTING NETWORK 42 miles of total bikeways in Burlingame (100% increase) AUGUST 2020| 14 DRAFT PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTSDRAFT PEDESTRIAN SPOT IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 2020| 15 DRAFT PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR TYPES AUGUST 2020| 16 PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS 64 Intersections with recommendations 12 Pedestrian Priority Corridors NOVEMBER 2019| 17 VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE NOVEMBER 2019| 18 STUDY CORRIDORS DISCUSSION AUGUST 2020| 33 NEXT STEPS Virtual Open House (tentatively 8/20 –9/3) Finalize Recommendations •Study corridors •Based on city and public feedback •Programmatic recommendations Develop Implementation Strategy •Project prioritization •Project evaluation and criteria •Project funding sources •Additional data collection, analysis, and studies Questions?