Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2021.02.11Traffic Safety and Parking Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMThursday, February 11, 2021 On March 17, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings telephonically or by other electronic means. Pursuant to the Shelter-in-Place Order issued by the San Mateo County Health Officer on March 16, 2020 (which was then extended on March 31, 2020), the statewide Shelter-in-Place Order issued by the Governor in Executive Order N-33-20 on March 19, 2020, and the CDC's social distancing guidelines which discourage large public gatherings, the Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the February 11, 2021 meeting of the Burlingame Traffic Safety and Parking Commission. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom meeting listed below. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on Youtube and uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda. The length of the emailed comment should commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure that your comment is received and read to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 11, 2021. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will be read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission after the meeting. Members of the public may comment on any action or study item appearing on the agenda at the time it is called. Comments on other items should be made under agenda item #5. Provision of identifying information is optional but assists in preparation of the minutes. All votes are unanimous unless separately voted for the record. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/8/2021 February 11, 2021Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Meeting Agenda 1. Call To Order To Join the Zoom Webinar Meeting (Note - the link below doesn't look like a hyperlink, but it is): https://zoom.us/j/92705427097?pwd=dWRITjdYSnZYNjMxT25tWTZicnNTUT09 Passcode: 864354 Or iPhone one-tap : US: +16699006833,,92705427097#,,,,*864354# or +13462487799,,92705427097#,,,,*864354# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 Webinar ID: 927 0542 7097 Passcode: 864354 International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/acohFEYcT 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes January 14, 2021 Meeting Minutesa. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Members of the public may speak on any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period. 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. The Commission Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 5. Public Comments: Non-Agenda 6. Discussion/Action Items Proclamation for Commissioner Jeff Londera. Community B/PAC Update (Informational Only Item)b. Oak Grove/Carolan Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Improvementsc. Staff Report Exhibit A: Presentation Exhibit B: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Attachments: 7. Information Items Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/8/2021 February 11, 2021Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Meeting Agenda Engineering Division Reportsa. Staff ReportAttachments: Police Department Reportsb. Collision ReportAttachments: Farmer's Marketc. TSPC Chair/Commissioner's Communicationsd. 8. Committee & Sub-Committee Reports Downtown Parking (Martos & Wettan)a. Broadway Parking (Israelit)b. School Traffic (Israelit & Wettan)c. Citywide Transportation Alternatives (Wettan)d. 9. Future Agenda Items 10. Adjournment NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650-558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public viewing on the City's website as City Hall is still closed to the public. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. NEXT TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION MEETING: March 11, 2021 Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/8/2021 1 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of Thursday, January 14, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:04 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Leigh, Bush, Israelit, Martos, Wettan MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) December 10, 2020 Meeting Minutes Motion: To accept the December 10, 2020 Meeting Minutes as written. M/S/C; Bush/Leigh, 5/0/0 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA None 6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS a) Community B/PAC Update (Informational Item Only) Ms. Lesley Beatty from B/PAC spoke about the January 2021 B/PAC meeting and Transportation Program Manager Lisha Mai’s participation in the meeting. Ms. Beatty stated that the meeting’s focus was on the implementation of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP). Ms. Beatty spoke about the BPMP’s prioritization, but clarified that the budget and allocations were unknown. Ms. Beatty spoke about Ms. Mai’s direction to have B/PAC identify where funds could be distributed to. Ms. Beatty stated that the B/PAC would likely recommend neighborhood, bike, and school projects. Ms. Beatty highlighted 2 that there is $300,000 in the current budget that is set aside for further work on two grant projects, California Drive Bike Project and Burlingame Train Station Pedestrian Project, and stated that B/PAC encourages the City to not go back to do additional outreach or concept design on California Drive since the work has been done already in the BPMP and is encompassed in the Request for Proposals (RFP)/grant. Ms. Beatty stated that the B/PAC would like to be “super-efficient” with funds for projects. Commissioner Israelit asked Ms. Beatty if the area B/PAC discussed holding off on developing more California Drive concepts was north or south of Broadway. Ms. Beatty clarified that the RFP/grant was for the area south of Broadway, from Broadway to Oak Grove Avenue. Ms. Beatty clarified that B/PAC fully supports the RFP/grant for the area south of Broadway, but spoke about existing high-level Alta Planning + Design concepts for the area and stated that the B/PAC is requesting that the City not duplicate efforts and use/work-off of existing concepts. Chair Wettan asked Mr. Wong if there was a legal issue related to streamlining projects and public outreach efforts. Mr. Wong stated that the City was advancing the concepts from the BPMP and that the City would conduct targeted outreach. Commissioner Bush spoke about the various public outreach effort formats and Mr. Wong clarified that multiple public outreach effort formats would be used including the TSPC. Commissioner Leigh emphasized the importance of including B/PAC in the public comment/outreach. Mr. Wong clarified that a thorough presentation in a joint TSPC meeting with B/PAC and the bike community would be ideal. Chair Wettan concurred with Mr. Wong’s statement of holding a future joint meeting. b) Parking Restriction Options for the Highland Avenue Parking Garage Mr. Wong reviewed Option A and Option B discussed during the December 2020 TSPC meeting. Mr. Wong restated TSPC’s selection of Option B (making the entire parking garage long-term parking and transition long-term parking on Howard Avenue to short- term parking). Mr. Wong also restated TSPC’s comments regarding reducing/incentivizing the pricing for the parking garage, creating a special reduced parking garage permit for employees, and inquiring if employers would purchase the permit for their employees as an employment incentive. Mr. Wong stated that an 8-question poll was conducted by the Economic Development Specialist Joe Sanfilippo. The poll was sent to the businesses located near Howard Avenue. A majority of the respondents supported the recommendation to convert the on-street parking from long-term to short-term parking on Howard Avenue. According to the poll, ninety percent of employees drive to work and predominately drive 10 or more miles to work. The poll demonstrated that a majority of employees typically park on “on-street, long-term (4 or 10-hour), metered space” and that most employees know about the City’s employee permit parking program. A majority of the respondents supported the idea of reducing the new garage parking rates for employees; however, respondents (employers) were split on whether or not they would purchase long-term permits for their employees. 3 Commissioner Leigh stated her concern related to hair salon services and the duration of hair services in relation to the suggested transition of new short-term parking on Howard Avenue. Commissioner Leigh suggested keeping the short-term parking more expensive than the parking garage to deter employees from parking in those short -term parking spaces near the businesses. Commissioner Leigh spoke about safety and the perceived safety of walking back to a car at night in a long-term parking area, and stated she would not park in the long-term parking area after dark if she were an employee due to safety concerns and spoke about addressing the issue. Commissioner Leigh spoke about addressing the crosswalk at Howard Avenue and Lorton Avenue, and stated that the intersection is a top pedestrian collision location. Commissioner Israelit spoke about a previous TSPC meeting conservation with Sergeant Perna regarding lighting remaining on at all times in the parking garage and about previously speaking about the parking distance to the parking garage not being a big deterrent for shoppers/hair salon clients. Mr. Wong clarified that the new parking garage would be lit 24/7 because overnight EV charging will be allowed. Mr. Wong stated he would look into the Howard Avenue and Lorton Avenue intersection, as well as, look into potential improvements to the location. Chair Wettan supported looking into the Howard Avenue and Lorton Avenue intersection. Commissioner Israelit stated that the poll indicated that a majority were in favor of the long-term parking garage option, and stated that it was interesting that one-third of the employees drive 5 miles or less to work. Commissioner Israelit stated that after COVID- 19 about maybe providing the one-third of employees with Uber vouchers would be an easy fix to alleviate Downtown parking congestion. Commissioner Bush concurred with Commissioner Israelit and stated that he supported the transition of on-street parking to 2 hours to promote greater circulation. Commissioner Bush stated that distance to the parking garage was not significant for patrons who were going to park longer than 2 hours, and stated that a reduced rate to employees should be provided for the top two floors of the parking garage. Commissioner Bush also stated that there should be some focus on alternative modes of transportation. Commissioner Bush stated that the primary purpose of parking meters is to increase flow and supported increasing rates to alleviate congestion, and compensate people who are driving shorter distances with voucher programs and public transportation incentives. Vice-Chair Martos concurred that the parking rates should be reduced to incentivize parking in the parking garage. Vice-Chair Martos supported Commissioner Leigh’s comment on improving the crosswalk at Howard Avenue and Lorton Avenue. Vice-Chair Martos stated that meters turn off at 6:00 pm and stated that on-street parking was available after 6:00 pm for those who did not want to park in the long-term parking lots/garage due to safety concerns. Vice-Chair Martos reiterated his support for Option B. Chair Wettan stated that he agreed with gaining short- term parking near the Downtown Area was important and he agreed about incentivizing the top two floors of the parking garage for employee parking. Chair Wettan reiterated his support for Option B. Motion: Recommending Option B be adopted by the City Council and reducing the parking time period on Howard Avenue to 2 hours, and ensuring the occupancy of the new garage structure by considering incentive structures with employers. 4 M/S/C; Bush/Israelit, 5/0/0 c) 2021 TSPC Priority List Chair Wettan clarified that the Noworolski (previous TSPC Commissioner) method is used to set the priority list and explained its circular process. The following 2021 TSPC Priority List was established: RANK TSPC 1 Bike\Ped Plan Priorities 2 School Transportation and Safety Issues 3 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor 4 Neighborhood Traffic Calming/Controls 5 Old Bayshore Corridor Study (s/o Broadway) 6 Electric Vehicle Discussion with Planning 7 Downtown Parking and Access 8 Broadway Parking 9 Citywide Transportation Alternatives RANK Engineering Staff 1 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor 2 Hoover School Update 3 Downtown Parking Strategies 4 City Hall Traffic Calming/Floribunda 5 California Roundabout 6 Oak Grove/Carolan Traffic Signal 7 Bike\Ped Plan Implementation 8 Rec Center Parking 9 Old Bayshore Corridor Study (n/o Broadway) 10 Grant Opportunities 11 Broadway Grade Separation 12 San Mateo's Peninsula Ave OC 13 School Speed Limit Updates 14 School Safety Improvements 15 Lyon-Hoag Neighborhood Traffic Calming 16 300 Burlingame Point Traffic Impacts 17 Broadway/California Update 18 Halloween Traffic Impacts (Eng Report) 19 Bike/Scooter Share Feedback 20 Chapin Avenue Green Streets Project 5 d) TSPC Sub-Committee Selections TSPC Sub-Committee selections will be made after a replacement for Commissioner Bush’s open position is filled. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS a) Engineering Division Reports  Broadway and Burlingame Parklet Update – Due to the latest order from San Mateo County, all outdoor operations have ceased until further notice; putting the parklet program on a temporary hold. Staff is continuing to work with businesses to inform and install parklets in preparation for when the County order is lifted.  Lyon-Hoag Traffic Calming Update – Contractor has completed the layout work for the improvements, and should have started construction by the week of January 11, 2021 (weather permitting).  California Drive Bicycle Facility RFP –The RFPs are due to the City on January 15, 2021. After which staff will review and score the proposals in order to select a team to complete the final design for the project (concepts based on Bike/Ped Master Plan).  Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements RFP –The RFPs are due to the City on January 15, 2021. After which staff will review and score the proposals in order to select a team to complete the final design for the project (concepts based on Lyon-Hoag Traffic Calming Report).  Federal Resurfacing Project Update – Project is significantly complete.  TSPC Priority List (revised January 2021): TSPC Led Effort 1 Bike\Ped Plan Priorities 2 School Transportation and Safety Issues 3 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor 4 Neighborhood Traffic Calming/Controls 5 Old Bayshore Corridor Study (s/o Broadway) 6 Electric Vehicle Discussion with Planning 7 Downtown Parking and Access 8 Broadway Parking 6 9 Citywide Transportation Alternatives Staff Update via Report 1 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor 2 Hoover School Update 3 Downtown Parking Strategies 4 City Hall Traffic Calming/Floribunda 5 California Roundabout 6 Oak Grove/Carolan Traffic Signal 7 Bike\Ped Plan Implementation 8 Rec Center Parking 9 Old Bayshore Corridor Study (n/o Broadway) 10 Grant Opportunities 11 Broadway Grade Separation 12 San Mateo's Peninsula Ave OC 13 School Speed Limit Updates 14 School Safety Improvements 15 Lyon-Hoag Neighborhood Traffic Calming 16 300 Burlingame Point Traffic Impacts 17 Broadway/California Update 18 Halloween Traffic Impacts (Eng Report) 19 Bike/Scooter Share Feedback 20 Chapin Avenue Green Streets Project 2021 Agenda Item Action Status 1 Vice-Chair Martos inquired about the new Lyon Hoag traffic calming circles. Mr. Wong clarified that there are various traffic circles that are a part of the Lyon Hoag traffic calming project. Ms. Mai clarified that there will be two additional traffic circles at Howard Avenue/Bancroft Road and Bloomfield Road/Bancroft Road. Commissioner Leigh inquired about the proposed traffic circle at Plymouth Way and Bloomfield Road and stated that it would qualify as a school crossing due to the proximity to Burlingame High School. Commissioner Leigh stated that the proposed traffic circle would not allow enough room for both vehicular and bicycle traffic. Ms. Mai clarified that staff also found the proposed traffic circle to be not adequate for the area and stated that the traffic circle had been eliminated. Ms. Mai stated that the flares were kept to force vehicular traffic to make a slight movement to slow the vehicular traffic. Commissioner Leigh inquired if installing crosswalks with flashing lights would be a possibility and also installing a sign at the intersection at Bloomfield Road and Plymouth Way, and stated that she recalled through 7 the Lyon Hoag study that 86% of drivers were driving higher than the speed limit through the intersection. Mr. Wong stated that the intersection would be looked at through the different phases of the Lyon Hoag Traffic Calming project and that the intersection would be revisited. Vice-Chair Martos inquired about refreshing the red curbing at the intersection at Victoria Avenue and Howard Avenue. Mr. Wong stated that staff would place a work order to refresh the red curbing at the intersection. b) Police Department Reports Chair Wettan noted three collisions on Paloma Avenue and Capuchino Avenue. Sergeant Perna clarified that DUI collisions are reported as a separate collisions and that the three collisions were from the same DUI incident. Sergeant Perna highlighted the major rainy night collision at California Drive and Burlingame Avenue. Sergeant Perna stated that the driver did hit pedestrians in the crosswalk and stated that there was one significant head injury. Chair Wettan asked how the lighting at California Drive and Burlingame Avenue was insufficient. Sergeant Perna noted that the driver stated the pedestrians were wearing dark clothing and weather conditions. Sergeant Perna stated that the driver was at fault in this collision and suggested light-up beacons for the intersection. Chair Wettan requested information regarding the progress on creating a “hot map” of traffic collisions. Sergeant Perna clarified that a “hot map” was created using Google MyMaps, but that the information was a bit crowded and that he would continue revising the “hot map” and would have a “hot map” by the next TSPC meeting. Sergeant Perna suggested maybe creating multiple maps and said he was open to suggestions. Chair Wettan volunteered to meet virtually with Sergeant Perna to discuss mapping solutions. Commissioner Leigh spoke about the intersection at California Drive and Burlingame Avenue and the different lighting needs for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Leigh stated that pedestrians need lighting low to the ground, illuminating pedestrian’s body at major intersections and to illuminate the crosswalk to be brighter than the street. Commissioner Leigh spoke about the mapping options to include a pedestrian collision map (injury or not), bicycle collision map, and motor vehicle collision map. Commissioner Leigh stated that different areas affect pedestrians, bicycles, and motor vehicles differently. Commissioner Israelit stated support for separating the information into three maps to make them more readable. Sergeant Perna agreed with Commissioner Leigh’s idea of creating three separate maps and Chair Wettan agreed they would look into the different mapping options. Vice-Chair Martos inquired about potential upcoming protests related to the presidential inauguration. Sergeant Perna stated that the Police Department was prepared for any event, but that there had not been any reports of upcoming protests. c) Farmer’s Market 8 Chair Wettan stated interest in having the TSPC return to the Farmer’s Market in the future. d) TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communications Commissioner Israelit inquired about the Chapin Avenue Feasibility Study and an eNews survey link. Commissioner Israelit stated that she was surprised by the ongoing Chapin Avenue Feasibility Study since TSPC had discussed the potential project, and was not in favor of moving forward with the project due to the loss of parking and left-turn issues into businesses. Commissioner Israelit informed TSPC about a transportation program called “Got Wheels” for seniors over the age of 70 years old. The transportation program provides 24/7 service and only costs $5 for a one-way trip. Chair Wettan inquired if the program was related to the City of San Mateo program. Commissioner Israelit clarified that funding is provided by the County of San Mateo, but that the program was started by Peninsula Family Services. Commissioner Israelit spoke about a resident’s request to improve a blind corner at Alturas Drive and Margarita Avenue by placing a convex traffic mirror. Mr. Wong stated that staff would look at the intersection, but that typically convex mirrors were not placed at intersections. Commissioner Israelit spoke about her husband’s observation at Burlingame Plaza and El Camino Real. Commissioner Israelit stated that her husband had almost been hit several times trying to exit Burlingame Plaza on El Camino Real going towards Trousdale Drive since drivers are driving through the furthermost right lane from Murchision Drive to Trousdale Drive’s right-turn only lane. Commissioner Israelit suggested placing traffic delineators to prevent the thru traffic on the furthermost right lane since it is not supposed to be a continuous lane. Mr. Wong stated staff would contact Caltrans. Commissioner Israelit stated that the lines are delineated appropriately and drivers are purposefully breaking the law by driving over the delineated lines, and that she should would provide a mock-up of the intersection to Mr. Wong. Commissioner Leigh spoke about a senior citizen request regarding Old Bayshore Way and Airport Boulevard requesting additional time to cross the crosswalk. Mr. Wong stated staff would look at the crosswalk timing. Chair Wettan provided an update regarding the Burlingame Hills foliage issue and stated that the area was under the Town of Hillsborough’s jurisdiction, and added that the issue had been addressed. 8. COMMISSION & SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS a) Downtown Parking (Martos & Wettan) No update. 9 b) Broadway Parking (Bush & Israelit) No update. c) School Traffic (Israelit & Wettan) No update. d) Citywide Transportation Alternatives (Wettan) No update. 9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS  Oak Grove Avenue & Carolan Avenue Signal Update  Peninsula Avenue Interchange Update  Broadway/California Drive Intersection Update  Burlingame Train Station Improvements  2021 B/PAC Priority List 10. ADJOURNMENT 9:43 p.m. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: 6.c MEETING DATE: February 11, 2021 To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Date: February 11, 2021 From: Andrew Wong, Transportation Engineer – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Update on the Traffic Signal Design at Oak Grove Avenue and Carolan Avenue RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission receive an update regarding the design and anticipated operation for the traffic signal at Oak Grove Avenue/Carolan Avenue, as well as the improvements to the traffic signal at Oak Grove Avenue/California Drive. This is an informational item only; therefore, no motion is necessary. BACKGROUND The intersection of Oak Grove Avenue and Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove/Carolan) is located north of the Burlingame Avenue Downtown Area and adjacent to Burlingame High School. The intersection of Oak Grove Avenue and Carolan Avenue is approximately 230 feet from the intersection of Oak Grove Avenue and California Drive, with the Caltrain rail lines operating parallel to Carolan Avenue and in between both intersections. During peak morning and evening commute hours, Caltrain operates up to five northbound and five southbound trains every hour through the Oak Grove Avenue rail crossing. With the planned electrification of the rails, Caltrain anticipates faster performance and an increase in the number of train operations in the coming years. The Oak Grove/Carolan intersection has stop signs facing northbound, westbound, and southbound traffic. Eastbound traffic does not have a stop sign. Free flowing eastbound traffic was intended to allow vehicles to clear the Caltrain tracks for approaching trains. This configuration often leads to long lines of vehicles behind the stop bars on the east side of the railway tracks, especially during peak periods such as high school drop-off, pick-up, and the evening commute. As part of the City’s plan to enhance multi-modal access and circulation in the area, staff conducted a traffic operations study of the two intersections referenced above. Recommendations from the study include a new traffic signal at Oak Grove/Carolan to streamline operations and enhance safety. In addition, related improvements to the Oak Grove Avenue and California Drive intersection and surrounding hardscape are recommended to further increase access for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. 6.c – Update on the Traffic Signal Design at February 11, 2021 Oak Grove Avenue and Carolan Avenue 2 DISCUSSION The introduction of a traffic signal at Oak Grove Avenue/Carolan will significantly enhance pedestrian safety and reduce driver confusion. The traffic signal will standardize the operation at the intersection, while introducing pedestrian countdown timers, pedestrian push buttons, and new pedestrian ramps to further pedestrian safety. The trade-off of these improvements is that the signal at Oak Grove Avenue/California Drive may experience operational delay during morning and afternoon peak periods. For this project, three alternatives were reviewed: “No Build” (no change at Carolan Avenue), and two “Build Alternatives” (with a new signal at Carolan Avenue). Both “Build Alternatives” will enhance safety at Oak Grove/Carolan, and would be compatible with Caltrain operations. Build Alternative #1, a new traffic signal with split phase operation at Oak Grove/Carolan, is similar to the current operation of Oak Grove Avenue/California Drive, but will include a longer cycle (time for signal to service all approaches) and stopped delay due to the signal coordination. Build Alternative #2 uses a “Flashing Yellow Arrow” (FYA) operation that reduces the average intersection delays compared to Build Alternative #1. Under existing conditions; Oak Grove/California operates at LOS (level of service) C during both peak periods. Due to the unusual traffic control at Oak Grove/Carolan, the level of service is estimated to be LOS E during peak periods. Table 1 shows the level of service during the A.M. and P.M. peak periods under both Build Alternative #1 and Build Alternative #2 with existing traffic volumes. Table 2 shows the level of service during the A.M. and P.M. peak periods under both Build Alternative #1 and Build Alternative #2 with projected Year 2030 volumes. Location Delay LOS Delay LOS Oak Grove Avenue/California Drive 49.8 D 33 C Oak Grove Avenue/Carolan Avenue 32 C 26.6 C Oak Grove Avenue/California Drive 36.3 D 25.8 C Oak Grove Avenue/Carolan Avenue 30.1 C 39.4 D Table 1: Existing Volumes A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Build Alternative #2 (East-West with Flashing Yellow Arrows) Build Alternative #1 (East-West Split Phase) 6.c – Update on the Traffic Signal Design at February 11, 2021 Oak Grove Avenue and Carolan Avenue 3 A presentation of the alternatives can be found in the attached Exhibit A which includes a draft project schedule. For your use, a table with the level of service criteria for signalized intersections can be found in Exhibit B. This item is for informational purposes only. No motion is required. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Presentation Exhibit B: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Location Delay LOS Delay LOS Oak Grove Avenue/California Drive 58.9 E 35.9 D Oak Grove Avenue/Carolan Avenue 44.5 D 28.2 C Oak Grove Avenue/California Drive 40.5 D 27.7 C Oak Grove Avenue/Carolan Avenue 39.2 D 55.6 E Table 2: Year 2030 Volumes A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Build Alternative #1 (East-West Split Phase) Build Alternative #2 (East-West with Flashing Yellow Arrows) 2/8/2021 1 OAK GROVE AVE Traffic Signal Improvements near the Caltrain Crossing 1. Traffic Operations Study •“No” Build (no change at Carolan Ave) •Two Build Alternatives (with new signal at Carolan Ave) •Pros and Cons 2. What is Flashing Yellow Arrow traffic signal operation? 3. Rail safety improvements 4. Schedule AGENDA 2/8/2021 2 • Means traffic control will stay similar to what it is now • The California/Oak Grove signal would be improved to upgrade pedestrian signals to the “countdown” type. • The intersection currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) C in the weekday morning and evening peaks • The current east-west split phasing (eastbound turns green while westbound has a red, then westbound turns green while eastbound has red) may be revised to Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) phasing • In the AM Peak, LOS C would be the same and stopped delay would decrease slightly if the more efficient FYA phasing is installed • In the PM Peak, the LOS would be the same if the FYA phasing is installed, however the delay would increase slightly TRAFFIC OPERATIONS “NO” BUILD OPTION 3 Study Intersection Existing Condition “No” Build Delay (sec.) LOS Delay (sec.) LOS AM Peak Hour 1. Oak Grove Ave/ California Dr 32.4 C 31.6 C PM Peak Hour 1. Oak Grove Ave/ California Dr 23.3 C 25.1 C PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing Condition vs. “No” Build Alternative 4 2/8/2021 3 • Both build options • Signalization at Carolan Avenue improves safety • Compatible with Caltrain Operation • Build Option 1: • Similar operation to existing condition at California Drive but with longer cycle and stopped delay because of coordination delay • Build Option 2: • Uses Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) operation • Slightly lower avg delays compared with Build Option 1 BUILD A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT CAROLAN TWO OPTIONS IDENTIFIED Option 1 (East-West Split) and Option 2 (East-West with Flashing Yellow Arrows) Study Intersection Existing Condition Option 1 – East-West Split Phase Option 2 – East-West with Flashing Yellow Arrows Delay (sec.) LOS Delay (sec.) LOS Delay (sec.) LOS AM Peak Hour 1. Oak Grove Ave/ California Dr 32.4 C 49.8 D 36.3 D 2. Oak Grove Ave/ Carolan Ave N/A* N/A* 32.0 C 30.1 C PM Peak Hour 1. Oak Grove Ave/ California Dr 23.3 C 33.0 C 25.8 C 2. Oak Grove Ave/ Carolan Ave N/A* N/A* 26.6 C 39.4 D PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing Volumes 6 2/8/2021 4 Study Intersection Existing Condition Option 1 – East-West Split Phase Option 2 – East-West with Flashing Yellow Arrows Delay (sec.) LOS Delay (sec.) LOS Delay (sec.) LOS AM Peak Hour 1. Oak Grove Ave/ California Dr 37.2 D 58.9 E 40.5 D 2. Oak Grove Ave/ Carolan Ave N/A* N/A* 44.5 D 39.2 D PM Peak Hour 1. Oak Grove Ave/ California Dr 23.3 C 35.9 D 29.7** C 2. Oak Grove Ave/ Carolan Ave N/A* N/A* 28.2 C 27.0** C PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Future Volumes - 2030 7 8TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS-OPTION 1 Green Ball Green Arrow 2/8/2021 5 9TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS-OPTION 1 Green Ball Green Arrow OR 10TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS-OPTION 1 Green Ball Green Arrow 2/8/2021 6 11TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS-OPTION 1 Green Ball Green Arrow 12TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS-OPTION 1 Green Ball 2/8/2021 7 13TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS-OPTION 1 Green Ball 14TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS-OPTION 2 Green Ball Green Arrow 2/8/2021 8 15TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS-OPTION 2 Green Ball Green Arrow 16TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS-OPTION 2 Green Ball Green Arrow 2/8/2021 9 17TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS-OPTION 2 Green Ball Green Arrow Flashing Arrow 18TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS-OPTION 2 Green Ball Flashing Arrow 2/8/2021 10 19TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS-OPTION 2 Green Ball Flashing Arrow 20RAIL SAFETY-OPTIONS 1 AND 2 Green Ball Flashing Arrow 2/8/2021 11 It’s simple! Just understand that a Flashing Yellow Arrow means to first YIELD to oncoming vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians, then turn left with caution. WHAT IS FLASHING YELLOW ARROW? 21 FLASHING YELLOW ARROW EXPLAINED 22 2/8/2021 12 • Ralston Avenue and Tahoe Drive, Belmont (Installed 2019) • Aladdin Avenue and Alvarado Street, San Leandro (2020) • Oak Street and Masonic Avenue, San Francisco (2018) • Stevens Creek Boulevard and Henry Avenue, Santa Clara (2018) • W Ninth Street and Dutton Avenue, Santa Rosa (2013) • Twelve locations in Petaluma (2017) • Four locations in Windsor (2018) • Ten locations in Rohnert Park (2020) WHERE CAN I SEE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH FYA? 23 SCHEDULE 24 Pre-final design November 2020 Final design February 2021 JPB/Caltrain Permit March 2021 PG&E Electrical Service March 2021 Advertise April 2021 Award July 2021 Start Construction Materials Procurement Signal Installation Testing & Approval August 2021 December 2021 January 2022 February 2022 Signal Turn-on February 2022   EXHIBIT B    1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: 7.a MEETING DATE: February 11, 2021 To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Date: February 11, 2021 From: Andrew Wong, Senior Civil Engineer – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission receive a presentation by staff providing an update on various Public Works – Engineering projects and activities. BACKGROUND  Broadway and Burlingame Parklet Update –There are a total of 41 businesses with parklets resulting in a loss of 84 parking spaces. There are two more parklets in the queue which would bring the final total to 43 parklets with a loss of 88 parking spaces. Downtown has 34 businesses with parklets (16 on Burlingame Avenue and 18 on side streets) and a loss of 67 parking spaces (27 on Burlingame Avenue and 40 on side streets). Broadway has 7 businesses with parklets with a loss of 17 parking spaces. Related to the parklet program, there are currently 7 designated Curbside Pickup spaces located in the Downtown.  Peninsula Overcrossing Update – On January 27, 2021 the City of San Mateo and their project team made a presentation at a virtual Community meeting. At the meeting they provided a project update which included: historical background, design alternatives, and a preliminary schedule for the project. Important dates of note are the public meeting to review and comment on the environmental document anticipated for late-2021/early-2022, and the Caltrans approval date expected in summer 2022. The presentation can be found at the following link on the City of San Mateo’s website under their Public Works’ “Current and Upcoming Projects” tab: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/83278/Peninsula-Interchange- Community-Mtg-Presentation---Jan-27-2021_012721-FINAL?bidId= Item 7.a – Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update February 11, 2021 2  Lyon-Hoag Traffic Calming Update – Contractor has completed approximate 85% of the work with the vertical components including the installation of the speed cushions still to come.  California Drive Bicycle Facility RFP –The City received and reviewed six proposals for the project. Staff narrowed the field down to two consultant teams, and is currently in the process of making a final selection.  Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements RFP – The City received and reviewed five proposals for the project. Staff is currently in the process of making a final selection.  Hoover School Pedestrian Improvements (Summit Drive) – Project has submitted the “request for authorization” package to Caltrans for approval. Once we have received authorization, the next steps are to advertise and award the project. Construction is anticipated for summer 2021.  Broadway Pedestrian Street Lighting Improvements – Project in process of advertising to perspective bidders. Once the construction contract has been awarded, work is anticipated for later this year.  Highland Avenue Garage Parking Restrictions – TSPC recommendation to be presented to the City Council at their February 16, 2021 meeting.  TSPC Priority List (revised February 2021): TSPC Led Effort 1 Bike\Ped Plan Priorities 2/11/21: Item 7a 2 School Transportation and Safety Issues 1/14/21: Item 7a 3 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor 2/11/21: Item 7a 4 Neighborhood Traffic Calming/Controls 2/11/21: Item 7a 5 Old Bayshore Corridor Study (s/o Broadway) 12/10/20: Item 7a 6 Electric Vehicle Discussion with Planning 2/13/20: Item 6c 7 Downtown Parking and Access 2/11/21: Item 7a 8 Broadway Parking 2/11/21: Item 7a 9 Citywide Transportation Alternatives 12/12/19: Item 6b Staff Update via Report 1 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor 12/10/20: Item 7a 2 Hoover School Update 12/10/20: Item 7a 3 Downtown Parking Strategies 2/11/21: 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 Item 7.a – Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update February 11, 2021 3 7 Bike\Ped Plan Update: fwd to BPAC 1/14/21: Item 7a 8 Rec Center Parking 3/12/20: Item 7a 9 Old Bayshore Corridor Study 12/12/19: Item 7a 10 Grant Opportunities 11/12/20: Item 7a 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 1/14/21: Item 7a 16 300 Burlingame Point Traffic Impacts 12/10/20: Item 7a 17 Broadway/California Update 2021 Agenda Item Action Status 1 DISCUSSION Some of these items may have been originally presented to City staff and/or the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission as public requests or comments. Items on this list are matters that would typically be addressed by City staff on an administrative level, or are City Capital Improvement Projects. Matters that require broad public input or have a wide-spread impact are addressed as Commission “Discussion/Action Items” (TSPC Agenda Item 6). Case #Date Time Occurred On At Intersection Other Location Locale Collision Type Vehicle Involved With BRM2100061 01/07/2021 1830 1 MANGINI WY Parking Lot Vehicle-Vehicle Parked motor vehicle BRM2100075 01/09/2021 2100 1127 CAPUCHINO AV Parking Lot Vehicle-Object Other object BRM2100257 01/26/2021 1530 1825 EL CAMINO REAL Parking Lot Vehicle-Vehicle Parked motor vehicle BRM2100047 01/06/2021 1201 1871 EL CAMINO REAL Parking Lot Vehicle-Vehicle Parked motor vehicle BRM2100154 01/16/2021 810 2832 HILLSIDE DR Other Vehicle-Object Fixed object BRM2100221 01/24/2021 2017 AIRPORT BLVD BEACH RD Street Vehicle-Vehicle Other motor vehicle BRM2100158 01/16/2021 1758 BURLINGAME AV CALIFORNIA DR Intersection Vehicle-Bicycle Bicycle BRM2100234 01/26/2021 1042 CALIFORNIA DR OAK GROVE AVE Street Vehicle-Vehicle Other motor vehicle BRM2100277 01/30/2021 1507 CAROLAN AV CADILLAC WY Intersection Bicycle-Bicycle Bicycle BRM2100056 01/07/2021 1337 HOWARD AV HIGHLAND AV Intersection Vehicle-Vehicle Other motor vehicle BRM2100051 01/06/2021 1916 SR-82 HILLSIDE DR Intersection Vehicle-Vehicle Other motor vehicle BRM2100171 01/18/2021 1206 SR-82 FLORIBUNDA AV Street Other Non-collision BRM2100238 01/26/2021 1246 SR-82 SANCHEZ AV Street Vehicle-Vehicle Other motor vehicle 13 Accidents Road Type Speed Limit Minor Injuries Major Injuries DUI Involved Caused By Juve? Primary Collision Factor Hit & Run Misd. Hit & Run Felony Public Property 0 0 F F Unsafe Parking F F Private Property 0 0 F F Unsafe Backing F F Private Property 0 0 F F Unsafe Turning T F Private Property 0 0 F F Runaway Veh F F Private Property 25 0 0 F F Other F F City Street 35 0 0 F F 22450 CVC T F City Street 35 1 0 F T 21456(b) CVC F F City Street 35 0 0 F F 21703CVC T F City Street 35 1 0 F F 22107 CVC F F City Street 25 1 0 F F 22350 CVC F F Highway 35 0 0 F F 21801(a) VC F F City Street 35 1 0 F T 22350 CVC F F Highway 35 2 0 F F Other F F