Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2021.08.12Traffic Safety and Parking Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMThursday, August 12, 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 Governor’s Executive Order, the Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the August 12, 2021 Traffic Safety and Parking Commission meeting. 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 August 12, 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. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. 1. Call To Order Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89745951096?pwd=TUhOTU1mMkM2c040bzA4UDdQZWtKQT09 Passcode: 809394 Or One tap mobile: US: +16699006833, 89745951096#, *809394# or +12532158782, 89745951096#, *809394# Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 Webinar ID: 897 4595 1096 Passcode: 809394 Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2021 August 12, 2021Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Meeting Agenda 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes July 8, 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. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. 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 Community B/PAC Update (Informational Item Only)a. California Drive Bicycle Facility Updateb. Staff ReportAttachments: Old Bayshore Highway Feasibility Study Updatec. PresentationAttachments: 7. Information Items 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. Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2021 August 12, 2021Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Meeting Agenda Broadway Parking/Traffic Issues (Israelit & Leigh)b. School Traffic (Israelit & Wettan)c. Citywide Transportation Alternatives (Wettan & Rebelos)d. Community Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (Leigh & Rebelos)e. 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 at the City Clerk's office, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available on the site. NEXT TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION MEETING: September 9, 2021 Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/9/2021 1 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of Thursday, July 8, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:02 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Leigh, Israelit, Martos, Rebelos, Wettan MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) June 10, 2021 Meeting Minutes Motion: To accept the June 10, 2021 Meeting Minutes as submitted. M/S/C; Leigh/Wettan, 4/0/1 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA The following email was provided for public comment and was read for the record by the Commission Secretary. Hi, My name is Serena Glass, I'm 10 almost 11, and I bike to the Burlingame on Mondays and Wednesdays. But, there are no bike lanes and the cars go so fast on Rollins Rd, my parents don't want me biking in the street. That way I have to go on the sidewalk. But there are big poles square in the middle. There is also a glass bowl for some reason. I think we should put in some bike lanes, and move the poles to the side of the sidewalk. That way people can bike in the street and strollers have an easy time getting by. Thank you very much - Serena 2 6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS a) Community B/PAC Update (Informational Item Only) No update. b) Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Update Transportation Program Manager Lisha Mai kicked off the presentation. Ms. Mai indicated the Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project is located at Burlingame Avenue and East Lane, adjacent to the east side of the Caltrain Station. She stated in 2018, staff conducted a series of community workshops and online surveys with residents in the area regarding speeding, cut-through traffic, sight distance, and parking, with the intent to develop recommendations that address the community’s concerns. Ms. Mai said the result of this effort was the Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Studies and Recommendations Report. She explained the report categorized improvements based on complexity and deliverability into three phases. As part of the recently completed phase one improvements, Ms. Mai stated the City installed quick build trial features such as a temporary curb extension at this location, aimed to reduce the crossing distance and better align the vehicle path of travel. She indicated construction of permanent treatments were planned for phase three, but thanks to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, the City was approved to receive $600,000 in grant funding, which will allow staff to advance the implementation of improvements sooner than planned. Ms. Mai explained the key takeaways from the preliminary design concept developed by staff and CSG. Ms. Mai also shared an alternative design concept provided by community members. She said the key takeaway goals with the alternative concept include preservation of the heritage oak tree, addition of stormwater runoff treatment, slowing down traffic while creating a charming intersection, in addition to reducing the crossing distance and improving visibility. Ultimately, Ms. Mai stated that staff and the design consultant felt the alternative design created additional conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles. Additionally, she shared concerns about the one-way loop. The design consultant from CSG walked through the proposed design concept with three main project goal categories in mind: pedestrian accessibility; traffic calming; and other goals; which include improved parking standards, preservation of the heritage oak tree, and green infrastructure. 3 The consultant indicated the green lines are proposed new face of curb/curb and gutter, with the dark grey shading representing new sidewalks. He said the white striping and yellow crosswalks are new and proposed striping; the green dotted area is potential landscape areas; and the purple dotted area is proposed green infrastructure. Additionally, the consultant highlighted the enhancement of pedestrian accessibility, the decrease in vehicle/pedestrian conflicts, improved parking standards, trade-offs, and other design advantages. Furthermore, with the proposed design concept, the consultant provided two options for the parking configuration. He explained Option A includes a drive aisle and driveway that is better aligned, but includes less parking stalls and requires the majority of the parking meters to be relocated. With Option B, he stated there is a skewed driveway alignment, but there are more parking stalls and there is less impact on existing parking meters. Lastly, the consultant went over next steps by sharing the plan is to provide a presentation to City Council in September or October, to finalize the project design in early 2022, with construction to start in the summer of 2022. Chair Wettan facilitated Commissioner’s questions before opening public comment. B/PAC Chair Leslie Beatty thanked the City and consultants; she said they really support the overall objectives of the project. Ms. Beatty stated it is a very heavy pedestrian area and indicated they want to support safe crossings from the Burlingame Caltrain Station and the park. She said they like the project design, particularly the north end of the design. Additionally, she stated they saw an opportunity to reduce the asphalt on the southern end by building out that area south of Burlingame Avenue. She indicated they feel strongly there should be a third crossing on the southern end of East Lane. With the support of a third crosswalk, she also suggested widening the green strip to make it a pedestrian 4 landing zone and a safer crossing. Concerns about the lack of a stop sign at the crosswalk on East Lane were also conveyed by Ms. Beatty. The following email was provided for public comment and was read for the record by the Commission Secretary. Dear Chair Wettan and fellow Commissioners, I will be out of town on Thursday without computer access, but wanted to comment briefly on the evolution of this project and the various options. All of these concepts have merit and will improve the current safety situation significantly. I think the proposed design makes safety sense for pedestrians, while also keeping traffic patterns simple. My comment is related to the 4 parallel parking spots that hug the eastside of the island where the large oak is located. I’m curious if it would be feasible to consider eliminating those few spots, thereby creating several more feet to landscape, while also serving to further shorten up that crosswalk at Burlingame Avenue near the tennis courts. I hope some of you have had a chance to see the lovely park that the Parks Dept. has recently completed adjacent to this area. They have reconfigured and re-landscaped along Burlingame Avenue, adjacent to the tennis courts, and have created a very inviting park and seating area. I have attached a few photos taken recently. It seems to me that this project is actually a natural extension of their project, creating a nice safe path adjacent to the island as well as a more generous landscaped setting for the oak tree on Burlingame Square. Please find photos of the newly designed park, as well as the Burlingame Square oak. I do know we never like to eliminate parking spaces! However, thinking ahead just a few months, we will have lots and lots of available parking just down the street at the new community center, not to mention at the new parking lot not too far away on Lorton Avenue, and Lot O by the donut shop. From what I typically have noticed, those parallel spots are rarely at capacity, and what we'd win back in return seems aesthetically quite substantial, while further enhancing pedestrian safety. Thank you for your consideration, and many thanks to TSP, BPAC and staff who have been actively focused on this area for quite some time. 5 Sincerely yours, Jennifer Pfaff After closing the public comment period, Chair Wettan requested feedback from his fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Rebelos said he sees this project as an opportunity to extend the greenery out and make the park that much more attractive from East Lane. He stated he would like to get the most of out the project as quickly as we can. Commissioner Rebelos indicated he prefers Option A for the parking configuration, as the last accessible stall in Option B is cause for concern, specifically related to the parking lot exit. Commissioner Leigh stated she agreed with Ms. Pfaff’s and Commissioner Rebelos’ comments in that they want to extend the island and greenery of the park forward. She felt the few parking spots that would be lost would be insignificant. She also agreed with Commissioner Rebelos’ concerns related to the parking exit and suggested a stop sign, raised crosswalk, or high visibility crosswalk might help. Commissioner Leigh stated she would also like a third crossing on the south end of East Lane. She requested staff and the consultants to look into reversing the left-turn lane so it becomes a southbound left- turn lane. Commissioner Leigh indicated she would also like to see a stop sign at the crosswalk on East Lane. Additionally, she pointed out the crossings are considered school crossings given the proximity to the school and said it would help if they were designated as such. Commissioner Leigh reiterated she likes the bulbout at the BHS intersection and requested another bulbout where the crosswalk lands on Burlingame Avenue at Caltrain, so pedestrians are far more visible with a shorter distance to cross. Commissioner Israelit said she has driven through said intersection almost daily for many years and her comments are reflective of that. She stated she disagrees with Commissioner Leigh to change the turn lane from north to southbound due to the vehicles that get caught on the train tracks, which is not shown in the aerial photo. For that reason, she also thinks we cannot add the suggested stop sign. Commissioner Israelit also pointed out that cars queue waiting to make the left turn over the train tracks when the train is pulling into the station and noted that with only one northbound lane, it would cause problems for pedestrians. In terms of the parking configuration, Commissioner Israelit said she preferred Option A, mostly due to the parking lot exit as she felt it was safer. Additionally, she stated she liked Commissioner Rebelos’ suggestion to have a right-turn only at the driveway exit. Vice-Chair Martos shared he struggles with the parking exit point as well. He stated he is leaning towards Option A for the parking configuration and said he also likes the suggestion by fellow Commissioner Rebelos to make it a right-turn only when exiting the parking lot. Chair Wettan said he is not as enthusiastic about the idea of a third crosswalk, as the proposed location would put pedestrians into the Caltrain parking lot. He said he is leaning 6 towards Option B in order to save some parking spaces (with additional safety measures) given future downtown plans, which will result in the loss of additional parking. He said he would be in favor of trying Option B as long as it did not mean sacrificing safety. Chair Wettan also suggested looking into modifying the location of the ADA parking space. In closing, Mr. Wong stated they would look into the various suggestions from the Commission. No formal motion was made. c) Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Street Closure/Parklet Update Mr. Wong provided an update regarding the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway street closure/parklets as requested by the TSPC. He shared the following key information. • There are 43 businesses with parklets (7 Broadway/36 Downtown). • A total of 88 spaces are being used for the parklets (17 Broadway/71 Downtown). • There are 9 curbside parking spaces (1 Broadway/8 Downtown). • Parklets are approved until September 6, 2021 (Labor Day). • New Highland Garage is estimated to open in September 2021 (337 spaces). • Upon completion of the parking garage, the Post Office garage will be open to the public in the evenings. • Lot E’s phased closures are scheduled to begin mid-August/early September and will result in the loss of 70 spaces. • The Economic Development Subcommittee will discuss the closures at their meeting on July 14, 2021. • The Broadway BID, DBID, and the Chamber of Commerce were all notified of this discussion. Chair Wettan opened public comment. John Kevranian stated parklets and road closures have been a dilemma for any business district. He said for the last 15 months, they have accommodated 7 or 8 restaurants with parklets. Mr. Kevranian explained that he is speaking tonight as a business owner, not as the president of the Broadway BID. As a retail business owner, he said things are going back to normal and in his opinion, restaurants are back in full force. Mr. Kevranian stated many merchants have concerns with the parklets, especially since everything is now 100% open. He shared that some restaurants have invested $10 – $20k into their parklets and felt that those who invested, should have the opportunity to extend the use of the parklets. However, for those that did not make an investment and are still utilizing the orange barricades, he felt it’s time to decide if they can keep the parklets and suggested the City offer free encroachment permits for tables and chairs as an alternative. Mr. Kevranian said he took an inventory before tonight’s meeting and clarified there are 8 7 businesses with parklets—7 on Broadway and 1 on Capuchino, with 18 parking spaces. He stated road closures do not help retailers and that restaurants have had the ability to stay open and provide food to go for the last 15 months; whereas hair, nail salons, and other non-food retailers were forced to close. Mr. Kevranian said it’s time to go back to normal so everyone succeeds—not just one industry. The following email was provided for public comment and was read for the record by the Commission Secretary. As a retail store owner on Broadway, I have been supportive of the restaurants since the pandemic began. Not only do I believe in helping other struggling businesses but I recognize their importance in driving traffic to Broadway. So at first, when it came time to consider closing the street for them, I was in favor of the closure. Then when parklets were discussed, I again supported the restaurants. For the past 15 months, Broadway has helped the restaurants but I think it’s now time to turn some of that energy and those resources to other businesses. Restaurants have had time to make adjustments, gather financial support, and build new revenue streams. They are now able to operate more or less as they did before. There is less need for the parklets now. Understanding that some people still do not want to eat inside, if parklets will remain an option, I believe a restaurant should now pay a fee for the parklet. This will ensure that the parklet is being utilized. Right now on Broadway there are some parklets where this is not the case. People are frustrated when they come to Broadway and can’t find parking but the parklets are completely unoccupied because the restaurant is either not open or they are underutilizing the space. Retail on Broadway needs help. Parking is a vital part of the equation. I’m willing to give some of that parking for the restaurants but I want to feel like it’s being used enough to justify the sacrifice. Thank you for your time and consideration. Christopher Diez, Owner of Pot-Pourri on Broadway Commissioner Leigh stated she observed the parklets both on Burlingame Avenue and Broadway and commented on the vast difference between some of them. She shared she was in Healdsburg over the weekend and said their parklets have been approved through the year 2023 (although she was not proposing the City follow suit). Commissioner Leigh indicated she agreed with Mr. Kevranian regarding the parklets and said they are not all created equal. She also shared that she spoke with the owner of Stack’s and stated he said the parklet saved his business during the Covid closures. Commissioner Leigh did not feel as though a blanket parklet policy would work and suggested we phase out the standard parklets with the orange barricades where very little money has been invested. She added that the nicer parklets enhance the ambiance and draws people to the City. In closing, Commissioner Leigh mentioned looking into a fee and standards for parklets. 8 Commissioner Israelit agreed with Commissioner Leigh’s comments regarding the additional draw and charm of some of the parklets. She said she noticed the parklets on Broadway are never fully utilized. Commissioner Israelit stated she is uncomfortable with the idea of charging a fee to continue using parklets when some businesses have invested so much money into their parklet. She said she does not want to eliminate the parklets, but in order to make it fair, she suggested measuring parklet utilization and aesthetics to determine which ones stay and which ones go. Commissioner Rebelos agreed with his fellow Commissioners above. He also said he noticed the Broadway parklets being underutilized with the exception of a few spaces on the weekends. Commissioner Rebelos explained he felt there is a difference between a coffee shop providing extra tables and chairs in the street for their customers, versus a formal restaurant that has brought their experience outdoors and enhanced the overall atmosphere. He said he would like to see a way to differentiate between the various businesses and also suggested to consider accommodating the late night crowd going forward, especially on the weekends. Commissioner Rebelos stated he is not against a fee for the parklets since they are taking parking spaces and generating additional revenue. Pertaining to the street closures, he felt the Broadway closure was disappointing and ineffective at the height of the pandemic. Commissioner Rebelos suggested we think about mid-summer, weekend, and or a holiday promenade as he felt there were some fantastic days on Burlingame Avenue with a large draw of people outside of Burlingame. In closing, he said he is not comfortable naming restaurants, but felt some of the parklets definitely need to stay. Vice-Chair Martos stated he has mixed feelings about this. He said he walked Burlingame Avenue last Friday evening and heard the restaurant concerns about excess capacity and trying to catch up on their sales by having the parklets. Based on his notes, he said 8 restaurants on a Friday night had full capacity both inside the restaurant and in the parklet. For the remaining 24 parklets, only a portion of the parklets were being used, but he observed there was capacity indoors. Additionally, Vice-Chair Martos spoke directly to some of the hostesses who indicated their parklets are fully utilized when it is sunny and warm, but when it’s cold, patrons come inside. With the cooler weather coming, Vice-Chair Martos felt there would be less utilization of the parklets and suggested phasing them out. For those that have invested heavily, he was in favor of businesses paying a fee if they want to keep the parklet to ensure they are making use of the space. Chair Wettan felt his views were closer aligned with Vice-Chair Martos. Chair Wettan said they should be looking forward and reiterated the City would permanently be losing 70 spaces in a downtown core lot this fall and that we are going to be in post-Covid conditions soon. He is concerned they will have parking capacity constraints again. He felt if we keep any of the parklets, we should be charging a private business to use public space. Chair Wettan stated he observed many parklets underutilized when he was on Burlingame Avenue for lunch and welcomes utilizing the sidewalks for seating. Additionally, Chair Wettan stated the reality was the parklets were measures taken for emergency purposes during Covid and there should no reasonable expectation that the parklets would be 9 permanent. Looking towards October, he felt strongly it is time to phase out the parklets. Chair Wettan suggested the City set an appropriately high fee for the parklets so those that find value in them, can pay to continue using the public space. Commissioner Israelit stated City Council has moved forward with a plan for a town square and TSPC is making decisions on pedestrian safety and financial feasibility of parklets for small businesses based on the fact that parking will become very tight—which is bothersome. She inquired if Council has a plan she is unaware of to supplement the loss of parking with the new development as TSPC is using that information to weigh in on just about everything lately. Mr. Wong stated he does not know and said he would inquire. Chair Wettan stated all he has heard was we would have evening access to the Post Office parking as presented previously by Mr. Wong. Chair Wettan also explained why he remains conservative about the loss of parking. Mr. Kevranian said he appreciated the comments he has heard and acknowledged the tough decision that lies ahead. He said we should do what is best for all the businesses and customers. Without customers, Mr. Kevranian said they cannot pay their bills. Chair Wettan inquired the best way to communicate TSPC comments to the Economic Development Subcommittee (EDS) to ensure they receive their feedback. Commissioner Rebelos inquired about a formal business survey to see what they want. Mr. Wong stated the EDS will obtain feedback through their meetings and could share the upcoming meeting agenda. Chair Wettan took a poll of his fellow Commissioner’s to see if they would be in favor of a high fee for the parklets, which would weed most of them out with only the high-value parklets remaining. Commissioner Rebelos stated he is very much in favor of establishing a fee for the parklets (market value per square foot). Commissioner Leigh said they should be charging a fee but should also include the amount of the parklet investment into the fee calculation. Economic Development Specialist Joseph Sanfilippo shared they conducted several surveys during the pandemic but have not considered another survey recently. He said he could look into that. Mr. Sanfilippo also indicated TSPC comments would be discussed at the July 14 subcommittee meeting as Mr. Wong will also be in attendance. Additionally, he shared that the parklets will be discussed by City Council at the August 16 meeting, including a possible fee structure for parklets. No formal motion was made. 10 7. INFORMATION ITEMS a) Engineering Division Reports Mr. Wong provided the following updates on various Engineering projects. • California Drive Bicycle Facility – Concepts presented at the June TSPC meeting. Staff anticipates this item returning at the August TSPC meeting. • Broadway Grade Separation Project – Staff working with Caltrains’ design team on value engineering options related to the final design. These options will be presented at a future City Council meeting where they will be introduced and discussed. Any approved value engineering options will be incorporated into the design, and at that time staff will be able to provide a more detailed update. • Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements – Proposed design presented at the July TSPC meeting to obtain feedback. • Hoover School Pedestrian Improvements (Summit Drive) – Staff to kick-off the project with the contractor. Actual construction scheduled to begin the first full week of July. • Broadway Pedestrian Street Lighting Improvements – Project will be re- advertised with a July 27, 2021 bid opening date. Construction is still anticipated for later this year. • Old Bayshore Highway Corridor Study – Second community survey available on-line at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BayshorePreliminaryAlts. • Highland Parking Garage Update – PG&E has completed the installation of the transformer. Contractor working on energizing electrical facilities, including the parking wayfinding. Garage opening anticipated for September 2021. • City of San Mateo’s Peninsula Overcrossing – Staff submitted comments regarding the preparation of the CEQA/NEPA scoping document; with the final document expected in spring 2022. The Final EIR/EA, including the response to comments, is anticipated to be completed in fall 2022 with Caltrans Project approval expected late 2022. • Lyon-Hoag Neighborhood Traffic Calming – Staff is compiling the feedback from the community survey on the Phase 1 traffic calming improvements. These improvements will remain in place for a period of at least one year before determining additional, and/or permanent improvements. 11 TSPC Priority List (revised June 2021): TSPC Led Effort 1 Bike\Ped Plan Priorities 5/13/21: Item 6b 2 School Transportation and Safety Issues 1/14/21: Item 7a 3 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor 4/8/21: Item 7a 4 Neighborhood Traffic Calming/Controls 2/11/21: Item 7a 5 Old Bayshore Corridor Study (s/o Broadway) 5/13/21: Item 7a 6 Electric Vehicle Discussion with Planning 2/13/20: Item 6c 7 Downtown Parking and Access 5/13/21: 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 4/8/21: Item 7a 2 Hoover School Update 6/10/21: 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 3/11/21: Item 6b 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 6/10/21: Item 7a 10 Grant Opportunities 11/12/20: Item 7a 11 Broadway Grade Separation 5/13/21: Item 7a 12 San Mateo's Peninsula Ave OC 5/13/21: Item 7a 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 6/10//21: Item 7a 16 300 Burlingame Point Traffic Impacts 12/10/20: Item 7a 17 Broadway/California Update 2021 Agenda Item Action Status 1 Highland Garage Parking Restrictions Approved by Council February 16, 2021 b) Police Department Reports Sergeant Perna pointed out three collisions within the report he felt the Commission would be interested in. 12 • Major injury collision on Arc Way and El Camino Real (ECR) involving a vehicle pulling out onto ECR. • Vehicle/bicycle collision on California Drive and Carmelita Avenue to which the vehicle did not give the bicyclist enough of a buffer and resulted in the bicyclist falling. • Vehicle backing into a fire hydrant in the Walgreens parking lot. c) Farmer’s Market Chair Wettan stated he would reach out to former Commissioner Londer regarding participation at the Farmer’s Market with the Citizen’s Environmental Council. d) TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communications Commissioner Leigh shared the following message from a friend: I just witnessed a guy crash his bike pretty seriously in front of me on Rollins. His tire got stuck in the rain gutter. He hit his chest on the handle bars and his head on the pavement—at least a broken nose and concussion. We hope we can get better bike lanes soon. Commissioner Leigh requested staff take a look at the rain gutters in front of the new Anson Apartments as they are parallel to the roadway instead of perpendicular. Mr. Wong stated staff is aware and has issued a work order to replace the grate or weld it. Chair Wettan said he received a comment regarding the usage of parking spaces for garbage collection. He stated he would circle back with the City Attorney and also see what surfaces as he thought the issue would have been brought up during public comments. Commissioner Rebelos inquired about the status of the crosswalk timers at Trousdale and Magnolia. Mr. Wong stated once the signal maintenance contract is finalized, the crosswalk timers are on the top of the priority list. 8. COMMISSION & SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS a) Downtown Parking (Martos & Wettan) No update. 13 b) Broadway Parking/Traffic Issues (Israelit & Leigh) Commissioner Israelit stated that she met with Commissioner Leigh about the objectives and points of action for the subcommittee, which was reported out at the previous meeting. c) School Traffic (Israelit & Wettan) No new update; walking audit update reported out at the previous meeting by Chair Wettan. d) Citywide Transportation Alternatives (Rebelos & Wettan) No update. e) Community Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory (Leigh & Rebelos) No update. 9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Old Bayshore • California Drive Bike Facility • Broadway/California Drive parking/bike lane • BIS Walk Audit • Lighting along California Drive (over the crosswalks and bike lanes) 10. ADJOURNMENT 10:12 p.m. 1 even STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: Item 6b MEETING DATE: August 12, 2021 To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Date: August 12, 2021 From: Lisha Mai, Transportation Program Manager – (650) 558-7230 Subject: California Drive Bicycle Facility Update RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission receive an update regarding the California Drive Bicycle Facility Project. BACKGROUND California Drive, a major north–south commuter corridor, is recognized by the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC), Community Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (B/PAC), and the Burlingame community through the 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as a high priority bicycle network. The California Drive Bicycle Facility Project (Project) will focus on extending the bicycle network from Broadway to Oak Grove Avenue, to enhance bike connectivity across the City while improving the safety, comfort, and attractiveness of bicycling for people of varying ages and abilities. Through the San Mateo County Transportation Authority’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Congestion Relief Plan, Cycle 5, the City was approved $800,000 of Measure A and Measure W funding for the construction phase of the Project. The City will provide funds for project development, community outreach, design, and matching construction funds for the grant. On June 10, 2021, City staff and consultants from Mark Thomas developed and presented two alternatives to the TSPC and community. Alternative A Expanding upon the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan community preferred alternative, Alternative A provides a one-way Class IV separated bikeway on both sides of California Drive. This alternative includes a road diet, removing one vehicle travel lane on both north and southbound California Drive. Alternative B This alternative also includes a road diet, removing one vehicle travel lane both north and southbound. Alternative B provides a two-way Class IV separated bikeway on the east side (railroad side) of California Drive. This two-way cycle track can be physically separated from motor Item 6.b – California Drive Bicycle Facility Update August 12, 2021 2 traffic and distinct from the sidewalk, providing space intended to be exclusively or primarily used for bicycles. DISCUSSION Based on the input and feedback received at the June 10, 2021 TSPC meeting, the design team has further developed details related to Alternative B. Staff recommends that the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission receive the update. This item does not require any action. Exhibit: • California Drive Bicycle Facility Update Presentation OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission BKF CALA City of Burlingame August 12, 2021 PRESENT PRELIMINARY OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, AND SUMMARIZE COMMUNITY INPUT RECEIVED ON THOSE PRELIMINARY OPTIONS SHARE DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR BAY TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO PREPARATION OF A PREFERRED PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS STAKEHOLDER SURVEY 1 COMMUNITY SURVEY 1 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES COMMUNITY SURVEY 2 TSPC MEETING PREFERRED / DRAFT CORRIDOR PLAN TSPC MEETING #2 COUNCIL MEETING FINAL PLAN GOAL PROCESS ALTERNATIVE 1 3 11 Feet 14 Feet 10 Feet ALTERNATIVE 2 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 4Travel Lanes Turn Lane Typical Sidewalk Width, Inclusive of Planting Strips and Tree Wells Class 2 Buffered Bike Lane Bus Pull-Outs In-Lane Bus Stops Sidewalk Planting Strips Trees In Tree Grates Planted Medians PRELIMINARY OPTIONS OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVE 1 - OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY three travel lanes with a center turn laneBAY TRAILBURLWAY RDB U R LWA Y RD 6’5’ SIDE- WALK 5’ SHARED CYCLE TRACK LOADING PLATFORM 10’ BUS PULL-OUT 11’ TRAVEL LANE 11’ TRAVEL LANE 11’ TRAVEL LANE WITH IN-LANE BUS STOP 11’ PLANTED MEDIAN AND TURN LANE 84’-0” R.O.W. 9’ SHARED CYCLE TRACK LOADING PLATFORM 11’ SIDEWALK WITH PLANTER STRIP AND BUS SHELTER RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION FOR BUS SHELTER ALTERNATIVE 1 - OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY three travel lanes with a center turn lane ALTERNATIVE 2 - OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY two travel lanes with a center turn laneBAY TRAILBURLWAY RDB U R LWA Y RD 6’ SIDE- WALK 6’ SIDE- WALK 7’ SHARED CYCLE TRACK LOADING PLATFORM 11’ BUS PULL-OUT 12’ TRAVEL LANE 12’ TRAVEL LANE 11’ BUS PULL-OUT 12’ PLANTED MEDIAN AND TURN LANE 84’-0” R.O.W. 7’ SHARED CYCLE TRACK LOADING PLATFORM ALTERNATIVE 2 - OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY two travel lanes with a center turn lane ALTERNATIVE 3 - OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY four travel lanes with no center turn laneBAY TRAILBURLWAY RDB U R LWA Y RD ALTERNATIVE 3 - OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY four travel lanes with no center turn lane 5’ SIDE- WALK 5’ SIDE- WALK 7’ CYCLE TRACK 7’ CYCLE TRACK 8’ BUS LOADING PLATFORM 8’ BUS LOADING PLATFORM 11’ TRAVEL LANE 11’ TRAVEL LANE 11’ TRAVEL LANE 11’ TRAVEL LANE 84’-0” R.O.W. ALTERNATIVE 3 - WHAT WE HEARD AT LEAST 75% SUPPORT PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING SITE FURNISHINGS WIDENED SIDEWALK WITH TREES IN PLANTING STRIPS 10/15/2019 Old Bayshore Hwy - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5919758,-122.3626304,3a,75y,102.28h,89.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjhDXjYDDzWUdFLGrMx3z1g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0 1/1 Image capture: Apr 2019 © 2019 Google Burlingame, California Google Street View - Apr 2019 Old Bayshore Hwy WHAT WE HEARD AT LEAST 60% SUPPORT COORDINATED SIGNAGE PROGRAM DECORATIVE RAILING AT EXISTING BRIDGE PLANTED MEDIANS TREES IN TREE GRATES HIGH-VISIBILITY PAINT BUFFERED BIKE LANE PEDESTRIAN REFUGE HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK TWO LANE + TURN LANE BUS PULL - OUT PAVEMENT TRAIL INDICATORS WHAT WE HEARD 50% OR LESS SUPPORT INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE IN-LANE STOP WITH SHARED CYCLE TRACK BUS LOADING PLATFORM RAISED CYCLE TRACK (AT BUS STOPS ONLY) FOUR TRAVEL LANES AND NO TURN LANE THREE TRAVEL + CENTER TURN LANE TEXTURED TURN LANE SIDE BOARDING ISLAND STOP WITH SHELTER AND BIKE CHANNEL ALTERNATIVE 2 - PREFERRED two travel lanes with a center turn laneBAY TRAILBURLWAY RDB U R LWA Y RD SITE FURNISHINGS LEGEND PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING BUFFERED BIKE LANE TWO LANE + TURN LANE PAVEMENT TRAIL INDICATORS WIDENED SIDEWALK WITH TREES IN PLANTING STRIPS PEDESTRIAN REFUGE RAISED CYCLE TRACK (AT BUS STOPS ONLY)DECORATIVE RAILING AT EXISTING BRIDGE PLANTED MEDIAN HIGH-VISIBILITY PAINT BUS PULL - OUT IN-LANE STOP WITH SHARED CYCLE TRACK BUS LOADING PLATFORM 1 2 2 5 8 12369 11 13 3 4 8 10 1312 5 6 7 9 11 1 4 7 10 DRAFT GUIDELINES BAY TRAIL OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYOLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY SAN FRANCISCO BAYSAN FRANCISCO BAY SIDEWALK SEE ALTERNATIVE PLANS VERTICAL ACCESS WHERE POSSIBLE, ADA COMPLIANT. DESIGNATED BAY TRAIL PARKING WITH ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL CONNECTIING TO BAY TRAIL EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING POCKET PARK/ SEATING NODE SEA WALL LANDSCAPE BUFFFER WITH SHORELINE - APPROPRIATE PLANT MATERIAL 12’-0” WIDE ASPHALT BAY TRAIL ENHANCED ACCESS POINT WITH BAY TRAIL STANDARD DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE. ENHANCED PAVEMENT, PLANTING AND SITE FURNISHINGS ARE ENCOURAGED. IMPROVEMENT GUIDELINES AT EXISTING DEVELOPMENTEXISTING DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT GUIDELINES AT EXISTING DEVELOPMENTEXISTING DEVELOPMENT DRAFT GUIDELINES BAY TRAIL BFE CURRENT BFE 2050 BFE 2100 MSL EXISTING GUARDRAIL/ FLOOD WALL. MODIFICATIONS TO WALL HEIGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED. ASPHALT MULTI-USE TRAIL. MAINTAIN TEN FEET OF VERTICAL CLEARANCE. TRAIL ELEVATION TO BE MODIFIED IF NEEDED SUCH THAT TRAIL ELEVATION IS BETWEEN 36 AND 42 INCHES BELOW TOP OF GUARDRAIL/ FLOOD WALL. LANDSCAPE BUFFER. BAY TRAIL AMENTITIES SUCH AS SEATING ARE ENCOURAGED IN THIS ZONE. RIPRAP EXISTING GRADE EXISTING BUILDING OR PARKING LOT MSL 2050 MHT 12’- 0” ≤ 30’-0” ABBREVIATIONS: BFE: BASE FLOOD ELEVATION MHT: MEAN HIGH TIDE MSL: MEAN SEA LEVEL OL D B A Y S H O R E H I G H W A Y OL D B A Y S H O R E H I G H W A Y EASTON CREEKEASTON CREEKMEA N H I G H T I D E ( M H T ) MEA N H I G H T I D E ( M H T ) AVER A G E S E T B A C K AVER A G E S E T B A C K BCD C J U R I S D I C T I O N BCD C J U R I S D I C T I O N ENHANCED ACCESS POINT WITH BAY TRAIL STANDARD DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE. ENHANCED PAVEMENT, PLANTING AND SITE FURNISHINGS ARE ENCOURAGED. EXISTING BAY TRAIL VERTICAL ACCESS WHERE POSSIBLE, ADA COMPLIANT.75’-0’75’-0’25’-0’25’-0’BRIDGE 12’-0” BAY TRAIL WITH 3’ SHOULDERS SAN FRANCISCO BAYSAN FRANCISCO BAY BRIDGE SEATING NODE REMOVABLE BOLLARDS BAY TRAIL IMPROVEMENT GUIDELINES AT NEW DEVELOPMENTNEW DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT GUIDELINES AT NEW DEVELOPMENTNEW DEVELOPMENT BAY TRAIL ELEVATION OF NEW DEVELOPMENT RIPRAP PLANTED BUFFER FUTURE GUARDRAIL/ FLOOD WALL AS NEEDED ASPHALT MULTI-USE TRAIL WITH 3’ CLEAR SHOULDER BOTH SIDES. EXISTING GRADE PUBLIC REALM ENHANCEMENTS LANDSCAPED BUFFER, POCKET PARKS AND SEATING AREAS. BFE CURRENT BFE 2050 BFE 2100 MSL MSL 2050 MHT 75’-0”AVERAGE SETBACK 100’-0”BCDC JURISDICTION 15’- 0”MAX.3’- 0”12’- 0”3’- 0” ABBREVIATIONS: BFE: BASE FLOOD ELEVATION MHT: MEAN HIGH TIDE MSL: MEAN SEA LEVEL OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission BKF CALA City of Burlingame August 12, 2021 THANK YOU 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: 7a. MEETING DATE: August 12, 2021 To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Date: August 12, 2021 From: Andrew Wong, Senior Civil Engineer – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update RECOMMENDAT ION Staff recommends that the Commission receive a presentation by staff providing an update on various Public Works – Engineering projects and activities. BACKGROUND • California Drive Bicycle Facility – Update provided at August TSPC meeting. • Broadway Grade Separation Project – No update from July meeting. • Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements – Staff reviewing feedback from July TSPC meeting and will make a presentation at an upcoming City Council meeting. • Hoover School Pedestrian Improvements (Summit Drive) – Sidewalk has been installed on Summit Drive as well as the new path along Easton Drive. • Broadway Pedestrian Street Lighting Improvements – Bid opening was July 27, 2021. Construction contract expected to be awarded at the August 16 City Council meeting. Construction is anticipated to begin in October 2021. • Old Bayshore Highway Corridor Study – Update provided at August TSPC meeting. • Highland Parking Garage Update – PG&E has completed the installation of the transformer. Contractor working on energizing electrical facilities, including the parking wayfinding. Garage opening anticipated for September 2021. • Lyon-Hoag Neighborhood Traffic Calming – Staff is compiling the feedback from the community survey on the Phase 1 traffic calming improvements. These improvements will remain in place for a period of at least one year before determining additional, and/or permanent improvements. Item 7.a – Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update August 12, 2021 2 TSPC Priority List (revised August 2021): TSPC Led Effort 1 Bike\Ped Plan Priorities 5/13/21: Item 6b 2 School Transportation and Safety Issues 1/14/21: Item 7a 3 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor 4/8/21: Item 7a 4 Neighborhood Traffic Calming/Controls 2/11/21: Item 7a 5 Old Bayshore Corridor Study (s/o Broadway) 5/13/21: Item 7a 6 Electric Vehicle Discussion with Planning 2/13/20: Item 6c 7 Downtown Parking and Access 7/8/21: Item 6c 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 4/8/21: Item 7a 2 Hoover School Update 8/12/21: Item 7a 3 Downtown Parking Strategies 7/8/21: Item 6c 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 3/11/21: Item 6b 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 8/12/21: Item 7a 10 Grant Opportunities 11/12/20: Item 7a 11 Broadway Grade Separation 5/13/21: Item 7a 12 San Mateo's Peninsula Ave OC 5/13/21: Item 7a 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 6/10//21: Item 7a 16 300 Burlingame Point Traffic Impacts 12/10/20: Item 7a 17 Broadway/California Update 2021 Agenda Item Action Status 1 Highland Garage Parking Restrictions Approved by Council February 16, 2021 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 Item 7.a – Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update August 12, 2021 3 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 Locale Road Type Speed LimitMinor InjuriesMajor InjuriesDUI InvolvedCollision Type Caused By Juve?Primary Collision Factor Hit & Run Misd.Hit & Run FelonyOccurred On At Intersection Other Location Vehicle Involved WithBRM2101731 07/02/2021 1730 Parking Lot Private Property 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F unsafe starting/back T F 1350 OLD BAYSHORE BL Parked motor vehicleBRM2101722 07/01/2021 2145 Parking Lot Private Property 10 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F Unsafe Backing T F 1404 FLORIBUNDA AV Fixed objectBRM2101783 07/07/2021 1307 Parking Lot Private Property 25 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F unsafe starting/back F F 60 EDWARDS CT ROLLINS RD Parked motor vehicleBRM2101856 07/13/2021 1328 Parking Lot Public Property 25 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22106 VC T F AIRPORT BL OLD BAYSHORE BL Parked motor vehicleBRM2101895 07/17/2021 1005 Street City Street 25 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21658(a)CVC F F BALBOA WY RAY DR Parked motor vehicleBRM2101745 07/04/2021 6 Street City Street 30 0 0 T Vehicle-Object F VC 23152(A) F F BROADWAY BAYSHORE BLVD Fixed objectBRM2101840 07/12/2021 1612 Street City Street 30 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21801(A) VC T F CALIFORNIA DR BURLINGAME AV Other motor vehicleBRM2101865 07/14/2021 1120 Street City Street 30 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F unknown T F CALIFORNIA DR BAYSWATER Other motor vehicleBRM2101836 07/12/2021 1102 Other Private Property 25 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F 22107 VC F F DAVIS DR MARCO POLO WY Fixed objectBRM2101879 07/05/2021 1909 Street City Street 25 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22106 VC F F GROVE AV SR-82 Other motor vehicleBRM2101945 07/21/2021 1800 Street City Street 25 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22106 VC F F LAGUNA AV LINCOLN AV Other motor vehicleBRM2101773 07/06/2021 1608 Street City Street 35 1 0 F Other F other F F ROLLINS RD TOYON DR Fixed objectBRM2101837 07/12/2021 1323 Intersection City Street 35 2 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21801(A) VC F F SR-82 ROSEDALE AV Other motor vehicleBRM2101938 07/21/2021 1049 Intersection Highway 35 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F unknown F F SR-82 BROADWAY Other motor vehicleBRM2102002 07/27/2021 1600 Street Highway 35 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22107 cvc T F SR-82 HILLSIDE DR Other motor vehicleBRM2101893 07/17/2021 911 Intersection Highway 35 1 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21453(a) VC F F SR-82 HOWARD AV Other motor vehicleBRM2101827 07/09/2021 1230 Intersection City Street 25 1 0 F Vehicle-Pedestrian F 21950(a) CVC F F TROUSDALE DR MARCO POLO WY Pedestrian17 Accidents