Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - TSP - 2024.06.131 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on Thursday, June 13, 2024 The meeting minutes are intended to provide a high-level summary and action items. The official record is the meeting recording, which can be found on the City’s website or the City’s YouTube Channel: https://www.burlingame.org/departments/public_works/agenda_and_minutes.php https://www.youtube.com/@cityofburlingame3486 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Cauchi, Israelit, Martos, Rebelos MEMBERS ABSENT: Ng 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) May 6, 2024 Joint City Council & TSPC Meeting Minutes to be Approved at Next TSPC Meeting b) May 9, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes to be Approved at Next TSPC Meeting 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA No non-agenda public comments received. 6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS a) California Assembly Bill 413: Parking Prohibition Near Crosswalks (Presentation Only) Michael Tsai provided a presentation to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission regarding AB 413. Mr. Tsai went over the existing law, the new law, potential impacts, exceptions, City goals, 2 outreach and education, and what other cities are doing as a result of AB 413. Specifically, Mr. Tsai said the new law is as follows: No stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any unmarked or marked crosswalk or 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present. He pointed out that signs and markings are still not required. Mr. Tsai provided some examples of potential impacts, including the loss of parking at intersections such as Primrose Road and Chapin Avenue, Oak Grove Avenue and Winchester Road, Morrell and Laurel Avenues, and Bayswater Avenue and Park Road. He also shared that local authorities may establish a different distance if both requirements are met: (1) a local authority establishes the different distance by ordinance that includes a finding that the different distance is justified by established traffic safety standards, and (2) a local authority has marked the different distance at the intersection using paint or a sign. Mr. Tsai stated the City’s goal is to be in compliance and outlined that for 2024 jurisdictions are authorized to issue warnings but prohibited from issuing a citation unless the area is marked with paint or a signage. Starting January 1, 2025, he stated jurisdictions are authorized to issue citations for violations regardless if they are marked or signed. Mr. Tsai conveyed staff’s recommendation to only mark or sign priority locations such as the downtowns areas, schools, the Community Center, and high collision areas. He reiterated AB 413 does not require red markings/signage and is in effect on all approaches to marked and unmarked crosswalks throughout Burlingame. Mr. Tsai explained that addressing every intersection Citywide would be cost prohibitive and resource intensive. In terms of education and outreach, Mr. Tsai said the City would issue warnings prior to January 1, 2025, issue warnings and citations after January 1, 2025 at the Police Department’s discretion, and would communicate with the community through changeable message signs on major roadways, direct mailers, and the City’s social media accounts (NextDoor, Facebook, Instagram), including the weekly eNews. In his closing remarks, Mr. Tsai stated that cities are working to be in compliance with AB 413 but the bill is in many ways incomplete, and changes are anticipated in the future. He said there are significant issues involved including resources, intensive implementation, education, enforcement, and funding. Commissioner Israelit confirmed with Mr. Tsai that this effort is mandatory. Commissioner Cauchi said clarity on when and how this goes into effect would be helpful to the public when disseminating this information. Manito Velasco provided a public comment. He stated the presentation showed the challenges that California cities face with implementation. Mr. Velasco pointed out that this information is 3 already in the DMW handbook. He said that this is state mandated, and the City doesn’t need to paint or provide signs—it’s illegal according to state law. Mr. Velasco said with limited resources, he hoped the City would be enforcing this on a complaint basis. He felt the issue for the City is the streets with parking meters since that would give people a conflicting message. He did not feel the City should have to proactively go out and paint red curbs to enforce the state law. He agreed with Mr. Tsai in that the law was not well written. In closing, he said he hoped that the San Mateo cities would get together with the legislator that wrote this for clarification to make it more intuitive and effect pedestrian safety—not be strictly punitive. Chair Rebelos confirmed with Sergeant Roberts that BPD would accept online reports for this matter. Sergeant Roberts stated residents can also use See, Click, Fix or call BPD directly. b) Murchison Drive, Trousdale Drive, and Davis Drive Bicycle Improvement Project Update (Presentation Only) Mr. Wong provided an update on the Murchison Drive, Trousdale Drive, and Davis Drive Bicycle Improvement Project. He said the presentation would mimic what was provided at last week’s community meeting and indicated the TSPC meeting provided another opportunity to outreach the residents regarding the plan and to obtain additional feedback. Mr. Wong went over the following goals and benefits excerpted from the Bike and Ped Master Plan document. Goals • Create comprehensive, connected, and accessible bicycle and pedestrian networks • Enhance safety and increase comfort for all road users, especially people walking and bicycling • Develop data-driven recommendations with input from Burlingame residents • Prioritize walking and bicycle improvements near schools, parks, Caltrain, commercial areas, and other community destinations • Implement policies and build infrastructure that foster active trips and enhance the experiences of pedestrians and bicyclists • Create vibrant and inviting places to walk and bike that include street furniture, wayfinding, lighting, and placemaking elements (including public art) Benefits • Increase the livability and quality of life of a city • Increase recreational opportunities through improved access to outdoor amenities • Decrease the risk of bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions and injuries • Provide affordable transportation options for low-income and disadvantaged residents • Reduce visual and noise pollution caused by automobiles • Improve air quality through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from single 4 occupancy vehicles Mr. Wong went into the community meeting format, which included a presentation, breakout groups, and recap. He indicated staff was still in the process of compiling all the feedback from the community meeting and said the plan would be to hold another community meeting or bring it back to TSPC again to share the results. The project limits, per Mr. Wong are as follows: • Murchison Drive between California Drive and Sequoia Avenue; • Trousdale Drive between California Drive and Castenada/Martinez Drives; and • Davis Drive between Albemarle and Quesada Ways. Mr. Wong noted that the portion of Trousdale in front of Mills Peninsula Hospital will remain unchanged (ECR to Ogden Drive). Mr. Wong shared the preferred project alternatives from the Bike and Ped Master Plan: • Murchison Drive – Alternative 2, which has no changes to the roadway (parking on both sides), but includes separated bike lanes (89% community preferred). • Trousdale Drive – Alternative 2, which includes a road diet with buffered bike lanes, turn lane, and parking (67% community preferred). • Davis Drive – Class IIB neighborhood bike route. Mr. Wong also went over the outreach efforts to date, including the project website and survey. Please refer to the presentation for the statistics provided. He also went into detail regarding the study areas, including the existing conditions before diving into the project alternatives. Project Alternatives • Murchison Drive • Alternative 1 includes parking-protected buffered bike lanes. Pros Cons No change to vehicle capacity Potential loss of parking at driveways Protection for bicyclists Parked vehicles may encroach into buffer Less direct driveway access • Alternative 2 includes buffered bike lanes. Pros Cons No change to vehicle capacity Vehicles need to cross bike lane to enter / exit parking 5 Protection for bicyclists Smaller buffer between bike lane and travel lane Less direct driveway access • Trousdale Drive Alternative 1 includes two travel lanes, a center-turn lane, and buffered bike lanes. Pros Cons Protection for bicyclists Reduced vehicle capacity Increased delay at Quesada in AM peak from level of service C to F (school traffic) Alternative 2 includes four travel lanes, a center-turn lane, buffered bike lanes, and no parking. Pros Cons Turn lane would reduce delay No on-street parking Protection for bicyclists Alternative 3 includes four travel lanes, bike lanes, and street parking. Pros Cons No change to vehicle capacity Increased traffic stress for bicyclists New bike lanes Minimum width for vehicle, bike, and parking lanes Mr. Wong shared the summary of key issues for Trousdale: (1) Class II or Class IV bike lanes not recommended between El Camino Real and Ogden Drive due to increased emergency response times, (2) Alternative that required removal of all parking is not recommended due to community needs, (3) Alternative 1 with the conversion or two travels lanes would result in a Level of Service F at Trousdale and Quesada during the AM peak period, (4) Alternative 3 would reduce all travel lanes to the minimum widths (7’ parking, 5’ bike, and 10’ travel lanes), (5) Demand for bicycle facilities primarily due to school access and alternative routes available for most students. • Davis Drive Includes Class IIIB facility with potential new markings, speed cushions, and signage as part of the Bike Boulevard Project. In closing, Mr. Wong went over the project’s next steps which includes stakeholder outreach, obtaining community input, and returning to the Commission again at some point to make a motion to support the project or not. Each Commissioner asked clarifying questions, including the following requests before moving on 6 to the public comment period. • Commissioner Cauchi requested a connection to/from Murchison and Trousdale Drives, since there will be no improvements happening in front of the hospital. • Commissioner Israelit suggested painting the parking lines on Davis Drive as it would assist with making the road more visually narrow and help with traffic calming. • Commissioner Israelit thought staff should shelve the Trousdale bike plans on the west side because it doesn’t make sense to have only a portion of the road improvements. She requested staff to stop and think about the purpose of the project. Commissioner Israelit said she did not love any of the alternatives presented for Trousdale Drive. Manito Velasco stated for the Murchison alternative where the parking is in the middle of street, he felt it would be problematic since the street is on a grade and curved. He felt what Millbrae did by Habit Burger would be a good alternative, with no parking impacts. In regard to Davis Drive, Mr. Velasco said it is a steep street and speed humps could cause people to lose control. He also said there are trees, and the shade of the trees hides the pavement imperfections. He suggested the edge line idea may work and suggested to do traffic calming on Albemarle to slow people down prior to arriving at Davis Drive. Mr. Velasco stated the narrow road alternative on Trousdale may be problematic for SamTrans. Mr. Wong read the following seven emails for the record. Dana Gross Hello, I am writing regarding the bikes possible lanes being discussed at the meeting. I am very much opposed to our resources being used for these lanes because we don’t have enough cyclists to warrant it and the lanes negatively impact the flow of traffic. We should focus on making improvements on Broadway and California where the train tracks create a very dangerous situation. Please do not proceed with wasting the City’s money on bike lanes. Amanda Wallace I am writing to ask that you not install more bike lanes. The ones we already have are hardly ever used. Can you spend a bit more time monitoring how many bikes actually use the lane before installing more. The idea of putting them on Trousdale, a street that is already clogged with drop- off and pick up from two schools, is particularly bothersome. The traffic there is impossible twice a day. I should add my husband is an avid biker, so I am definitely not against bicycling. It is more of issue of existing lanes not attracting any bikers so why keep adding them. Many thanks. Takashi Yamashita I live a few blocks from Trousdale. Trousdale is a major route for automobile traffic to access 280 and exit 280 to access Burlingame, Millbrae, BART, Caltrain, Mills hospital, and neighboring areas. It also has a relatively steep grade. All streets in the area of Martinez are in Burlingame Hills. The area is not ideal for bike riding. Any reduction of the existing traffic lanes will create severe traffic 7 gridlock in the area during school drop off and pick during the rush traffic. The traffic gridlock will severely impact emergency access to Mills Hospital. Also, the mix of bike riders and heavy vehicle traffic is very dangerous, especially to adolescents. I live in the neighborhood and have witnessed very heavy traffic during BIS, Franklin, and Lincoln school drop off and pick up. The entire area is impacted by vehicle traffic. Also, the vehicle traffic increases during commute hours and sometimes combines with the school traffic. As a frequent traveler on Trousdale in a vehicle and on foot, I have very infrequently observed bicycle riders, the area up Trousdale is too steep for bicycles. As a retired engineer I do not see any benefits of the proposed bicycle lanes on Trousdale. During the initial stages of a project for alternatives, a benefit cost study needs to be conducted. If the benefit cost ratio is less than one, the project alternative was eliminated. Given the lack of bicycle usage on Trousdale I believe the cost far outweighs any benefits. To move forward on the project a benefit cost study should be conducted on the project. Without the study the project is not justified and if continued would be a waste of taxpayers’ money and negatively impact the area. It would severely affect Burlingame citizens’ view on how our elected officials manage feedback from its citizens. Roman Arrow Dear Burlingame City, with respect to spending money to redesign a perfectly sensible stretch of roadway on Trousdale, please stop wastefully spending taxpayer money on such a project. Trousdale is sufficiently spaced to accommodate bikes and motor vehicles without changing the road. We have seen the poorly constructed design of California Drive and many of us fear what damage can be done. Trousdale is easily navigated as is and many of us are angry with the idea of wastefully spending more money on an unnecessary project. The survey conducted on this stretch of roadway indicated a daily flow of more than 11k motor vehicles with less than 40 bicyclists during peak times. If you cannot comprehend this proposed project is not needed that you are severely short of an item described as common sense. Thank you for your time and attention. Additional public comments against the bike lanes on Trousdale were received and read for the record from Ginny and Karen Tsai, Sandra Lang, and Donna Lutton. In closing, Commissioner Cauchi said it was important for people to know this project is grant funded and how future projects are being funded. She thought it was important for them to know that grant funds can only be used for certain purposes. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS a) Public Hearing Related to Informational Items No public comments received. 8 b) Community Group Updates No update. c) Engineering Division Reports Mr. Wong provided the following update on Public Works-Engineering related efforts. • Grant Opportunity Update – The Call for Projects (CFP) for both the Pedestrian and Bicycle (Ped/Bike) and Alternative Congestion Relief/Transportation Demand Management (ACR/TDM) Programs will be accepting applications. This year approximately $19 million in Measure A and W Ped/Bike Program funding with $6 million in ACR/TDM funding will be made available. Applications will officially be due on August 30, 2024 with awards expected to be adopted at the San Mateo County Transportation Authority’s (SMCTA) Board Meeting in December. Mr. Wong also mentioned the lighting at Howard and Lorton Avenues have been adjusted to increase the wattage for better visibility. d) Police Department Reports Sergeant Roberts reported 18 collisions for the May reporting period. Of those 18 collisions, Sergeant Roberts stated 16 were vehicle collisions, 1 was with a parked vehicle, and 1 with a bicyclist. He stated the primary collisions factors were related to right-of-way, unsafe turning movement, and speed. e) TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communications Vice-Chair Martos inquired with Chair Rebelos regarding the recruitment fair. Chair Rebelos said he and Commissioner Ng attended and it was mostly youth looking for volunteer opportunities and people wanting to understand what they do. 8. COMMITTEE REPORTS a) Public Hearing Related to Committee Reports No public comments received. b) BIS School Safety Study (Israelit & Ng) No update. Commissioner Israelit said they could sunset this Committee when Commissioner Ng returns. 9 c) Hillside Drive Safety and Traffic Calming (Israelit & Ng) No update. Commissioner Israelit stated they would be meeting next week. d) Key Performance Indicators (Cauchi & Rebelos) Commissioner Cauchi said they have made progress in the framework on what they want to accomplish as well as a general timeline. She said they have also met to talk about the three metrics: safety, implementation, and results. Commissioner Cauchi also shared they have a meeting with the Mayor, City Manager, and Public Works Director to talk through the concepts and general approach to ensure they are all on the same page. Lastly, she said the goal is to have some concepts and targets by the end of the year. e) Vision Zero (Martos & Rebelos) No update. Chair Rebelos said there has been no activity. 9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Grant projects – more detailed update • Commissioner Israelit asked for additional updates in the Engineer’s Report such as the signal at Oak Grove and the Broadway/California parking. 10. ADJOURNMENT 9:08 p.m.