HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 45-2008RESOLUTION NO. 45-2008
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRNACISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN
APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REQUESTING THE
ALLOCATION OF FY 2008/2009 TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE
PROJECT FUNDING FOR THE BICYCLE VIDEO DETECTOR
PROJECT, BICYCLE ROUTE SIGNAGE PROJECT, AND THE
IN-GROUND LIGHTED CROSSWALK PROJECT, AND
COMMITTING TH:E NECESSARY NON-FEDERAL MATCH
FOR THE PROJECTS AND STATING THE CITY' S
ASSURANCE TO COMPLETE THE PROJECTS
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act ("TDA")(Public Utilities
Code § 99200 et seq.), authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning
agency for the funding of projects, exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and
bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional
transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution
No. 875, Revised, entitled "Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle
Projects," which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation
of "TDA Article 3" funding; and
WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised, requires that requests for the allocation
of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from
each county in the San Francisco Bay region; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco desires to submit a request to MTC for the
allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this
resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that the City Council does hereby:
1. Authorize the filing of an application requesting an allocation of TDA Article 3
funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code;
2. Declare there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the
project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might
impair the ability of the City of South San Francisco to carry out the project;
3. Attest to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this
resolution; and
4. Direct staff to forward a certified copy of this resolution, its attachments, and any
accompanying supporting materials, to the congestion management agency,
countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of
governments, as the case may be, of San Mateo County for submission to MTC
as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of
April 2008 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mark N. Addiego Richard A. Garbarino, Kevin Mullin,
Mayor Pro Tem Karyl Matsumoto and Mayor Pedro Gonzalez
NOES:
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ATTES
RESOLUTION NO.
Attachment A
Re: Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year
INSERT FISCAL YEAR Transportation Development Act Article 3 PedestrianBic.~cle
Project Funding
Findings
Page 1 of 1
1. That the INSERT NAME O]F CLAIMANT is not legally impeded from submitting a
request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation
Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the INSERT NAME OF CLAIMANT
legally impeded from undertaking the project(s) described in "Attachment B" of this
resolution.
2. That the INSERT NAME OF CLAIMANT has committed adequate staffing resources to
complete the project(s) described in Attachment B.
3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all
pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of--way permits and
clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project(s).
4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of--way permits and clearances for the
projects described in Attachme;nt B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner
and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being
requested.
5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et
seq.).
6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the
sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the
project(s).
7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or design
engineering; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized
traffic; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the
development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development
of a comprehensive bicycle a,nd/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA
Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by the INSERT NAME OF
CLAIMANT within the prior five fiscal years.
8. That the project(s) described. in Attachment B which are bicycle projects have been
included in a detailed bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general plan, or
included in an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section 2377 of
the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section 2370 et sue.).
9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a "Class I Bikeway," meets the
mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California
Highway Design Manual.
10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are ready to commence implementation
during the fiscal year of the requested allocation.
11. That the INSERT NAME CIF CLAIMANT agrees to maintain, or provide for the
maintenance of, the project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of
and use by the public.
1080452.1
KE~~OLUTION N0.
Attachment B
Page 1 of 18
C/CAG BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMMITTEE
TDA ARTICLE 3 FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 PROGRAM
APPLICATION
AGENCY: City of South San Francisco
FUNDS REQUESTED: $ 76,667 (maximum of $100,000 per project)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / OBJECTIVE:
Bicycle Video Detector Project -This project vuill install 23 Traficon Video Detection
Systems (or approved equal) at the following intersections: Veterans Blvd/Oyster Point
Blvd, Baden Ave/Linden Ave, Airport Blvd./Baden Ave., Railroad Ave/Linden Ave,
Hillside Blvd/Linden Ave, Westborough Blvd/Gellert Blvd, Grand Ave/Chestnut Ave, E.
Grand Ave/Dubuque Ave, North Canal Street/South Linden Avenue, and Oyster Point
Blvd./Gull Dr.
Conventional in-ground traffic loops often fail to detect bicyclists as they approach an
intersection due to insufficient metal in the bicycle to cause adequate distortion of the
magetic field generated by the loop. Video detectors use changes in the video picture of
the approching traffic to trigger they traffic signal. The bicyclist's image will cause the
signal to activate. Video detectors for signals are particularly ideal for the intersection of
public and private roads, where th~sy can be placed on public property, cover the
intersection including the entrance from the private road, but maintain city access to the
units for maintenance without entering private property. The use of video detection will
aiiow the traffic signal to identify bicyclists who utilize Veterans Boulevard which is a
private roadway without the install<~tion of facilities on private property.
The objective of this project is to provide consistent activation of traffic signals utilized by
bicyclists. This project will allow bicycles to activate the various traffic signals as a
vehicle when no automobiles are ~>resent, allowing safe, legal use of the intersections,
and providing proper right-of-wa for the cyclist without dependance on the presence of
an automobile to trigger the traffic signal. - -
This project provides connectivity f'or bicyclists to major activity centers such as, the East
of 101 area, the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, schools, shopping areas, and the
future ferry terminal.
Attachments:
1. Vicinty Map
2. Project Location Maps
3. Photographs of Existing Conditions
4. San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan (Page 43)
5. SSF General Plan (Page 160)
6. Notice of Exemption
7. South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) Support Letter
8. Boston Properties Support Letter
9. Genentech Bike Club Support Letter
10. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes
Page 1 of 6
1 1. Letter regarding MTC Resolution No. 875 Criteria
12. Project Cost Estimate
I. PROJECT SCREENING
a. CALTRANS Standards
Explain how the project meets CALTRANS Standards.
Video detectors are one of the means to detect bicycles and vehicles which
approach an intersection.
b. CEQA approval? Yes ® No ^
Date of approval 1/4/2008
Note: CEQA document must be submitted with the application.
II. STATE OF READINESS
a. Make sure that the project proposal is complete and contains all required
documentation. The more complete the application will result in a higher project
score.
b. Right-of-Way certification r~squired? Yes ^ No ^ N/A
If required, Right-of-way CE:rt. completed? Yes ^ No ^
Comments:
The proposed project is within the City's jurisdiction and does not require Right-
of-Way certification.
c. Permits/Agreements approved? Yes ^ No ^ N/A
List all permits and/or agreements approved/obtained to date:
Document Date approved/ obtained
Page 2 of 6
Comments:
No permits are required for installation of the video detectors.
d: Comment on the status of design of the project, and indicate the percentage of
design completed.
The location of the video detectors have been reviewed and approved by thE~
City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC).
The project does not require further design considerations in order to be
installed. The City has worked with several video detector vendors on similar
intersections and would be ready to move forward with selecting a contractor for
installation. Design is considered 100% complete.
lll. COMMUNITY SUPPORT
a. Listed as "priority project" in the C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan or a
recommended pedestrian flan. Yes ^ No
Plan:
Page:
b. Local approval by bicycle/pedestrian (BPAC) organization?
Yes ® No ^
Other organized groups wii:h demonstrated knowledge of bicycle and pedestrian
needs? (examples: clubs, ;>chool committees, citizen coalition, combined
citizens/public BPAC, etc)
Yes ® No ^
Comment on level of support. Attach approval documentation and show
composition of relevant committee. (examples: letters, meeting minufes, etc)
This project is supported by the South San Francisco Unified School District
(SSFUSD), the Genentech Bicycle club, and Boston Properties.
c. Funds requested:
Local match to be provided:
Local match percentage
$ 76,667
$ 38,333
= Local match provided
Funds requested
= 0.500 = 50
Page 3 of 6
IV. MEETS PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
a. Does the project eliminate or mitigate the effects from an identified problem'
Yes ® No ^
Explain:
The video detectors will allow bicyclists to activate traffic signals at intersections
and increase the safety for bicyclists and reduce bicycle/vehicle accidents.
b. Bicycle and Pedestrian:
1. Does the project provide access to bicycle facilities in high use activity
centers?
Yes ® No ^
2. Does the project provide access to pedestrian facilities in high use activity
centers?
Yes ^ No
Explain:
This project will allow bicycles to activate the various traffic signals as a vehicle
when no automobiles are ;present, allowing safe, legal use of the intersections,
and providing proper right-of-way for bicyclists without dependance on the
presence of an automobilE; to trigger the traffic signal. This will reduce the waiting
time for bicyclists. This project will also facilitate access to the downtown,
Caltrain station, future (2008/09) ferry terminal, and the East of 101 area. The
downtown area has the City Hall/Library complex, medical offices, restaurants,
and retail stores. The East of 101 area is a significant employment center
comprising office, biotech research and development, hotels, warehouse and
industrial uses.
c. Is commute use improved by the project? Yes ® No ^
EX~lairi:
By decreasing the delay apt intersections, bicyclists can reduce their commute
time. This would increase the incentive to commute.
d. What is the relationship oaf the project to more significant bicycle or pedestrian
routes? Explain:
The intersections of Veterans Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull
DrJOyster Point Boulevard provide an alternate north-south connection between
Brisbane and South San (Francisco which avoids the heavy traffic on Bayshore
Boulevard. Bicyclists can utilize Tunnel Road in Brisbane to cross under Highway
101. They can then head south on less traveled roads and paths to access the
employment centers in the East of 101 area of South San Francisco, such as
Genentech. This intersec+tion would also facilitate bicycle access to the new ferry
terminal at Oyster Point tiiarina. The new ferry service will provide transportation
access for bicycle commuters to the east bay.
Page 4 of 6
The Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Boulevard and Chestnut Avenue/Grand
Avenue video detectors would serve bicyclists traveling the major north-south
and east-west routes in the City.
The Dubuque Avenue/East Grand Avenue and Baden Avenue/Airport Boulevard
video detectors would facilitate bicyclists traveling to the East of 101 area and
north-south on Airport Boulevard.
The Railroad Avenue/Linden Avenue, Hillside Boulevard/Linden Avenue, anti
North Canal Street/South Linden Avenue video detectors would assist bicyclists
traveling along the north-south Linden Avenue corridor.
e. The project is consistent wi1:h or included in the following:
(Attach copy of documental`ion for item Nos. 1, 2, 3, & 4 as appropriate)
1. County or City facilities plan: Yes ^ No
2. Circulation element of general plan: Yes ® No ^
3. C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan: Yes ® No ^
4. Pedestrian Plan equal to "e.3" above: Yes ^ No
Plan: San Mateo County Comprehensive bicycle Route Plan and
SSF General Plan
Page: Page 43 of the C/CAG Bicycle Route Plan, This project will
provide new bicycle support facilities to support bicycling within
the City of ~>outh San Francisco. Page 160 of the SSF General
Plan Guiding Policies supports promotion of bicycle riding for
transportation and recreation which this project will do.
f. Comment on the level of local support:
This project is supported bey the City of South San Francisco Bicycle Advisory
Committee which consists of residents and workers within the City of South San
Francisco. The Genentech bicycle club and the Gateway office complex managed by
Boston Properties also supports the project as represented by their letters.
Page 5 of 6
V_ SAFETY
How is safety improved because of the project? Explain:
This project will allow traffic signals to identify when bicyclists approach an
intersection and provide a "green" phase for them to proceed through the
intersection. This will prevent bicyclists from entering intersections on a "red" phase.
VI. OTHER ITEM
(These Items are for information CNLY and will not be "scored" but maybe used as
a tiebreaker).
a. Can the project be partially funded? Yes ® No ^
- if "Yes", ho~~v much? Explain:
Each direction of an intersection costs approximately $5000 to provide
video detection. Redlucing the requested amount by $5000 increments
would reduce the number of directions video detection can be installed.
b. Can the project be divided into phases? Yes ® No ^
- If "Yes", describe thE~ different phases and cost associated with each
phase.
The City is requesting funding for video detection on 16 Pegs of various
intersections. Each 'leg functions independantly with the other legs. The
project can be phased by reducing the number of legs or directions
installed with video detectors.
VII. PROJECT CONTACT INFOR~~tATION
Primary Contact Person: Dennis Chuck
Telephone Number: 650-829-6663
Email address: dennis.chuckC~ssf.net
Secondary Contact Person: Tracy A. Scramaglia
Telephone Number: 650-829-6651
Email address: [email protected]
Page 6 of 6
CICAG BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMMITTEE
TDA ARTICLE 3 FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 PROGRAM
APPLICATION
AGENCY: City of South San Francisco
FUNDS REQUESTED: $ 40,000 (m<~ximum of $100,000 per project)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / OBJECTIVE:
Bicycle Route Signage Project -This project will install 275 bicycle route signs within the
City of South San Francisco along 105,500 linear feet of existing bicycle routes as
indicated on the Project Location Map as part of the City's General Plan (Figure 4-3 -
Bicycle Facilities) (Both maps are attached respectively as Attachments 1 and 2). The
project will supplement previous TD.A projects that installed bicycle route signs along the
San Mateo County Bikeway System, connecting the two systems together.
This project will facilitate cyclists from various residential areas to access City activity
centers (parks, schools, libraries, Ciity Hall, recreation centers, San Mateo County
Courthouse, fire stations, Police station, BART, Caltrain, religious centers, work areas,
and shopping areas) and alert motorists that bicyclists will be more prevalent on the
signed roadways. The signs themselves establish a unique identification for local bike
routes in the City of South San Francisco.
Attachment 3 illustrates the propros;ed Signage to be utilized for this project.
Attachments:
1 _ Project Location Map
2. Bicycle Facilities (Figure 4-3 - SSF General Plan)
3. Photograph of Proposed Signage
4. Notice of Exemption
5. Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC;} Support Letter
6. Genentech Bike Club Support Letter
7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes
8. Project Cost Estimate
9. San Mateo County Bikeway System (Figure 3 -San Mateo County Comprehensive
Bicycle Route Plan)
10. Letter regarding MTC Resolution No. 875 Criteria
Page 1 of 6
I. PROJECT SCREENING
a. CALTRANS Standards
Explain how the project meets CALTRANS Standards.
This project will utilize Caltrans standards for materials and installation. (Sign
used in previous TDA installation will be used - MUTCD Sign No. M1-8, Bicycle
Route Markers)
b. CEQA approval?
Yes ® No ^
Date of approval 12-27-06 (,Attachment 4 -Notice of Exemption)
Note: CEQA document must be submitted with the application.
II. STATE OF READINESS
a. Make sure that the project ~rroposal is complete and contains all required
documentation. The more complete the application will result in a higher project
score.
b. Right-of-Way certification required? Yes ^ No ^ N/A
If required, Right-of-way Cert. completed? Yes ^ No ^
Comments:
The proposed project is within the City's jurisdiction and does not require Right-
of-Way certification.
c. Permits/Agreements appraved? Yes ^ No ^ N/A
List all permits and/or agreements approved/obtained to date:
--
Document ;Date approved/ obtained ,
Comments:
The proposed project is wii:hin the City's jurisdiction and does not require special
permiting or agreements.
Page 2 of 6
d. Comment on the status of design of the project, and indicate the percentage of
design completed.
The location of the signs have been reviewed and approved by the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). The project does not require further
design considerations in order to be installed. Design is considered 100%
complete.
III. COMMUNITY SUPPORT
a. Listed as "priority project" in the CiCAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan or a
recommended pedestrian plan. Yes ^ No ~C
Plan:
Page:
Please NOTE: Currently, this project is not included in the C/CAG
Comprehensive Bicycle Plan. However, The City has asked C/CAG to include
local routes in the C/CAG Plan and is awaiting the outcome.
b. Local approval by bicycle/pedestrian (BPAC) organization?
Yes ® No ^
Other organized groups with demonstrated knowledge of bicycle and pedestrian
needs? (examples: clubs, :>chool committees, citizen coalition, combined
citizens/public BPAC, etc)
Yes ® No ^
Comment on level of support. Attach approval documentation and show
composition of relevant committee. (examples: letters, meeting minutes, etc)
This project is supported by the City's Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC). Please
see attached letter of support (Attachment 5). The TAC is comprised of Gerry
Beaudin (Planning), Paul flitter (Police Department), Dave Scardigti (Fire
Department), Frank McAuley (Public Works), Dennis Chuck (Engineering) ar~d
Tracy Scramaglia (Engineering, Administrator).
The Genentech Bike Club also supports this project. Their support letter is
attached as Attachment 6. The Genentech Bike Club is comprised of over 400
members. The president is Daniel Sherman (Genentech employee and SSF
BPAC member).
The SSF BPAC supports i:his project application. A copy of the meeting minutes
are attached (Attachment 7) indicating their approval.
Page 3 of 6
c. Funds requested:
Local match to be provided:
Local match percentage
$ 40,000
$ 20,000(Attachment 8)
= Local match provided
Funds requested
= 0.500 = 50
IV. MEETS PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
a. Does the project eliminate or mitigate the effects from an identified problem?
Yes ® No ^
Explain:
Currently, the local bikeways routes are not signed, which leads to confusion for
bicyclists. This project would clearly mark the local bicycle routes in South San
Francisco as shown in our General Plan. In addition, motorists would be made
aware that they need to "share the road" with bicyclists.
b. Bicycle and Pedestrian:
1. Does the project providE: access to bicycle facilities in high use activity
centers?
Yes ® No ^
2. Does the project provide access to pedestrian facilities in high use activity
centers?
Yes ® No ^
Explain:
This project facilitates access to the following bicycle and pedestrian facilities:.
parks, schools, libraries, City Hall, recreation centers, San Mateo County
Courthouse, fire stations, Police station, BART, Caltrain, religious centers, work
areas, and shopping areas,.
c. Is commute use improved by the project? Yes ® No ^
Explain:
This project clearly identifiE:s bike routes in the field within the City and
encourages the use of bikes; thereby, reducing vehicular congestion and traffic.
d. What is the relationship of 'the project to more significant bicycle or pedestrian
routes? Explain:
This project ties in with the San Mateo County Bikeway System, which is
currently signed (due to a previous TDA award). See Attachment 9.
Page 4 of 6
e. The project is consistent with or included in the following:
(Attach copy of documentation for item Nos. 7, 2, 3, & 4 as appropriate)
1. County or City facilities plan:
Yes ® No ^
2. Circulation element of general plan: Yes ® No ^
3. C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan: Yes ^ No
4. Pedestrian Plan equal to "e.3" above: Yes ^ No
Plan:
Page:
Please NOTE: Currently, this project is not included in the C/CAG
Comprehensive Bicycle Plan. However, the City has asked
C/CAG to include local routes in the C/CAG Plan and is awaitir-g
the outcome.
f. Comment on the level of local support:
The community in general nave supported the installation of previous bike
signage because it encourages less motor vehicles on their streets and more
bicycles.
V. SAFETY
How is safety improved because of the project? Explain:
Safety is improved by this project because it helps to educate bicyclists on the local
bicycle route system within the City of South San Francisco, which have been
chosen by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) based on
characteristics of the roadways that provide the safest routes, such as width,
pavement condition, terrain, ar~d vertical obstacles.
VI. OTHER ITEM
(These Items are for information ONLY and will not be "scored" but maybe used as
a tiebreaker)
a. Can the project be partially funded? Yes ® No ^
- If "Yes", how much? Explain:
If the project is partially funded, the City will decrease the project area to
meet the available funding.
Page 5 of 6
b. Can the project be divided into phases? Yes ® No ^
If "Yes", describe the different phases and cost associated with each
phase.
The project could be split into two phases consisting of the western
portion of the City and the eastern portion of the City as divided by US-
Highway 101.
VII. PROJECT CONTACT INFOP.MATION
Primary Contact Person: Dennis Chuck
Telephone Number: 650-829-6663
Email address: [email protected]
Secondary Contact Person: Tracy Scramaglia
Telephone Number: 650-829-6651
Email address: [email protected]
Page 6 of 6
CICAG DICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMMITTEE
TDA ARTICLE 3 FISCAL YEAR 2008109 PROGRAiItI
APPLICATION
AGENCY: City of South San Francisco
FUNDS REQUESTED: $ 40,000 (maximum of $100,000 per project)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / OBJECTIVE:
In-Ground Lighted Crosswalk Project -This project ~Nill install 2 in-ground lighted
crosswalks within the City of South San Francisco. The first location is across West
Orange Avenue at B Street (marked Location A on the attached Vicinity and Location
Map -Attachments 1 and 2). The second location is across West Orange Avenue at
North Canal Street (marked Location B on the attached Vicinity and Location P11ap -
Attachments 1 and 2). Both crosswalks will be located on the east side of the _
intersection due to better sight distance given the geometry of the roadway.
West Orange Avenue has long been a source of speeding complaints by the community.
The short distances between EI Caimino Real and A, B, and C Streets along West
Orange Avenue make it diffucult to install typical traffic control devices such as stop
signs. The City has made various improvements at the intersections, including
installation of red zones to improve sight distance, installation of signage warning drivers
of crosswalks and school zones, and improvements to the City's Linear Park crossing
across West Orange Avenue.
This project will facilitate pedestrians from South San Francisco High School and Los
Cerritos School to community centE;rs such as Orange Memorial Park. It will help to alert
motorists of pedestrians and slow vehicular speeds. The objective of this project is to
provide a safe corridor for our neighborhood children to access our City's schools and
parks.
Please see Attachment 3-for photographs of the existing conditions along W. Orange
Ave at the intersections with B Street and N. Canal Street. Attachment 4 illustrates a
sample 'iri-ground lighted- crosswalk..
Attachments:
1. Vicinty Map
2. Project Location Maps A and B
3. Photographs of Existing Conditions
4. Photograph of In-ground Lighted) Crosswalk Sample
5. Notice of Exemption
6. South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) Support Letter
7. Parks and Recreation Commision Support Letter
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes
9. Project Cost Estimate
10. SSF General Plan Bicycle Facilities (Figure 4-3)
11. SSF General Plan Guiding Policy: Orange Park (3.7-G-1)
12. Letter regarding MTC Resolution No. 875 Criteria
__
Page 1 of 6
I. PROJECT SCREENING
a. CALTRANS Standards
Explain how the project meE:ts CALTRANS Standards.
This project will utilize Caltrans standards (MUTCC) for materials and installation.
b. CEQA approval?
Yes ® No ^
Date of approval 12/21/07 (,Attachment 5 -Notice of Exemption)
Note: CEQA document must be submitted with the application.
Il. STATE OF READINESS
a. Make sure that the project proposal is complete and contains all required
documentation. The more complete the application will result in a higher project
score.
b. Right-of--Way certification rE:quired? Yes ^ No ^ N/A
If required, Right-of-way CE~rt. completed? Yes ^ No ^
Comments:
- -- - -----The-proposed project is within the City's jurisdiction and does not require Right--
of-Way certification.
c. Permits/Agreements approved? Yes ^ No ^ N/A
List all permits and/or agreements approved/obtained to date:
Document ~ Date approved/ obtained
Page 2 of 6
Comments:
The proposed project is within the City's jurisdiction and does not require spE~cial
permiting or agreements.
d. Comment on the status of design of the project, and indicate the percentage of
design completed
The location of the crosswalks have been reviewed and approved by the City's
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC).
The project does not require further design considerations in order to be
installed. The City has worked with several vendors on similar projects and
would be ready to move fainnrard ~r~ith selecting a contractor for installation.
Design is considered 100%~ complete.
III. COMMUNITY SUPPORT
a. Listed as "priority project" inn the C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan or a
recommended pedestrian plan. Yes ^ No
Plan:
Page:
b. Local approval by bicycle/pedestrian (BPAC) organization?
Yes ® No ^
Other organized groups with demonstrated knowledge of bicycle and pedestrian
needs? (examples: clubs, ,school committees, citizen coalition, combined
citizens/public BPAC, etc)
____
_ _ _ _. _.. _ Yes . ~ No
..... ...... .
Comment on level of support. Attach approval documentation and show
composition of relevant committee. (examples: letters, meeting minutes, etc)
This project is supported by the South San Francisco Unified School District
(SSFUSD) and the Parks ;and Recreation Commission. Letters of support are
attached from each (See Attachments 6 and 7).
Composition of SSFUSD i:s indicated on the support letter. The Parks and
Recreation Commission is comprised of Gary Levene (Chair), Judith Bush (Chair
Pro Tem), David Gallagher, Sean Garrone, Pablo Gonzalez, Janine Greenwald,
and Prudencia Nelson.
The SSF BPAC supports this project application. A copy of the meeting minutes
are attached (Attachment ~8) indicating their approval.
Page 3 of 6
c. Funds requested:
Loca{ match to be provided
Local match percentage
$ 40,000
$ 20,000(Attachment 9)
= Local match provided
Funds requested
= 0.500 = 50
IV. MEETS PROGRAR~ OBJECTIVES
a. Does the project eliminate or mitigate the effects from an identified problem?
Yes ® No ^
Explain:
This project will help reduce speeding on West Orange Avenue by alerting
drivers that pedestrians are entering the roadway. In-ground lighted crosswalks
have been used in other locations in the City and have proven effective at
reducing speeds and providing a safer environment for pedestrians.
b. Bicycle and Pedestrian:
1. Does the project providE: access to bicycle facilities in high use activity
centers?
Yes ® No ^
2. Does the project providE: access to pedestrian facilities in high use activity
centers?
Yes ® No ^
-Explain:._ _ _._ _ ___ _ __....._
.._
This project facilitates access to bicycle and pedestrian facilities in high use
activity centers such as the City's Linear Park, marked bike routes/lanes/paths,
South San Francisco High School, Los Cerritos School, Orange Memoria! Park,
Orange Memorial Park Recreation Building and Pool.
c. Is commute use improved lay the project? Yes ® No ^
Explain:
This project encourages the use of walking and bicycling (by the high school
children specifically); thereby, reducing vehicular congestion and traffic.
Page 4 of 6
d. What is the relationship of the project to more significant bicycle or pedestrian
routes? Explain:
This project is on a designated City bike route (according to the City's General
Plan Bicycle Facilities -Figure 4-3, Attachment 10). In addition, it is within a
short distance to several bikes lanes, paths, and routes along EI Camino Real,
Chestnut Avenue, Colma Cneek, and Commercial Avenue.
The project is within 700 feet of the newly completed Linear Park, which is a bike
path and heavily used by cyclists and pedestrians to access the schools and
Orange Park.
e. The project is consistent with or included in the following:
(Attach copy of documentation for item Nos. 7, 2, 3, & 4 as appropriate)
1. County or City facilities plan: Yes ^ No
2. Circulation element of general plan: Yes ® No ^
3. C/CAG Comprehen~;ive Bicycle Route Plan: Yes ^ No
4. Pedestrian Plan equal to "e.3° above: Yes ^ No
Plan:
Page:
Note: Item 2. Above: -According to the South San Francisco General
Plan Guidingi Policy: Orange Park 3.7-G-1, this project is
consistent a:> it maintains and enhances the uses of Orange
Memorial Park and South San Francisco High School for
pedestrians. See attachmentment 11.
f. Comment on the level-of local-support: _ ~~
The community in general have supported the installation of in-ground lighted
crosswalks because they enca~urage vehicles to slow down for pedestrians. The City
has utilized in-ground lighted crosswalks on the downtown corridor along Grand
Avenue with proven results. Thie downtown business owners and patrons have
always given staff positive feedback on their usefulness.
Recently, the City completed drafting its Traffic Calming Program, which includes
in-ground lighted crosswalks. ,As part of the Traffic Calming Program, the City will be
installing an in-ground lighted crosswalk on a roadway with a history of speeding
issues near a City park, similar to our project location.
Page 5 of 6
V. SAFETY
How is safety improved because of the project? Explain:
Safety is improved by this project because it provides better visibility of pedestrians
to drivers.
VI. OTHER ITEM
(These Items are for information ONLY and will not be °scored"but may be used as
a tiebreaker)
a. Can the project be partially lfunded? Yes ~ No ^
- If "Yes", how much? Explain:
The project could be partially funded by only constructing one of the
proposed in-ground lighted crosswalks at either BStreet/West Orange
Avenue or South Canal/V1/est Oranage Ave. This would reduce the
funding request by approximately 50%.
b. Can the project be divided into phases? Yes ® No ^
- If "Yes", describe they different phases and cost associated with each
phase.
The project could bey split into two phases consisting of the crosswalk at B
Street/West Orange Avenue and South Canal/West Orange Ave. Again,
this would reduce the funding request by approximately 50%.
VII. PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION
Primary Contact Person: Tracy A. Scramaglia
Telephone Number: 650-8~?9-6651
Email address: [email protected]
Secondary Contact Person: Dennis Chuck
Telephone Number: 650-829-6663
Email address: [email protected]
Page 6 of 6