HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2021.07.08Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Zoom Webinar7:00 PMThursday, July 8, 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 July 8, 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 July 8, 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/92787265942?pwd=WWY2N0Q5T0pVbHFwMWpyWTJVdnFIdz09
Passcode: 809394
Or One tap mobile:
US: +16699006833, 92787265942#, *809394# or +12532158782, 92787265942#, *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: 927 8726 5942
Passcode: 809394
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/4/2021
July 8, 2021Traffic Safety and Parking
Commission
Meeting Agenda
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
June 10, 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.
Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Updateb.
Staff Report
Presentation
Attachments:
Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Street Closure/Parklet 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
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/4/2021
July 8, 2021Traffic Safety and Parking
Commission
Meeting Agenda
Downtown Parking (Martos & Wettan)a.
Broadway Parking/Traffic Issues (Israelit & Leigh)b.
School Traffic (Israelit & Wettan)c.
Citywide Transportation Alternatives (Wettan & Rebelos)d.
Community Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory (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.
NEXT TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION MEETING: August 12, 2021
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/4/2021
1
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of Thursday, June 10, 2021
1.CALL TO ORDER 7:05 p.m.
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Leigh, Martos, Rebelos, Wettan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Israelit
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a)April 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Chair Wettan indicated that the references to Parking Lot J as the potential town square
site made during the meeting and memorialized in the minutes is incorrect. The correct
location is Parking Lot E. The minutes were edited to provide the correct potential site.
Motion: To accept the April 8, 2021 meeting minutes with corrections.
M/S/C; Leigh/Rebelos, 4/0/1
b)May 13, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Motion: To accept the May 13, 2021 meeting minutes as written.
M/S/C; Leigh/Rebelos, 4/0/1
5.PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA
Jim Evans provided the following email for public comment which was read by the
Commission Secretary for the record.
Item 4a.
2
I'm Jim Evans living at 1915 Devereux Drive and regularly walk my dogs around the corner
on Bernal.
Since schools have resumed with in-person learning, I have noticed an increased number of
cars exceeding the 25 MPH speed limit along the long straight roadway section between
Devereux and Adeline. This seems to mostly happen between the hours of 2:30 and 4 PM.
I don't see this every day, but enough that I think a little selected enforcement would be of
some benefit.
I appeared before your commission a few years ago to comment about this situation before
the pandemic and the problem seemed to improve.
Thanks for your consideration.
6.DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
a)Community B/PAC Update (Informational Item Only)
No update.
b)California Drive Bicycle Facility Update
Transportation Program Manager Lisha Mai introduced the project design consultants—
Aaron Silva and Rob Himes of Mark Thomas. Ms. Mai indicated that the bike facility project
on California Drive between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue is recognized by the San
Mateo County Transit Authority as a high priority segment, which is why the City was
selected to receive $800k in grant funding for the construction of the project.
Before turning it over to Aaron Silva, Ms. Mai stated that staff is seeking feedback and a
motion from the Commission in support of a preferred alternative to advance to the next
stage of design.
Mr. Silva provided a presentation to go over the details of the design alternatives for the
California Drive Bicycle Facility Project. Mr. Silva stated that the project has been identified
as a high priority in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the General Plan.
During the development of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Mr. Silva shared there
was a virtual open house where design concepts for the project were shared. As a result,
he said the public selected alternatives with separated bikeways, with the majority in
support of a lane reduction. Additionally, Mr. Silva shared the project goals are to improve
safety and comfort for all bicyclists; improve signal timing at Broadway, Carmelita Avenue,
and Oak Grove Avenue; improve bicycle connectivity at the Broadway intersection;
coordinate the design with the Broadway Grade Separation Project; and for the project to
align with future planned bikeways in the corridor, especially south of Oak Grove Avenue.
Mr. Silva explained that the engineering analysis included a traffic study of the
3
intersections at Carolan Avenue, Broadway, Carmelita Avenue, and Oak Grove Avenue
with the goal to determine what the result would be by removing a lane on California Drive.
He showed a table with existing conditions and with a road diet, which indicated a very
marginal change with the delay that would be experienced with a road diet. More
specifically, Mr. Silva said there would be a difference of a few seconds at the intersection
of California Drive and Carmelita Avenue.
Building off of the study, Mr. Silva stated they evaluated two alternatives that utilized a
road diet or lane reduction. He said Alternative A proposes one-way, Class IV bikeways
(separated by a buffer and vertical element) both north and southbound with parking on
both sides. Mr. Silva stated the design also includes three travel lanes—northbound and
southbound through lanes and a center turn lane. Mr. Silva indicated the benefits with both
alternatives will result in traffic calming, an increase in comfort and safety for most cyclists,
and provides a bike facility adjacent to businesses on the west side of California Drive. He
then went over the impacts as a result of the proposed design, which includes parking
loss, especially near driveways and intersections, narrow vehicle lanes, and more conflict
points with vehicles as the southbound bike lane would be crossing driveways and
intersections.
Mr. Silva went over Alternative B and explained it promotes a two-way cycle track (Class
IV facility) on the east side of California Drive, which would put cyclists near the Caltrain
right-of-way where there are no vehicle crossing conflicts. He stated they preserved the
8-foot parking widths on both sides of the street, the preferred lane width with meets
emergency service standards, and is consist with future plans to have a Class I or IV
bikeway along the east side of California Drive. Mr. Silva indicated the impacts in this
alternative include the loss of parking, generally around Oak Grove Avenue. Additionally,
Mr. Silva went over the bikeway transitions in Alternative B and how the design would
integrate with the Caltrain project.
The City prepared a community survey to which Mr. Silva said was released to the public
on June 3 and will close on June 18, in an effort to gather feedback on both alternatives.
He stated to date, they have already received 104 responses with 32% in favor of
Alternative A and 60% in favor of Alternative B. (8% of respondents did not have a
preference.)
In closing, Mr. Silva went over the project schedule. He shared again that the public survey
will be open until June 18, that they are seeking feedback and a potential selection from
the Commission this evening, with the intent to take the information gathered and present
it to the City Council for final approval of an alternative. As they move through project
development, he said they anticipate having 30% concept plans developed in the fall to
which they would come back to the TSPC with an update. Based on the project schedule,
Mr. Silva stated they anticipate construction to begin the summer of 2022.
Commissioner Leigh requested clarification on what a buffered Class II bike lane was. Mr.
Silva explained that a Class II bike facility is a dedicated bike lane that shares the road
4
with vehicles, using a stripe to separate them. He stated a buffered Class II facility has
additional width (from 1-2 feet or greater) but has no physical separation. Commissioner
Leigh then requested crosswalks on both sides of the street at Carmelita Avenue.
Additionally, Commissioner Leigh inquired how someone would safely cross while
traveling southbound and if Oak Grove Avenue would be the only controlled crossing. She
mentioned a number of bus stops along the corridor and stated the bus stops appear to
be in the bike lane, which she said should be addressed. Commissioner Leigh requested
that the crosswalk at California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue be perpendicular to the
roadway. At Oak Grove Avenue, she requested one-directional handicap ramps, not bi-
directional, and stated the green strip should be adjusted accordingly. Commissioner
Leigh also said she would like the bike lanes to start immediately at Broadway and Oak
Grove Avenue so there are no sharrow mergers for the first 100-200 feet. In regards to
the intersection at Carolan and Morrell Avenues, she asked about high visibility crosswalks
and whether bikes could cross there. Commissioner Leigh also indicated she has the
same concern at Oak Grove Avenue if they go with the 10-foot wide bike lane on the east
side. If they go with two 5-foot lanes plus the buffer, she stated it appears there would be
room for a center divider. Commissioner Leigh said most of the pedestrian and bicyclists
on the north end of California Drive are getting hit by vehicles making left-turns and
suggested a center boulevard. She suggested with the bike lanes on the right side of the
parking spaces, to red curb the parking places before and after each driveway and street,
and put a lot of green paint where the driveways are so drivers are on high alert for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Commissioner Rebelos stated he would like to see the crosswalks northbound on
California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue be straightened out—not at an angle. He also
requested to bring the ramp out at the southeastern corner to shorten the crossing
distance. Commissioner Rebelos agreed with Commissioner Leigh, stating there should
be two ramps at each corner. He shared that he prefers Alternative B, but with either
alternative, he felt there should be a high visibility crosswalk at Morrell Avenue and to
consider some sort of strobes to alert vehicles of bikes crossing. With his preference for
Alternative B, he said he still has concerns about the crossing at Carmelita Avenue for
southbound cyclists. He explained he is leaning towards Alternative B because there are
three intersections between Carmelita Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue with many active
driveways. Commissioner Rebelos said he felt it provides a safer route for southbound
cyclists arriving at Oak Grove Avenue to go left to Washington Park or the school.
Commissioner Rebelos inquired about the future plans for the roadway south of Oak
Grove Avenue and whether the intent is to continue the lanes on the east side of California
Drive to the San Mateo city limits. Additionally, he inquired about the intent north of
Broadway as well.
Chair Wettan asked for Commissioner Leigh’s alternative preference. Commissioner
Leigh stated if there are plans to extend an eastbound two-way bike lane up to the donut
shop and north up to Bart, taking some of the Caltrain easement, she would be in favor of
Alternative B. She said if it’s only 6 blocks of improvements only to “jig-jog” again back
over to the right side of the road going southbound, she did not see an advantage to
5
Alternative B and would go with Alternative A. She then asked staff where they were
leaning going forward and whether or not we could acquire additional Caltrain right-of-way
for a bike lane. Commissioner Leigh clarified her preference would be determined by the
length of the bike route.
Mr. Wong stated for this evening, they are focused on the segment from Broadway to Oak
Grove Avenue. He said what will happen north of California Drive is part of the Bike and
Pedestrian Master Plan and includes the ultimate build out and discussions pertaining to
obtaining additional right-of-way to have a two-way facility north of Broadway. Using the
Master Plan, Mr. Wong said they would look at south of Oak Grove to San Mateo Drive
as the last link of the segment. Commissioner Leigh confirmed with Mr. Wong there are
no plans to acquire additional right-of-way south of Oak Grove to the donut shop.
Vice-Chair Martos clarified with Mr. Silva as to how they arrived at the two alternatives
presented this evening and that Alternative A correlates with Alternative 3, which was the
popular design by residents at the open house. Vice-Chair Martos confirmed that the
preferred alternative based on the current survey so far is Alternative B. Mr. Silva
explained that Alternative B is a new alternative that was not presented prior but still
provides separated bikeways—it’s just positioned on the east side of the road. Vice-Chair
Martos indicated he would like to hear from the public before he makes a decision on an
alternative. Additionally, he stated he did not understand the integration plans with a Class
IV bikeway and how that would fit with San Mateo’s facility. Vice-Chair Martos agreed with
fellow Commissioner Leigh in that he did not like the idea of going from a bikeway to a
separated bike facility on each side of the road and would like to understand what the plan
would be on the San Mateo side. He also inquired about the Carmelita Avenue crossing
and transition from two-lanes to a bikeway. Mr. Silva responded to say that the transition
happens in the southbound direction only and explained how the transition could work as
they have yet to design the signal at that intersection. He also stated a similar treatment
would occur at Oak Grove Avenue. Lastly, Vice-Chair Martos asked why the crosswalks
are diagonal across California at Oak Grove Avenue as opposed to 90 degrees. Mr. Silva
explained it is a challenge with skewed roadways and would put the curb ramp well beyond
the intersection where the visibility of right-turning vehicles is poor.
Chair Wettan stated in Alternative B, starting at Broadway before the Carmelita crossover,
it looks like there are 9 or 10 parked cars adjacent to the southbound bikeway on California
Drive. He noted that north of Broadway at California Drive has been a controversial point
regarding the width of the bikeways and potential for doors zones. Mr. Silva explained the
reason why the bike lane was kept on the outside of the parked cars was solely for the
purpose of the upcoming Caltrain project and they are trying to work within the current
curb-to-curb width. Chair Wettan confirmed the roadway dimensions with Mr. Silva to be
7 feet for parking, 6 feet for the bike lane, and 11 feet for the through lane. Chair Wettan
said 6 feet is still pretty narrow when next to parked cars. Before going to public comment,
he stated he is leaning towards Alternative B.
Mr. Moteshemi stated that he bikes and drives this corridor and thought it was good the
6
only options presented are for protected bike lanes, but felt there should be stronger
separation than just bollards. He felt families would feel safer with stronger barriers that
prevent cars from coming in. Mr. Moteshemi also said it was a shame we are not studying
the corridor south to Peninsula Avenue as he would like to know what the rest of the
corridor would look like in order to determine which side to place the bike lane. That being
said, he felt the City should still move forward as he said in general we move too slowly
with these projects. Mr. Moteshemi suggested we could avoid going through CEQA
exemptions and SB 288 for future projects. He then stated that Alternative B reduces
conflicts with driveways and intersections but makes it more dangerous to access the bike
lanes because riders, including children, would have to cross three lanes of high speed
traffic at unsignalized/uncontrolled intersections when accessing the lanes from the
neighborhoods west of California Drive. He stated he still likes Alternative B for a lot of
reasons, but with either alternative, he felt it should include protections for bikes at the
intersections such as Palm, Sanchez, etc. and ideally have multiple mid-block crossings.
With Alternative A, he said there are narrower car lanes which is good for reducing vehicle
speeds and explained that Alternative B is bad from that perspective. Mr. Moteshemi went
on to request that the widths of the roadway be reduced to slow vehicular speeds and
reduce the number and severity of collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists. Additionally,
he stated he liked that Alternative A provides a protected bike facility for anyone starting
their trip from a residence or business on California Drive. Mr. Moteshemi requested bike
and transit signal priority at Broadway, Carmelita Avenue, Oak Grove Avenue, and any
other signalized intersection along the route. Lastly, he stated he liked the idea of bi-
directional curb ramps and indicated we should do everything we can to make pedestrian
and bike safety paramount.
B/PAC Chair Lesley Beatty stated the B/PAC discussion was mixed as far as the preferred
alternative. She explained that without a vision for the remainder of the route, it is very
hard to react to the designs with the absence of that information. Ms. Beatty said the
B/PAC was concerned with Alternative A due to the number of potential conflicts at
driveways and cross streets on the west side of California Drive, which has been driving
people towards Alternative B. Additionally, she said they felt that biking on California Drive
is terrifying but Alternative B felt like a good option for those scared to do so because of
the reduced conflicts and separation provided. Ms. Beatty also stated that Alternative B is
pedestrian friendly and easier to prove the value of the work to the public. She also shared
that B/PAC felt removing parking on the east side of California Drive was easy real estate
to give to pedestrians and bicyclists. Ms. Beatty stated that personally, she hopes the City
does not use the results of the survey solely to determine what alternative to implement.
She explained it is good to know what people think but it is difficult for the average person
to translate the designs and what is implemented should be what’s best for the goal of
complete streets.
Madeline Frechette provided the following email for public comment which was read by
the Commission Secretary for the record.
I’d like to thank staff for putting together the survey for this project, and I really appreciate
7
the city’s work towards getting Burlingame’s first protected bicycle facility on the map. The
need for truly safe, physically protected bicycle infrastructure has been validated through
the multiple years of outreach and research done through our bike ped plan and it’s
exciting to finally see some concepts. I hope staff and traffic commissioners continue to
prioritize people’s safety over parking or driving convenience in this project.
I’m going to offer very luke warm support for alternative B (the separated two-way bike
way on the east side of CA Drive) but have several concerns that need to be addressed
in order for this design to be acceptable:
1) Alternative B provides good separation from bikes and cars but presents a major
accessibility and safety issue because people coming from the west side of ca drive need
to cross major intersections to access it. Please ensure access (how people get on and
off this two way bike lane) is made safe through physical changes to the street, and are
done in enough locations so that this facility can be adopted by people coming from
multiple neighborhoods along ca drive. Please also pursue signal prioritization for bikes at
these protected intersections onto CA Drive. Intersections tend to be the most collisions
prone for bikes and it cannot be overlooked.
2) Alternative A proposes narrower traffic lane widths, which is an effective traffic calming
feature. But option B is missing this important safety and potentially lifesaving feature.
Vehicle speeds are highly correlated with survival rates among people in collisions and
also the number of collisions that occur. If we care about people’s safety we will consider
narrowing traffic lanes in any solution that moves forward.
3) It’s always been strange that there’s no sidewalk on the east side of CA Drive, especially
because it’s along a transit corridor and now we have new homes on Carolan. Consider
an accessible sidewalk on the east side of CA drive.
These designs are low fidelity and it was difficult for me to definitively say which is better
because of that. Alternative b presents many accessibility and connectivity issues (for
example how do people north of Broadway on CA Drive coming from the Millbrae station
get safely, conveniently, and in a *protected* facility over to the two way bike way on CA
Drive)? These are details that can make or break any design and especially any adoption
of a new bike facility and I look forward to how these concerns will be addressed.
The Commission went around the table once more to provide additional comments, which
ultimately led to the following motion.
Motion: Move that the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission recommend Alternative B
to City Council with the understanding the design alternatives will be brought back to the
Traffic Safety and Parking Commission before final approval is decided.
M/S/C; Martos/Leigh, 4/0/1
8
c)Sanchez Avenue Trial Multiway Stop Update
Mr. Wong pointed out that this item was brought to the TSPC previously for the pilot stop
signs that were installed a little over one year ago on Sanchez Avenue at Paloma Avenue.
He stated the intent of this discussion is to ultimately bring this item to City Council in order
to make the trial multiway stop permanent and add it to the Burlingame Municipal Code.
Transportation Engineer Michael Tsai provided an update on the outcome of the one-year
trial period. With the new Commissioners, Mr. Tsai reviewed the conditions of the
intersection and explained the two streets are considered to be low-volume by typical
standards. He said they saw exceptions, including safety issues, which led to the one-year
trial. Mr. Tsai stated since the trial stop signs, there have been no collisions reported and
feedback from the neighborhood has been overwhelmingly positive. Additionally, he
indicated that staff observations have also been positive in regards to visibility due to the
vertical curve and narrowness of the street with parking on both sides. Mr. Tsai
communicated that all signs point to this as a good improvement.
Mr. Tsai explained there are limitations to the exceptions they can make and part of this
trial effort was to determine the lengths of those exceptions. He said the intent was to also
streamline other potentially qualifying stop sign requests on low volume streets, which are
not eligible under state guidelines. Mr. Tsai indicated they are proposing standards for
streets such as Paloma Avenue and Sanchez Avenue that meet the following main criteria:
1)25 MPH speed limit on both streets; 2) both streets are single lanes; and 3) the main
street does not have any other existing controls within 500 feet. He stated the above
criteria would allow up to a 65% exception to the volume requirement from MUTCD
(Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices).
Chair Wettan clarified the intent of the discussion to which Mr. Tsai stated it is to receive
an update on the trial stop signs the TSPC supported a year prior—no motion is needed.
Furthermore, Mr. Tsai explained he would like the Commissioners to provide feedback
regarding the proposed criteria to use going forward for exceptions on low volume streets.
There were no attendees present at the time of this discussion, therefore no public
comments were received.
Commissioner Rebelos shared that he walks through said intersection about three to four
times a month and is supportive of converting the trial stop controls to permanent.
Additionally, he indicated he supports the ability to have more flexibility to install stop signs.
Commissioner Leigh thanked Michael Tsai and said the community has been eager to
have more stop signs in town. She also stated she was thrilled to be able to reduce the
standards. Commissioner Leigh confirmed with Mr. Tsai that the bar has been set at 35%
based on the trial stop controls at Sanchez and Paloma Avenues and she was hopeful the
criteria would assist in the possible implementation of stop controls at the intersections of
Bloomfield Road and Plymouth Way and Bloomfield Road and Howard Avenue.
9
Vice-Chair Martos stated he is in favor of making the trial stop controls permanent at
Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue. He said he is also pleased to hear the standards
are flexible in order to do what is right for the community to improve safety.
Chair Wettan shared that he strongly advocated for this stop sign, he felt there is a
unanimous consensus for it, and suggested the Commission make a motion since it will
eventually go to City Council. On the policy point, he agreed with the comments heard and
said anything they can do to exercise more discretion and judgment—and not be bound
to a manual, is a good thing. Chair Wettan explained that sometimes a manual may not
translate to specific circumstances. Chair Wettan requested the consideration of a bike or
school route as additional criteria for the standards proposed.
Mr. Wong cautioned that the City will not be putting stop signs at every intersection in the
City and clarified there will still be an analysis that accompanies the standards.
Based on the discussion, Commissioner Leigh made the following motion.
Motion: Move that we endorse the stop sign as a permanent stop sign at Sanchez Avenue
and Paloma Avenue.
M/S/C; Leigh/Rebelos, 4/0/1
7.INFORMATION ITEMS
a)Engineering Division Reports
Mr. Wong provided the following updates on various Engineering projects.
•California Drive Bicycle Facility – Concepts were presented under discussion
item 6b and staff will return to TSPC once the comments provided are addressed.
•Broadway Grade Separation Project – Staff working with 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 can provide a more detailed update.
Commissioner Leigh inquired about the design suggestions that she and
Commissioner Israelit provided. Mr. Wong stated they are reviewing it and would
incorporate what they could and explain why other suggestions will not be
considered.
•Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements – Design team to present the
concepts at the July TSPC meeting seeking feedback on all options.
10
Commissioner Leigh stated when she was on B/PAC she worked with Mr. Velasco
to come up with a plan and requested it be added to CAD or to incorporate it into
the drawings. Mr. Wong responded to say they could add it to the drawings. He
stated there will be three alternatives presented—two from the consultant team
and the one provided by B/PAC.
•Hoover School Pedestrian Improvements (Summit Drive) – Staff to kick-off
the project with the contractor and construction will occur this summer while
school is on break.
•Broadway Pedestrian Street Lighting Improvements – Project was re-
advertised with a May 19, 2021 bid opening and eight bids were received. The
City received a bid protest which may delay the project.
•Old Bayshore Highway Corridor Study – Design team will be soliciting
community feedback on a few design concepts. Outreach results and design
concepts to be presented at an upcoming TSPC meeting. Additionally, the
second of two online surveys will be available soon.
•Highland Parking Garage Update – PG&E has completed the installation of the
transformer. Parking wayfinding expected to be installed in late June.
Vice-Chair Martos asked when staff anticipates the opening of the parking garage.
Mr. Wong stated they are getting closer but does not have an exact date.
Commissioner Leigh brought up a previous request that was made for larger stop
signs at the intersection of Howard and Primrose as it is already a big pedestrian
intersection, with more pedestrians anticipated when the garage opens. Chair
Wettan suggested to discuss this under future agenda items.
•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 – From June 1 to June 18, staff will
be collecting community feedback on recently implemented Phase 1 traffic
calming measures. An online survey has been set up to give the community a
chance to share their thoughts on the temporary trial improvements and ultimately
help staff identify long term traffic calming improvements for future years.
Questions include a reminder of their concerns, thoughts on the effectiveness of
each improvement, and their support on permanent measures.
11
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VQ36TB6
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
12
b) Police Department Reports
Sergeant Perna reported 15 documented collisions for last month and pointed out the fatal
accident at Lorton near Bayswater. He stated that based on his review of the four
auto/pedestrian collisions, he noticed they all seem to be right-turn collisions. Sergeant
Perna felt that as car technology becomes newer, the pillars inside the cars become
thicker and are contributing to these types of collisions. He wondered if the diagonal
crosswalks would help because it would put the pedestrians further away from a right-
turning vehicle.
Chair Wettan asked for additional details regarding the collision at El Camino Real (ECR)
and Floribunda. Sergeant Perna stated the vehicle was making a left-turn onto ECR from
Floribunda and the pedestrian was walking their dog in the same direction the vehicle was
turning, which resulted in a minor injury.
Vice-Chair Martos inquired about the vehicle/bicyclist collision at Davis and Marco Polo.
Sergeant Perna explained the bicyclist was riding east on the south side of Davis and the
vehicle was driving east on Davis. He said the bicyclists rode into the street in front of the
vehicle and was at fault.
Commissioner Leigh inquired about the major injury collision at Broadway and Capuchino.
Sergeant Perna confirmed the intersection is not a four-way stop. Sergeant Perna stated
the car was traveling south on Capuchino to make a left turn onto Broadway and struck a
pedestrian crossing the opposite direction northbound on the east side of Capuchino.
Commissioner Rebelos stated he is very familiar with the intersection of Broadway and
Capuchino and asked Sergeant Perna additional details regarding the cause of the
collision.
Commissioner Rebelos inquired about the collision at California Drive and Douglas.
Sergeant Perna said the pedestrian was at fault in this case due to jaywalking into the
number two lane of traffic on California Drive.
c) Farmer’s Market
Chair Wettan stated the Farmer’s Market is open now and they should try to organize
attendance starting in July. Vice-Chair Martos indicated he is gone part of July into
August. They both agreed to see if the CEC plans to return and have a joint arrangement.
Chair Wettan said he would reach out to former Commissioner Londer.
d) TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communications
Commissioner Rebelos said he noticed the crosswalk timers at Trousdale and Magnolia
are pretty short and mentioned he sent a video to Mr. Wong. He understands staff is
working on the issue and wanted to commend staff, convey his contentment, and
requested an update once it is resolved.
13
8.COMMISSION & SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
a)Downtown Parking (Martos & Wettan)
Chair Wettan stated he went to lunch downtown on a Thursday and parking was pretty
tight. He observed the usage of the restaurant parklets and would like to have parklets as
a future agenda item.
Vice-Chair Martos stated he parked at the Library parking lot on a Friday about 5 pm and
noticed the very top deck was roped off and asked Mr. Wong about it. Mr. Wong was not
aware of the reason and said he would check with staff.
b) Broadway Issues (Israelit & Leigh)
Commissioner Leigh shared that she met with Commissioner Israelit and they submitted
comments to staff with suggestions to improve the usage of the Broadway Grade
Separation.
c)School Traffic (Israelit & Wettan)
Chair Wettan stated he had a very constructive walk audit with Commissioner Israelit,
Rusty Hopewell, the consultants, Mr. Wong, Ms. Mai, Mr. Velasco, and B/PAC Chair
Beatty. He said they took a timed walk from BIS to Lincoln and looked at the dismissal
coming from both schools and key intersections. Chair Wettan said they walked back up
Davis and talked through possible stop sign warrants at important intersections, including
Bernal and Devereux. Additionally, he suggested considering ideas for traffic flows and
noted how badly constrained Quesada is at drop-off and pick-up times. Chair Wettan
stated he is looking forward to working with City staff. Mr. Wong indicated they are waiting
on the results of the walk audit from the School District.
d)Citywide Transportation Alternatives (Rebelos & Wettan)
Chair Wettan stated he met with Commissioner Rebelos. Commissioner Rebelos shared
a service he recalled in Santa Monica called Circuit and obtained a PowerPoint overview
of their services and basic operations. He explained they use electric vehicles that seat
up to 5 passengers (6 including the driver) and they have their own employee drivers,
which allows for more control with pick up, drop off, where they wait/park, etc. He said
they use sponsorships, subsidies, and sometimes grants to fund their program.
Commissioner Rebelos went on to say that Circuit works with cities such as San Diego
and Santa Monica and they were able to operate through the pandemic under CDC
guidelines. He offered to share the materials with anyone interested and closed by saying
he is hoping to explore this idea a little more.
Chair Wettan added he thought he used Circuit several years ago and stated he was
interested to know what their economic model is—how they propose to be compensated
14
and how would the City play in.
e) Community Bicycle & Pedestrian Advocacy (Leigh & Rebelos)
No update.
9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Commissioner Leigh requested a status of the study to implement larger stop signs at the
intersection of Howard and Primrose. She also mentioned the location will be getting a high
visibility crosswalk suggested the same treatment at Highland and Howard given the location
of the new parking garage.
Since retail is having a hard time, Commissioner Leigh suggested free parking during
November and December but noted the parking would still have to be timed.
In regards to the current speed limit studies, Commissioner Leigh suggested the committee
request the City to round the speed limits down, not up. Mr. Wong indicated they force the
City to round up—it is mandated by the state.
Chair Wettan requested a discussion on parklets and Mr. Wong said it should be on the July
TSPC agenda since Council will be discussing parklets in August.
Mr. Wong stated they may be bringing the Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvement
Project to the Commission next month and an EV chargers update from the Sustainability
Coordinator at some point in the near future.
Vice-Chair Martos said with the Highland garage opening soon, he would like to review the
safety of the crossings on Howard Avenue at Highland and Lorton.
Chair Wettan mentioned southbound California Drive at Broadway.
Mr. Wong revealed the City was notified they obtained a Quick-Strike grant for $200,000 with
a local match for implementation of quick build pedestrian improvements from the Bike and
Pedestrian Master Plan priority list. He pointed out improvements for better pedestrian visibility
are included at the intersection of Howard and Lorton as part of this effort.
10. ADJOURNMENT 10:10 p.m.
1
STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: Item 6.b
MEETING DATE: July 8, 2021
To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
Date: July 8, 2021
From: Lisha Mai, Transportation Program Manager – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Update
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) receive an update and
provide feedback on the proposed design for the Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements
Project.
BACKGROUND
Starting in 2018, the City conducted town hall meetings, community workshops, and online
surveys with residents from the Lyon-Hoag and adjacent neighborhoods in an effort to provide
them with opportunities to share their concerns about cut-through traffic and speeding. City staff,
with then consultant TJKM Transportation Engineers, led a comprehensive traffic engineering
study in the affected area and identified feasible solutions to resident concerns. The result from
the study and community involvement was the Lyon-Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic
Calming Studies & Recommendations Report (report), which was presented and approved by
City Council on May 18, 2020. The report categorized improvements based on their complexity
and deliverability into three phases.
The Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project, at the intersection of Burlingame
Avenue and East Lane, was one of many locations identified and recommended in the report for
improvements. Located adjacent to the east side of the Burlingame Caltrain Station, this
intersection connects to Washington Park, tennis courts, Burlingame High School, the new
Burlingame Community Center, and the Burlingame Aquatic Center. The existing site conditions
include a long crosswalk within a large open area with controlled stops at only two of the three
offset approaches. Recently completed was the first phase of recommendations from the report.
Phase 1 included “quick-build” trial improvements, such as the temporary bulb-out at the project
location, which aimed to reduce the crossing distance of the long crosswalk and better align the
vehicle path of travel.
Construction of permanent treatments was planned for Phase 3. However, thanks to the San
Mateo County Transportation Authority Measure A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program, the
City was approved to receive $600,000 of grant funding for the construction phase of the project.
Item 6.b – Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Update July 8, 2021
2
DISCUSSION
The engineering firm of CSG Consultants, Inc. (CSG) has been working with City staff to develop
the proposed design presented at tonight’s meeting. The proposed design takes into
consideration objectives from the preliminary concept provided in the report. In addition, staff
reviewed an alternative concept generated by community members. City staff and CSG evaluated
the benefits, tradeoffs, and constraints of each preliminary concept while keeping in mind the
following overall goals of the project:
•Addressing community concerns of speeding, sight distance, and visibility;
•Enhancing pedestrian accessibility;
•Adding traffic calming measures;
•Preserving existing heritage oak tree; and
•Incorporating green infrastructure treatments.
Our proposed design presented in tonight’s meeting includes:
•Improving pedestrian access, including additional sidewalks adjacent to the parking lot
where no sidewalk exists today.
•Increasing visibility of crosswalks with shorter crossing distances.
•Enhancing pedestrian-scale lighting at intersections.
•“Square up” the approaches to the intersection by reducing pavement widths aimed to
clarify vehicle pathways, shorten crossing distances for pedestrians, slow vehicles by
reducing turning radii, and improve sight distance.
•Enhancing driveway exit out of parking lot aimed to clarify vehicle operation and improved
sight distance.
•Tighter curb return radii may potentially impact turning for large trucks and fire trucks.
W-Trans, subconsultant to CSG, analyzed the eastbound approach of East Lane at Burlingame
Avenue to determine if a stop sign was warranted. The queuing analysis indicated that in peak
hours, there is a potential for vehicles to back up close to the railroad tracks. Therefore, a stop
sign in this location is not recommended and as such not proposed as part of the design. Instead,
the design will access installation of a raised crosswalk as an additional traffic calming feature.
Staff and the design team will utilize feedback from tonight’s meeting, and if feasible, will
incorporate them into the project design.
7/2/2021
1
PRESENTATION FOR
Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project
July 8, 2021
Community Workshops
LYON HOAG AND ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC CALMING
Major
Concerns
Speeding
Sight
Distance
Parking
Cut‐
Through
Traffic
7/2/2021
2
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming
(Implementation by Phase)
Phase I Phase
III
Trial
Improvement
Permanent
Improvements
4
LYON HOAG
COMMUNITY CONCEPT
EXISTING
PROJECT BACKGROUND – Community Concept
7/2/2021
3
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT
ALTERNATIVE
CONCEPTALTERNATIVE
CONCEPT
EXISTING
KEY TAKEAWAY GOALS:
•Maintain oak tree
•Treat stormwater
runoff
•Shorten crossing
distances
•Improve sight
distances
•Eliminate diagonal
crosswalk
•Slowing down traffic
while creating a
charming
intersection
PROJECT GOALS
•Address community concerns
Speeding
Sight distance
Visibility
•Enhance pedestrian accessibility
•Increase traffic calming
•Preserve existing heritage oak tree
•Incorporate green infrastructure treatments
7/2/2021
4
PROJECT LOCATION ‐ BURLINGAME AVENUE AND EAST LANE
7
PROJECT GOALS
Pedestrian Accessibility
•Sidewalks that provide access to
all neighborhood amenities
•ADA‐compliant ramps
•High visibility crosswalks
•Shorter street crossing distances
8
7/2/2021
5
PROJECT GOALS
Traffic Calming
•Provide vehicle pathway delineation
•Improve sight distance
•Eliminate vehicle/pedestrian conflict zones
•Reduce concerns regarding high vehicle
speed 9
PROJECT GOALS
Additional Goals
Improve parking standards
Preserve existing heritage tree
Incorporate a green infrastructure
zone
10
7/2/2021
6
PROPOSED DESIGN
Burlingame Ave11
PROPOSED DESIGN – Traffic Calming
Burlingame Ave12
Improve Traffic Calming
7/2/2021
7
PROPOSED DESIGN – Accessibility Burlingame Ave13
Enhance Pedestrian Accessibility
PROPOSED DESIGN – Conflict Zones
Burlingame Ave14
Decrease Vehicle – Pedestrian Conflict Zones
7/2/2021
8
PROPOSED DESIGN – Parking Lot
Burlingame Ave15
Improve Parking Standards
PROPOSED DESIGN ‐ Advantages
Burlingame Ave#11: Requires relocating existing parking meters
16
1
#1: Circulation similar to existing conditions
7/2/2021
9
PROPOSED DESIGN ‐ Advantages
Burlingame Ave2
#2: Improved pedestrian accessibility and safety
17
PROPOSED DESIGN ‐ Advantages
Burlingame Ave3
#3: Bulbouts create a safer and shorter crossing for pedestrians
18
7/2/2021
10
PROPOSED DESIGN ‐ Advantages
Burlingame Ave4
#4: Align new exit driveway outside of intersection 19
PROPOSED DESIGN ‐ Advantages
Burlingame Ave5
#5: Additional landscaping locations improves aesthetics
20
7/2/2021
11
PROPOSED DESIGN ‐ Advantages
Burlingame Ave6
#6: Squares up intersection
21
PROPOSED DESIGN ‐ Advantages
Burlingame Ave7
#7: High visibility crosswalks are more visible to drivers
22
7/2/2021
12
PROPOSED DESIGN ‐ Advantages
Burlingame Ave8
#8: Raised crosswalk option can effectively reduce car speeds
23
PROPOSED DESIGN ‐ Advantages
Burlingame Ave9
#9: Bioretention area will collect and remove a wide range of
pollutants from stormwater runoff 24
7/2/2021
13
PROPOSED DESIGN ‐ Advantages
Burlingame Ave10
#10: A lighting analysis will be done to determine the location
of pedestrian and vehicle street lights 25
PROPOSED DESIGN – Trade‐offs
Burlingame Ave11
#11: Requires relocating existing parking meters
26
7/2/2021
14
PROPOSED DESIGN – Trade‐offs
Burlingame Ave12
#12: Loss of parking stalls
27
PROPOSED DESIGN – Trade‐offs
Burlingame Ave13
#13: Exiting driveway before stop sign within 5‐feet of curb return
28
7/2/2021
15
OPTION A:
Drive aisle and driveway are better aligned
Additional landscaped areas
Less parking stalls
Relocate majority of existing parking
meters
OPTION B:
Skewed driveway alignment with drive
aisle
More parking stalls
Less impact on existing parking meters
PARKING CONFIGURATIONS
New community center to provide additional parking spaces
PARKING COUNT
CURRENT OPTION A OPTION B
16 10 13
29
NEXT STEPS
30
Following Presentation Questions & Answers
September/October 2021 City Council Meeting
Early 2022 Finalize Design
Summer 2022 Construction
Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project
7/2/2021
16
Q&A
Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements Project
31
BURLINGAME AVENUE AND BROADWAY STREET
CLOSURE/PARKLET UPDATE
Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
July 8, 2021
Item 6c
Current and Upcoming
Parklet Impacts:
Businesses with parklets: 43 (7 Broadway/36 Downtown)
Parking spaces used: 88 (17 Broadway/71 Downtown)
Curbside Parking: 8 (1 Broadway/7 Downtown)
Parklets approved until September 6, 2021 (Labor Day)
The EDS will discuss the closures at their meeting on July 14, 2021
Highland Garage est. opening: September 2021 (337 std. spaces)
Lot E Closure: mid-August/early-September (~70 std. spaces + on-street)
The Broadway BID, DBID, and the Chamber of Commerce were all notified
of tonight’s TSPC meeting
Questions & Feedback
1
STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: 7a.
MEETING DATE: July 8, 2021
To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
Date: July 8, 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 – 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 – 2nd 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.
Item 7.a – Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update July 8, 2021
2
•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.
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
Item 7.a – Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update July 8, 2021
3
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
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 #DateTime Locale Road Type Speed LimitMinor InjuriesMajor InjuriesDUI InvolvedCollision Type Caused By Juve?Primary Collision FactorHit & Run Misd.Hit & Run FelonyOccurred OnAt Intersection Other Location Vehicle Involved WithBRM2101589 06/18/2021 1453 Parking Lot Private Property25 0 0 FVehicle-Object F22106CVCFF1145 BROADWAYCHULA VISTA AV Other objectBRM2101645 06/24/2021 558 Intersection Highway35 1 1 FVehicle-Vehicle F21801(a)CVC FFARC WYEL CAMINO REALOther motor vehicleBRM2101389 06/01/2021 813 Intersection City Street35 1 0 FVehicle-Bicycle F21760(C)CVC FFCALIFORNIA DR CARMELITA AVBicycleBRM2101444 06/05/2021 1936 Street City Street35 1 0 FOtherTunknownFFCALIFORNIA DROAK GROVE AV Non-collisionBRM2101459 06/07/2021 1252 Street City Street35 0 0 FVehicle-Vehicle F22350 CVC FFCALIFORNIA DRDUFFERIN AV Other motor vehicleBRM2101676 06/28/2021 1154 Intersection City Street30 1 0 FOtherFunknownFFCALIFORNIA DR PENINSULA AVNon-collisionBRM2101527 06/14/2021 1330 Street Highway35 0 0 FVehicle-Vehicle F21801(a)CVC FFEL CAMINO REAL HOWARD AVEOther motor vehicleBRM2101586 06/15/2021 800 Street City Street25 0 0 FVehicle-Vehicle FunknownTFFOREST VIEW AVEL CAMINO REAL Parked motor vehicleBRM2101452 06/06/2021 1401 Street City Street25 0 0 FVehicle-Vehicle F22103CVCFFGROVE AVCALIFORNIA DR Other motor vehicleBRM2101555 06/16/2021 951 Street City Street25 0 0 FVehicle-Vehicle FotherFFPRIMROSE RDBURLINGAME AV Parked motor vehicle10 AccidentsItem 7b