HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2021.10.14Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Online Via Zoom7:00 PMThursday, October 14, 2021
On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361, which allows a local agency to
meet remotely when: 1) The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency; 2)
State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing;
or 3) Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health
or safety of attendees.
On September 20, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 116-2021 stating that the City Council
and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the following reasons: 1)
The City is still under a local state of emergency; 2) County Health Orders require that all individuals in
public spaces maintain social distancing and wear masks; and 3) The City can't maintain social
distancing requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers, and Commissioners in their meeting
spaces.
Pursuant to Resolution Number 116-2021, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for
the October 14, 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 October 14, 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.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/12/2021
October 14, 2021Traffic Safety and Parking
Commission
Meeting Agenda
1. Call To Order
Please click the link below or dial the appropriate number to join the Zoom meeting (the link below doesn't
look like a hyperlink, but it is).
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83540646591?pwd=RHE1LzlOQlg0cEpYSmdwSjhpRVFoUT09
Webinar ID: 835 4064 6591
Passcode: 809394
One tap mobile: US: +16699006833, 83540646591#, *809394# or +13462487799, 3540646591#, *809394#
Telephone: US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312
626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
August 12, 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.
EV Progress Updateb.
PresentationAttachments:
Old Bayshore Highway Feasibility Study Updatec.
PresentationAttachments:
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Grant Updated.
PresentationAttachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/12/2021
October 14, 2021Traffic Safety and Parking
Commission
Meeting Agenda
7. Information Items
Engineering Division Reportsa.
Staff ReportAttachments:
Police Department Reportsb.
Collision ReportAttachments:
Farmer's Marketc.
TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communicationsd.
8. Committee & Sub-Committee Reports
Downtown Parking (Martos & Wettan)a.
Broadway Parking/Traffic Issues (Israelit & Leigh)b.
School Traffic (Israelit & Wettan)c.
Citywide Transportation Alternatives (Wettan & Rebelos)d.
Community Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (Leigh & Rebelos)e.
9. Future Agenda Items
10. Adjournment
NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at
650-558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting.
NEXT TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION MEETING: Date of November meeting is
TBD due to Veteran's Day holiday. The website will be updated once an alternative meeting date has
been confirmed.
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/12/2021
1
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of Thursday, August 12, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:03 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Leigh, Israelit, Rebelos, Wettan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Martos
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) July 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Motion: To accept the July 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes as submitted.
M/S/C; Leigh/Israelit, 4/0/1
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA
The following email was received and read by the Commission Secretary for the record.
I am a bike commuter. On California drive, I commute on bike from Carmelita to 2nd Ave San
Mateo train station. It would be nice the proposed bike lane go further than Oak Grove. It
would connect to the start of San Mateo bike lane at Peninsula.
Furthermore, kids including my HS daughter will be accessing this bike for school and
extracurricular activities.
Thanks,
Joseph P
2
6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
a) Community B/PAC Update (Informational Item Only)
Commissioner Rebelos stated he attended the last B/PAC meeting. He shared they
reviewed the California Drive Bike Facility, including Alternative A and Alternative B.
Commissioner Rebelos said there seems to be a little bit of split between the preferred
alternative, with concerns raised primarily around the southbound bicycle traffic. He stated
B/PAC seemed to support the two-way bike facility on the east side of California Drive, but
there was some split about the additional lane on the southbound side and removal of
parking on the eastbound side.
Chair Wettan clarified with Commissioner Rebelos that everyone seemed to support the
two-way bike facility on California Drive. Additionally, he confirmed the split was related to
whether or not there should be a bike line going southbound and if there should be parking
on the east side as shown in Alternative A.
Transportation Program Manager Lisha Mai explained that a handful of B/PAC members
were unable to attend this evening’s B/PAC meeting and that B/PAC Chair Beatty would
be submitting their formal comments via email to her once the Chair obtained feedback
from all members.
b) California Drive Bicycle Facility Update
Transportation Program Manager Lisha Mai introduced the City’s design consultant, Aaron
Silva of Mark Thomas. She stated two meetings ago, on June 10, City staff and the
consultant presented the alternative designs to the Commission for California Drive
between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue. At the June meeting, Ms. Mai stated they
received feedback and TSPC recommended Alternative B, which is a two-way Class IV
bikeway, to City Council with the understanding that the design alternatives would be
brought back to TSPC prior to final approval. Due to the importance of this bike network,
Ms. Mai indicated staff recommended that the Commission receive an additional design
update to address the significant feedback received before presenting the design to City
Council.
Design Consultant Aaron Silva provided a presentation to address the previous comments
received from TSPC. For Alternative B, he indicated it originally included 12-foot travel
lanes, but they have now been reduced and the space reallocated for the bikeway and
buffer in an effort to reduce vehicle speeds. He stated the design is consistent with future
corridor plans, which is preparing for either Class IV or I facilities both north and south of
the project. Mr. Silva said there is also a focus on improving crossings at signalized and
non-signalized intersections.
Mr. Silva proceeded to walk through the design alternative from the perspective of a
bicyclist, starting at the Broadway intersection. At the Broadway intersection, he said
3
bicyclist would continue through the intersection into a buffered Class II bike lane, which
they are attempting to make wider based on comments received. He explained they are
constrained at the intersection to maintain the same number of lanes, but it starts to widen
after the turn pocket. Mr. Silva said the dimensions are 8 feet total in width, with 6 feet for
the bike lane and 2 feet for the buffer (could be 5 and 3). He then said the bicyclist would
continue south until the signalized Carmelita intersection. On a green light, he explained
the bicyclist would enter a two stage left turn, which shadows on street parking and puts
them outside of the through movement where they can activate the crosswalk across
California Drive and enter into the two-way facility to continue southbound. Mr. Silva
indicated if a bicyclist is heading northbound, upon a green phase, they can continue
across the driveway of the parking lot and start the transition where the right turn pocket
will be created. As you continue north, Mr. Silva said they decided to have the bike facility
in solid green pavement to really draw attention to the bike zone and discourage people
crossing into the turn pocket, which continues all the way north to the Broadway
intersection. At the Broadway location, he revealed bicyclists wanting to go north can
continue through the intersection. On a red phase, if they are left-turning cyclist, he said
they can navigate to the left turn box and shadow the turn pocket upon a green arrow onto
Broadway. Mr. Silva explained this treatment avoids less experienced bicyclists having to
cross multiple lanes to make that same movement. Additionally, he said they are still
evaluating the physical separation/vertical element between the two-way bike lane and
parked cars.
As you continue south to Carmelita Avenue, Mr. Silva stated you can see the lane
reduction and that there are a series of non-signalized intersections. At the non-signalized
intersections, he said they are proposing high visibility crosswalks with rapid flashing
beacons. Additionally, he indicated the raised islands are proposed to provide a refuge for
bicyclists. He also went over the treatments at the two bus stop locations.
At the intersection of California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue, Mr. Silva stated they are
maintaining the same number of lanes, but as you head north, the lane reduction
transitions to a single travel lane after the intersection. He said when heading in the
southbound direction, as the roadway width becomes wider, they can open up two through
lanes, which currently exist today, and a turn pocket. For a bicyclist heading towards Oak
Grove Avenue, he said they would continue south through the bikeway behind the bus
stop and get stopped at the Oak Grove Avenue signal. At that point, he indicated those
continuing south would transition with a pedestrian call to cross the street and then could
continue on the existing bike facility.
Mr. Silva then went over the concerns gathered thus far by the B/PAC. He stated they
modified Alternative B by removing parking on the east side, which has reallocated 8 feet
of space to the west side of California Drive in the form of a Class II buffered bike lane.
Mr. Silva said this resulted in the loss of 90 parking spaces. Based on the parking study
they completed to document the impacts to parking show there is enough capacity on the
road to accommodate the displaced parking. Additionally, he said the parking protection
is would also be removed on the east side. Further impacts include the parking on the
4
west side, specifically several driveways and intersections that require setbacks to park
cars, as there is not enough site distance to see the oncoming bicyclists.
In regards to the Broadway Grade Separation Project, he shared there is a potential
conflict as it reconstructs California Drive between Carmelita and Broadway. He explained
that is currently why they are showing a Class II facility in that segment. Once the project
is constructed, Mr. Silva indicated the proposal is to put in a Class I bikeway up against
the railroad, which is consistent with current Class IV facility. He said the rest of the space
would be reallocated to travel lanes, which means there might not be enough room to
keep the Class II bike lane at that intersection. Mr. Silva stated it would also result in a
reduction of the bicycle refuge area as originally proposed.
Chair Wettan requested the Commissioners provide their questions to the consultant prior
receiving feedback regarding the modified design. Commissioner Israelit and Chair
Wettan asked clarifying questions. Additionally, Chair Wettan confirmed that the proposed
design has been discussed with the Fire Department which is situated on California Drive.
Ms. Mai shared that the businesses in the project segment were also noticed for this
evening’s discussion so they could submit any comments they have.
Chair Wettan opened the public comment period.
Adam Loraine, a resident of San Mateo and a Sustainability and Infrastructure
Commissioner for the City of San Mateo provided feedback as a private resident. He said
he is supportive of the improvement project and for protected bike lanes in Burlingame in
general, but would defer to the B/PAC and TSPC for the best design alternatives. He
stated this is clearly an important piece of bikeway to get people over to the Bart Station.
Mr. Loraine said he appreciates this Commission, B/PAC and City staff for pursuing
something that prioritizes people and a multimodal experience.
Ryon Modeshemi echoed Adam Loriane’s comments for protected bike lanes in
Burlingame. He stated he attended the June meeting and provided feedback at that time
as well. Mr. Modeshemi said he was happy the consultant and Commission really looked
into the feedback that was given and acknowledged that feedback with design
modifications. He inquired if the Broadway intersection is being studied as part of the
Grade Separation Project and felt a protected bike intersection study for Broadway was
warranted. Mr. Modeshemi suggested the consultant also look at lead bicycle and lead
pedestrian intervals at Carmelita Avenue and Broadway that give bicyclists a head start
and makes it safer to navigate. He felt one silver lining from pandemic was understanding
there are better ways to dedicate road space than to vehicles or to private vehicle storage.
Mr. Modeshemi said removing parking is a good thing, especially when it is underutilized,
and was hopeful the Commission would not look at the design from a limited parking
perspective. He also indicated he would like to see the refuge on the east side of the
bikeway to stay. He closed by sharing his appreciation for the work of the Commission.
Davis Turner, a Burlingame resident that lives approximately a 10 minute walk from the
5
project. He expressed his general support of the project for a few reasons. He said
Caltrans hosted a meeting regarding the El Camino Real Project and indicated they were
suggesting people to utilize the bike facilities on California Drive because it would be
almost impossible to add new bicycle infrastructure along El Camino because of the effort
to restore the trees. Given that news, Mr. Turner felt there should be improved bike
facilities on California Drive. Additionally, he felt this project could set a precedent for
additional bike projects in Burlingame and San Mateo. In terms of the alternatives, he is
in favor of removing parking as it may encourage other modes of transportation. In closing,
he thanked the Commission and said he was looking forward to seeing the improvements.
Madeline Frechette thanked the consultant for their presentation and stated she attended
the B/PAC meeting earlier. She said she was excited for this project and feels it is
progressive for Burlingame, but felt there was enough room on California Drive to have a
very high bar for bike safety in an effort to prevent serious injuries and fatalities. Ms.
Frechette said she was supportive of the two-way and physically protected bike lane, but
her overall concern remains, which is the stretch of California Drive from Broadway to
Carmelita Avenue. She explained she used to live a block away and the road felt more
like a highway. Ms. Frechette also said she was frequently buzzed within inches by
vehicles while riding her bike on California Drive and as a result, changed her route to
Caltrain and Bart. She advocated that this segment be looked at for additional alternatives
to make it a bit safer as she felt the area between Broadway and Carmelita Avenue would
still deter people from using the California Drive bike facility. She acknowledged this area
is somewhat out of Burlingame’s hands due to the Broadway Grade Separation Project
and recommended to staff, the consultant, and TSPC to do whatever they can within what
local control we have now. Ms. Frechette echoed a lot of the sentiments of others in that
parking is not essential and should not be prioritized over people’s safety, and the
importance of the lead bicyclist intervals. She said she appreciated the attention to detail
for transit users with the bus stop designs and would like to continue to see the island
refuges along California Drive. Lastly, she requested that we continue to explore the
alternative with the southbound protected bike lane on the west side of California Drive
and expand the horizon of opportunities we have.
Senior Civil Engineer Andy Wong read the following email for public comment.
Dear Teaspoon Committee,
As a 38 Year Resident, as well as a 14 year Employee of the City Of Burlingame (Retired),
I feel compelled to Speak up regarding the impending Doom entitled “The California Drive
Bicycle Facility Project.”
At the Risk of sounding too passive/aggressive, there are a couple of things I would like
to address.
Have any of you noticed the traffic disaster caused by the bike lanes north of Broadway
to Trousdale Drive?
6
Do I really have to mention that vehicles traveling Northbound cannot easily make a left
turn North of Lincoln Avenue, due to heavy Southbound traffic, because of the bike lanes
there?(Try Making a left turn from Mills Avenue onto California Drive Sometime) How
about the single southbound car lane at Broadway? Yes, the bike lanes have muffed up
this intersection nicely. (Let’s Not Keep Blaming Caltrain).
Having traveled this route, driving both North and Southbound from Broadway to BPD
numerous times daily, it is My Professional Opinion that Extending this mess further south
will only aggravate these already disastrous driving conditions.
I fully realize that the Bicycle Nazis have Taken Control of our State (They Want Us ALL
To Ditch Our Cars and Ride Bikes), and there is nothing I can personally do to change
this. It is etched in stone.
I also realize, after working for this City for 14 years as a Parking Enforcement Officer,
That My opinions, either personal or professional, fell on Deaf Ears- The City would rather
hire bean counters for hundreds of thousands of dollars to “study” issues such as these,
instead of tapping into a competent resource: The City of Burlingame’s own Employees.
Of Course, as a Taxpayer, I am Footing The Bill.
Why can’t these “Improvements” be put on a local ballot, and let us residents decide? I
can tell you from personal experience, there is a minute amount of bicycle riders,
compared to the current heavy flow of vehicular traffic on this route, and it will only get
worse as the Pandemic eases.
I Just wanted to point out the Obvious, and Air My Concerns.
Thank You For Listening.
Sincerely,
Kurt Dotson
Chair Wettan closed the public comment period.
Commissioner Rebelos said his main concern is at the intersection of California Drive and
Carmelita Avenue. He said for someone turning right from Carmelita Avenue to California
Drive, they are going to go across the bike box, and from California Drive northbound with
a right turn into the Caltrain station, they will cross the path of bicyclists going across
California Drive west to east and will also cross the bike box there. As a result,
Commissioner Rebelos felt it was very important to have a no right turn on red from
Carmelita Avenue onto California Drive and from California Drive into the Caltrain station
in order to protect those bicyclists. He said he is happy overall with the design concept,
but has reservations regarding the southbound design. He also clarified that he misspoke
earlier in that it was Alternative B that B/PAC was in favor of. Commissioner Rebelos went
7
on to say he is still concerned with southbound lane visibility, even if we remove some of
the parking, there will still be an issue because a lot of the driveways are garages or
employee parking with narrow lots and people back out of those driveways. He said most
people, even if they have a backup camera, may not see bicyclists traveling southbound
passing the parked cars. He also pointed out that northbound vehicles making left turns
into the driveways on the west side of California Drive, will have the sun in their face and
are typically in a hurry. Commissioner Rebelos said another reason he is not in favor of
the modified alternative is due to his observations. He explained he goes to the Chevron
at the corner of Broadway and California frequently and knows how crazy those driveways
get—people drive aggressively and will use the driveways to avoid waiting for the traffic
signal. In his final comments, he stated he is in favor of playing with the signal timing at
Carmelita Avenue and Broadway so bicyclists can get a head start. Commissioner
Rebelos said he supports the alternative as is, with the exception of the no right turn on
reds at the Carmelita Avenue intersection.
Commissioner Leigh agreed with Commissioner Rebelos and other public comments in
regards to having the bicycle and pedestrian lead lights as she felt it would be a huge help
at Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue. She also agreed with the no right turns on red.
Commissioner Leigh said it was great to remove the parking southbound from Broadway
to Carmelita Avenue to give bicyclists priority. As for the northbound bike lane after it
crosses Carmelita Avenue, she inquired if we could use the green stripes for the bike lane,
if the triangular island could have white cones, and the bike lane transition to solid green.
As you head north, she noticed the drive lane is 14-feet wide and wondered if some of
that space could be used for a wider bike lane with white cones on the right hand side of
the bike lane to prohibit cars from cutting across the bike lane. For the intersections of
California Drive at Sanchez and Palm Drive, Commissioner Leigh requested a pedestrian
refuge and have it extend to the south of California Drive. At Oak Grove Avenue, she
requested a no right on red and asked for consideration of signal timing for the bicyclists
choosing to continue north or south.
Commissioner Israelit stated she prefers Alternative B, without the additional southbound
bike line on the west side of the street for a couple of reasons. She stated the buffer of
parked cars on the east side of California Drive are a big safety factor for the two-way bike
lane and is an effective barrier which she doesn’t want to see that go away. Additionally,
Commissioner Israelit thought while there is parking on the east side of California Drive,
that shouldn’t reflect the people parking on the west side as there are a ton of small
businesses relying on those spaces. She explained her other concern with the additional
bike lane along the southbound west side of California Drive is the number of active
driveways.
Chair Wettan felt Commissioner Rebelos gave good insights into visibility concerns. He
also noted we are creating a great protected bike lane on California Drive and are tempted
to convert bicyclists off of it and into a door zone. Speaking to the businesses along the
segment, where children are getting dropped off and picked up, including daycare
facilities, he said he worries about people stopping in the bike lane if there is no available
8
parking. Chair Wettan used the example of the bike shop on California Drive. Otherwise,
he said it is a really good plan as he really likes the two-way bikeway.
No formal motion was requested or made at this time. Ms. Mai indicated they would review
the comments received and would determine what can be incorporated into the upcoming
City Council presentation.
Before closing the discussion item, Mr. Wong pointed out the Morrell Avenue intersection
still connects California Drive to Carolan Avenue.
c) Old Bayshore Highway Feasibility Update
Mr. Wong stated this has not been presented to City Council yet but there has been an
initial stakeholder’s survey to the businesses in the area, followed by two community
surveys. He stated the last community survey included design alternatives. This evening,
Mr. Wong said they have the results of that design survey and then turned it over to the
design consultant, Brian Fletcher with Callender and Associates to provide a presentation.
Brian Fletcher went over the goals and process of the feasibility study, in addition to the
three design alternatives.
In regards to the feedback received from community survey, he shared that at least 75%
of respondents support pedestrian lighting, site furnishing, and widened sidewalks with
trees in the planting strips. He said that at least 60% of people supported a coordinated
signage program, pavement trail indicators, decorative railing at existing bridge, planted
medians, trees in tree gates, high visibility paint, buffered bike lane, pedestrian refuge,
high visibility crosswalk, two travel lanes and turn lane, and bus pull out. Mr. Fletcher
stated that 50% or less supported interpretive signage, a raised cycle track, three travel
9
lanes with a center turn lane, four travel lanes and no turn lane, textured turn lane, side
boarding island stop with shelter and bike channel, and in-lane stop with shared cycle
track bus loading platform.
For additional design details, including Bay trail guidelines, gap closure, and access
points, please refer to the presentation.
Chair Wettan requested that the Commissioner’s provide their questions before opening
public comment and going to Commissioner comments.
Chair Wettan confirmed there were no public comments for this item before going back to
the Commission for comments.
Commissioner Israelit thought the design was great and looks forward to seeing a more
detailed plan, but if this road is to be an overflow for times when Highway 101 is congested
and traffic would be detoured to Old Bayshore, she wondered if it would it be more helpful
to have two travel lanes in a certain direction and whether or not we would we regret
choosing the more green option. If we did not need to make that a consideration,
Commissioner Israelit prefers Alternative 2.
Mr. Wong responded that we have to maintain the facility and a connection, but Caltrans
does not indicate how much capacity is needed as Old Bayshore is not considered as
extra capacity for Highway 101. As a result, Commissioner Israelit reiterated her
preference for Alternative 2
Commissioner Leigh requested a way to widen the sidewalk where the bus pulls out. She
also requested the lighting be pedestrian friendly as the pedestrian crossings should be
lighter than the roadway and bodies should be illuminated. Additionally, Commissioner
Leigh requested the purple bushes in the design down the middle of the roadway,
particularly on the far right, could be trees—the more trees and variety of native trees the
better.
Commissioner Rebelos said he uses this area regularly and even in the daytime, some of
the areas feel sketchy. He said he supports the parklets, he favors Alternative 2, and would
like to see as much greenery as possible. Commissioner Rebelos also said to keep in
mind that when it gets darker earlier, lighting is so important, and he concurred with
Commissioner Leigh’s comments in regards to lighting. On the trail itself, he said people
need to feel safe and suggested we make sure there is appropriate lighting on the trail,
that the parklets are highly visible, and building windows face the trail. Additionally,
Commissioner Rebelos felt this area could be something spectacular and ripe for
upgrades.
Chair Wettan said in regards to the Bay Trail itself, we have gone a long time without
connecting some of the points and it is an important recreational facility for Burlingame.
No matter which direction we go, he feels they will be great improvements for Old
10
Bayshore.
No formal motion was made. In closing, Chair Wettan thanked the consultants for their
thoughtful design.
7. INFORMATION ITEMS
a) Engineering Division Reports
Mr. Wong provided the following updates on various Engineering projects.
• California Drive Bicycle Facility – Update provided at August TSPC meeting.
• Broadway Grade Separation Project – No update from July meeting.
• Burlingame Station Pedestrian Improvements – Staff reviewing feedback from
July TSPC meeting and will make a presentation at an upcoming City Council
meeting.
• Hoover School Pedestrian Improvements (Summit Drive) – Sidewalk has
been installed on Summit Drive as well as the new path along Easton Drive.
• Broadway Pedestrian Street Lighting Improvements – Bid opening was July
27, 2021. Construction contract expected to be awarded at the August 16 City
Council meeting. Construction is anticipated to begin in October 2021.
• Old Bayshore Highway Corridor Study – Update provided at August TSPC
meeting.
• Highland Parking Garage Update – PG&E has completed the installation of the
transformer. Contractor working on energizing electrical facilities, including the
parking wayfinding. Garage opening anticipated for September 2021.
• Lyon-Hoag Neighborhood Traffic Calming – Staff is compiling the feedback
from the community survey on the Phase 1 traffic calming improvements. These
improvements will remain in place for a period of at least one year before
determining additional, and/or permanent improvements.
TSPC Priority List (revised August 2021):
TSPC Led Effort
1 Bike\Ped Plan Priorities 5/13/21: Item 6b
2 School Transportation and Safety Issues 1/14/21: Item 7a
11
3 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor 4/8/21: Item 7a
4 Neighborhood Traffic Calming/Controls 2/11/21: Item 7a
5 Old Bayshore Corridor Study (s/o Broadway) 5/13/21: Item 7a
6 Electric Vehicle Discussion with Planning 2/13/20: Item 6c
7 Downtown Parking and Access 7/8/21: Item 6c
8 Broadway Parking 2/11/21: Item 7a
9 Citywide Transportation Alternatives 12/12/19: Item 6b
Staff Update via Report
1 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor 4/8/21: Item 7a
2 Hoover School Update 8/12/21: Item 7a
3 Downtown Parking Strategies 7/8/21: Item 6c
4 City Hall Traffic Calming/Floribunda 4/11/19: Item 6b
5 California Roundabout 5/9/19: Item 7a
6 Oak Grove/Carolan Traffic Signal 3/11/21: Item 6b
7 Bike\Ped Plan Update: fwd to BPAC 1/14/21: Item 7a
8 Rec Center Parking 3/12/20: Item 7a
9 Old Bayshore Corridor Study 8/12/21: Item 7a
10 Grant Opportunities 11/12/20: Item 7a
11 Broadway Grade Separation 5/13/21: Item 7a
12 San Mateo's Peninsula Ave OC 5/13/21: Item 7a
13 School Speed Limit Updates 6/13/19, Item 7a
14 School Safety Improvements 3/12/20: Item 7a
15 Lyon-Hoag Neighborhood Traffic Calming 6/10//21: Item 7a
16 300 Burlingame Point Traffic Impacts 12/10/20: Item 7a
17 Broadway/California Update
2021 Agenda Item Action Status
1 Highland Garage Parking Restrictions Approved by Council February
16, 2021
b) Police Department Reports
Sergeant Perna went over the Collision Report and pointed out less injury accidents this
period. He went over the collision involving a pedestrian at Trousdale Drive and Marco
Polo. Unfortunately, Sergeant Perna shared the accident involved a juvenile crossing in
a marked crosswalk that was struck by a vehicle. The pedestrian indicated they were
okay at the scene but the Police were called once the pedestrian was home so the details
are a little fuzzy.
Sergeant Perna pointed out another injury accident at Toyon and Rollins Road, which
12
was due to a bicyclist that was traveling northbound and the bike feel into a grate that
had not been upgraded. As far as he is aware, Sergeant Perna said the roadway issues
has been addressed.
Chair Wettan inquired about the accident on Grove due to vehicle speeds in the area.
Sergeant Perna stated the accident was due to a vehicle backing into a parking space
and they hit a parked vehicle.
Commissioner Israelit inquired about the accident Hillside and El Camino Real. Sergeant
Perna explained it was a hit-and-run accident where a vehicle drifted into another vehicle
in the next travel lane and the driver did not stop.
Commissioner Leigh inquired about the overall heat map of various accidents in
Burlingame and requested that it be something the Commission reviews every few
months. Sergeant Perna indicated he would have the map updated for next month’s
meeting.
c) Farmer’s Market
Chair Wettan stated he would reach out to former Commissioner Londer in regards to
participating in the Farmer’s Market.
d) TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communications
No updates.
8. COMMISSION & SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
a) Downtown Parking (Martos & Wettan)
No update.
b) Broadway Parking/Traffic Issues (Israelit & Leigh)
Commissioner Leigh stated they have been looking at the parklets on Broadway and
Burlingame Avenue and noted that some are very beautiful and add character to the area
and some are eyesores. She felt that should be a consideration when dealing with the
issue of parklets.
c) School Traffic (Israelit & Wettan)
Commissioner Israelit stated the School District conducted a walk audit to have a
consultant come up with additional school safety for BIS. She shared that Rusty
Hopewell’s position was eliminated and the problem now is the project is in limbo. Chair
Wettan pointed out from what he understands the school has been hit with budget cuts
13
due to enrollment being down. Commissioner Israelit said that nobody owns this project
right now and she doesn’t want it to fall through the cracks.
d) Citywide Transportation Alternatives (Rebelos & Wettan)
Commissioner Rebelos said he and Chair Wettan discussed a company called Circuit,
which has electric cars that seat five passengers and they are operational in different cities
in Arizona, California, New York, and Texas. He said they are determining if there is
economic viability for them in Burlingame and whether or not to provide a proposal through
the appropriate channels.
Commissioner Israelit inquired about a replacement for Lime bikes/scooters.
e) Community Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory (Leigh & Rebelos)
No update.
9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• School traffic/walk audit/pedestrian improvements
o Mr. Wong stated Ms. Mai has been communicating with the School District and
said they can iron out some of the improvement items.
o Commissioner Israelit requested the walk audit be a future agenda item and
present the consultant’s report to TSPC and obtain feedback from the
Commission. Mr. Wong was unsure of the timing of this item.
• California Drive north of Broadway (may be ready for the next TSPC meeting)
• Lighting issue over the crosswalks north of California Drive on the side streets
o Mr. Wong stated they are still trying to coordinate with PG&E.
• Suggestion for Sergeant Perna to present his information earlier in the meeting
• Parklets
Chair Wettan inquired as to when the Commission will meet in person again. Mr. Wong said
he thought we would be moving to a hybrid model in September but he does not have any
official news to share. Chair Wettan said he felt it is much easier to conduct the meetings in
person in order to engage with people.
10. ADJOURNMENT 9:58 p.m.
10/10/2021
1
City of Burlingame
EV Progress
October 14, 2021
Sigalle Michael, Sustainability Coordinator
EV
Action
Plan
Adopted
Burlingame EV Action Plan
Align with state targets
Electrify municipal fleet
Prioritize areas for public EV chargers
Provide charging access to all residents
All new vehicles in CA to be
zero emission by 2035!
52% of Burlingame housing is multifamily &
59% was built in 1950s or earlier
EV drivers tend to
charge at home
10/10/2021
2
EV
Action
Plan
Goals
By 2030:
100 charging ports
5,000 registered EVs
10% of Burlingame’s municipal fleet to be EVs
GHG Impact: Reaching
5,000 registered EVs will
save 13,000 tons of GHG
emissions, equivalent to
1.4 million gallons of
gasoline.
Existing EV
Stations
Priority
Locations
Access
10/10/2021
3
Policy: Reach Code requires EV charging in ALL
new development
Process: Streamlined permitting
Innovation: Curbside charging pilot
Funding: CALeVIP and PCE technical assistance
Progress
Awarded CALeVIP grant for $300,000 ‐will fund 5
DCFC and 10 Level 2 charging stations at Donnelly Parking
Garage/Main Library (City cost will be $12,500)
PCE providing technical assistance for other priority sites:
‐7 Level 2 charging stations at new Community Center
‐Bayshore Park
‐Corp Yard
Funding
10/10/2021
4
Multifamily
Buildings
Let residents know EV
charging is available in the
neighborhood
All NEW multifamily buildings must
offer charging access for ALL units
Offer incentives for
multifamily EV charging
Explore grant opportunities,
partnerships, and pilot efforts
Engage with property owners
Consider other
e‐mobility like
scooters and
bikes
Highland
Parking
Garage:
24 Level 2
Charging
Stations
10/10/2021
5
Thank You
Website:
https://www.burlingame.org/departments/sustainability
/ev_charging_stations.php
Contact:
Sigalle Michael, smichael@burlingame.org
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
CITY OF MILLBRAECITY OF BURLINGAMECROWAN RDCROWAN RDTO BART/ CAL
T
R
A
N
0
.
8
M
I
.
TO BART/ CAL
T
R
A
N
0
.
8
M
I
.
OLD BAYSHOR
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
OLD BAYSHOR
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
STANTON RDSTANTON RDMATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 2HINCKLEY RDHINCKLEY RDSAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO
BAYBAY
EL PORTO CANALEL PORTO CANALHERTZ
HAMPTON INN
VAGABOND INN MARRIOTT
BURLINGAME OFFICE CENTER
THE WESTIN SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR VISION
Burlingame, California 19016_PreferredPlan.indd
Oct 4, 2021
EXISTING TREE CANOPY
POCKET PARK/ SEATING NODE ALONG BAY TRAIL
VERTICAL ACCESS TO BAY TRAIL
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
NEW PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
12’ WIDE ASPHALT BAYTRAIL AT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
12’ BAYTRAIL WITH 3’ SHOULDERS AT NEW DEVELOPMENT
BAY TRAIL DESIGNATED PARKING
ENHANCED ACCESS POINT WITH BAY TRAIL STANDARD
DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE. ENHANCED PAVEMENT,
PLANTING AND SITE FURNISHINGS ARE ENCOURAGED
BUS LOADING ZONE
LEGEND
SIDEWALK
NEW ASPHALT
CROSSWALK
PLANTING STRIP
NEW FEATURE TREE
NEW STREET TREE
NEW TRAIL TREE
FIRE HYDRANT
BUS STOP WITH SHELTER AND SEATING
BUS PULL-OUT WITH SHARED CYCLE
TRACK LOADING PLATFORM
BIKE LANE WITH HIGH VISIBILITY PAINT
STORM DRAIN INLET
LIMIT OF WORK
GATEWAY SIGN
ENTRY PLAZA AT NORTH
END
MEDIAN PLANTING
DRIVEWAY/ CURB CUT
HI-LOW LIGHT
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
PREFERRED PLAN
SEE ENLARGEMENT PLAN,
BAYTRAIL ACCESS AND
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT,
SHEET 7
SHEET 1
P
P
B B
B
B
B
B
EASTON CREEKEASTON CREEKMATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 1MAHLER RDMAHLER RDMILLS CREEKMILLS CREEKBURLWAY RDBURLWAY RDBURLWAY RDBURLWAY RDSAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO
BAYBAY
OLD BAYSHORE OLD BAYSHORE
HIGHWAYHIGHWAY
TO DOWNTOWN/ TO DOWNTOWN/
CALTRAIN 1.5 MI.CALTRAIN 1.5 MI.AIRPORT BLVDAIRPORT BLVDBAY LANDING
BAYSHORE EXECUTIVE OFFICES
HYATT REGENCY
HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS
ENTERPRISERENT-A-CAR
BENIHANA
SHELL
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR VISION
Burlingame, California 19016_PreferredPlan.indd
Oct 4, 2021
LIMIT OF WORK
NORTH-BOUND SMART CORRIDOR
SEE ENLARGEMENT PLAN, BAYTRAIL ACCESS AND NEW DEVELOPMENT, SHEET 11
SEE ENLARGEMENT PLAN, BAYSHORE BLVD, SHEET 3
CLASS II BUFFERED
BIKE LANE
PREFERRED PLAN SHEET 2
ENTRY PLAZA AT SOUTH END
RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION
AS NEEEDED FOR ADDED
BIKE LANE AND WIDENED
SIDEWALK
P
B
EXISTING TREE CANOPY
POCKET PARK/ SEATING NODE ALONG BAY TRAIL
VERTICAL ACCESS TO BAY TRAIL
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
NEW PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
12’ WIDE ASPHALT BAYTRAIL AT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
12’ BAYTRAIL WITH 3’ SHOULDERS AT NEW DEVELOPMENT
BAY TRAIL DESIGNATED PARKING
ENHANCED ACCESS POINT WITH BAY TRAIL STANDARD
DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE. ENHANCED PAVEMENT,
PLANTING AND SITE FURNISHINGS ARE ENCOURAGED
BUS LOADING ZONE
LEGEND
SIDEWALK
NEW ASPHALT
CROSSWALK
PLANTING STRIP
NEW FEATURE TREE
NEW STREET TREE
NEW TRAIL TREE
BUS STOP WITH SHELTER AND SEATING
BUS PULL-OUT WITH SHARED CYCLE
TRACK LOADING PLATFORM
BIKE LANE WITH HIGH VISIBILITY PAINT
MEDIAN PLANTING
DRIVEWAY/ CURB CUT
HI-LOW LIGHT
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR VISION
Burlingame, California 19016_PreferredPlan.indd
Oct 4, 2021
PLANTED MEDIAN, TYP.
STREET TREES IN PLANTER STRIPS AND GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE OPPORTUNITY, TYP.
BUFFERED BIKE LANE
CROSSWALK WITH HIGH VISIBILITY PAVEMENT,
PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND AND PUSH BUTTON
ACTIVATED FLASHING BEACONS
CENTER TURN LANE
HIGH-LOW STREET
LIGHT, TYP.
PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING,
TYP.
DRIVEWAY, TYP.
BUS PULL-OUT WITH SHARED CYCLE
TRACK LOADING PLATFORM, TYP.
SECTION SEE SHEET 4
EXISTING PHOTO AND VISUAL
SIMULATION SEE SHEET 5 & 6
WIDENED SIDEWALK WITH TREES
IN PLANTING STRIPS AND GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE
CROSSWALK WITH REFUGE ISLAND BUFFERED BIKE LANEBAY TRAILBURLWAY RDBURLWAY RDDECORATIVE RAILING
AT EXISTING BRIDGE,
BOTH SIDES
SHARED CYCLE TRACK BUS LOADING
PLATFORM
WIDENED WALKWAY
WITH DIRECTIONAL
SIGNAGE AND
SEATING AT BAY TRAIL
CONNECTION
ENLARGEMENT PLAN
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY SHEET 3
CENTER TURN LANE
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR VISION
Burlingame, California 19016_PreferredPlan.indd
Oct 4, 2021
SECTION
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY SHEET 4
6’
SIDE-
WALK
6’6’
SIDE-
WALK
7’
SHARED
CYCLE TRACK
LOADING
PLATFORM
11’
BUS
PULL-OUT
12’
TRAVEL LANE
12’
TRAVEL LANE
7’
BIKE LANE3’
BUFFER LANE
5’
PLANTING
STRIP
12’
PLANTED MEDIAN
AND TURN LANE
84’-0” R.O.W.
RIGHT OF WAY
DEDICATION FOR
BUS SHELTER
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR VISION
Burlingame, California 19016_PreferredPlan.indd
Oct 4, 2021
EXISTING PHOTO
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY SHEET 5
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR VISION
Burlingame, California 19016_PreferredPlan.indd
Oct 4, 2021
VISUAL SIMULATION
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY SHEET 6
HIGH VISIBILITY PAINT
HI-LOW LIGHT
BUFFERED BIKE LANE
CENTER TURN LANE
PLANTED MEDIAN
WIDENED SIDEWALK
WITH TREES IN
PLANTING STRIPS
PEDESTRIAN
REFUGE
HIGH VISIBILITY
CROSSWALK
BUS PULL-OUT WITH SHELTER
AND BIKE CHANNEL
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR VISION
Burlingame, California 19016_PreferredPlan.indd
Oct 4, 2021
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYOLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO
BAYBAY
SIDEWALK ENLARGEMENT , OLD
BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, SHEET 3
VERTICAL ACCESS WHERE POSSIBLE,
ADA COMPLIANT.
DESIGNATED BAY TRAIL PARKING
WITH ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
CONNECTIING TO BAY TRAIL
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
POCKET PARK/ SEATING NODE
SEA WALL
SECTION SEE SHEET 8
EXISTING PHOTO AND VISUAL
SIMULATION SEE SHEET 9 & 10
LANDSCAPE BUFFFER WITH
SHORELINE - APPROPRIATE
PLANT MATERIAL
12’-0” WIDE ASPHALT BAY TRAIL
PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, TYP.
ENHANCED ACCESS POINT WITH
BAY TRAIL STANDARD DIRECTIONAL
SIGNAGE. ENHANCED PAVEMENT,
PLANTING AND SITE FURNISHINGS
ARE ENCOURAGED.
ENLARGEMENT PLAN
BAYTRAIL ACCESS AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT SHEET 7
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR VISION
Burlingame, California 19016_PreferredPlan.indd
Oct 4, 2021
12’- 0”
BFE CURRENTBFE 2050
BFE 2100
MSL MSL 2050
MHT
EXISTING GUARDRAIL/ FLOOD WALL. MODIFICATIONS TO
WALL HEIGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED.
ASPHALT MULTI-USE TRAIL. MAINTAIN TEN FEET OF
VERTICAL CLEARANCE. TRAIL ELEVATION TO BE MODIFIED
IF NEEDED SUCH THAT TRAIL ELEVATION IS BETWEEN 36
AND 42 INCHES BELOW TOP OF GUARDRAIL/ FLOOD
WALL.
PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
LANDSCAPE BUFFER. BAY TRAIL AMENTITIES SUCH AS
SEATING ARE ENCOURAGED IN THIS ZONE.
RIPRAP
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING BUILDING OR PARKING LOT
≤ 30’-0”
ABBREVIATIONS:
BFE: BASE FLOOD ELEVATION
MHT: MEAN HIGH TIDE
MSL: MEAN SEA LEVEL
SECTION
BAYTRAIL ACCESS AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT SHEET 8
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR VISION
Burlingame, California 19016_PreferredPlan.indd
Oct 4, 2021
EXISTING PHOTO
BAYTRAIL ACCESS AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT SHEET 9
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR VISION
Burlingame, California 19016_PreferredPlan.indd
Oct 4, 2021
VISUAL SIMULATION
BAYTRAIL ACCESS AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT SHEET 10
PUBLIC ACCESS PARKING BAY TRAIL SIGNAGE
POCKET PARK/ SEATING NODE
SEAWALL
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR VISION
Burlingame, California 19016_PreferredPlan.indd
Oct 4, 2021
OL
D
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
OL
D
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y EASTON CREEKEASTON CREEKMEA
N
H
I
G
H
T
I
D
E
(
M
H
T
)
MEA
N
H
I
G
H
T
I
D
E
(
M
H
T
)
AVER
A
G
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
AVER
A
G
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
BCD
C
J
U
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
BCD
C
J
U
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
ENHANCED ACCESS POINT WITH
BAY TRAIL STANDARD DIRECTIONAL
SIGNAGE. ENHANCED PAVEMENT,
PLANTING AND SITE FURNISHINGS
ARE ENCOURAGED.
EXISTING BAY TRAIL
VERTICAL ACCESS WHERE POSSIBLE,
ADA COMPLIANT.75’-0’25’-0’SECTION SEE SHEET 12
12’-0” BAY TRAIL WITH 3’
SHOULDERS
BRIDGE
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHTING, TYP.
SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO
BAYBAY
BRIDGE
POCKET PARK/
SEATING NODE,
TYP.
REMOVABLE
BOLLARDS
ENLARGEMENT PLAN
BAYTRAIL ACCESS AND NEW DEVELOPMENT SHEET 11
15’- 0”
MAX.
3’- 0”12’- 0”
75’-0”
AVERAGE SETBACK
100’-0”
*BCDC JURISDICTION
OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR VISION
Burlingame, California 19016_PreferredPlan.indd
Oct 4, 2021
SECTION
BAYTRAIL ACCESS AND NEW DEVELOPMENT SHEET 12
3’- 0”
RIPRAP
PLANTED BUFFER
ASPHALT MULTI-USE TRAIL WITH 3’ CLEAR
SHOULDER BOTH SIDES.
EXISTING GRADE
PUBLIC REALM ENHANCEMENTS
LANDSCAPED BUFFER, POCKET PARKS AND
SEATING AREAS.
PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
ELEVATION OF NEW DEVELOPMENT
BFE CURRENT BFE 2050
BFE 2100
MSL MSL
MHT
ABBREVIATIONS:
BFE: BASE FLOOD ELEVATION
MHT: MEAN HIGH TIDE
MSL: MEAN SEA LEVEL
10/10/2021
1
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT
(TDA) ARTICLE 3 PROGRAM
Call for Projects
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Cycle
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
•Awarded annually to local jurisdictions
•State Transit Assistance fund
•Sales tax on gas and diesel fuel
•Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
•Quarter‐cent of general state sales tax
•C/CAG administers the Call for Projects
10/10/2021
2
ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
•Construction of bicycle or pedestrian capital
projects (“quick‐builds” are eligible)
•Restriping bicycle lanes
•Development of a comprehensive bicycle or
pedestrian plan
•Maintenance of multi‐purpose path (closed
to motorized traffic
FUNDING AND SCHEDULE
PROJECT TYPE AVAILABLE
GRANT
FUNDING
MAXIMUM GRANT
AMOUNT PER PROJECT **
Capital $1,950,000 $400,000
Planning
(Comprehensive Plan)$300,000 $100,000
** 10% Local Match Required
SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITY DATE
Release Call for Projects September 13, 2021
Application Due November 15, 2021
Project Sponsor Presentation January 27, 2022
C/CAG Board Approval March 10, 2022
10/10/2021
3
NEW THIS CYCLE
•CalEnviroScreen
•Equity Focus Area
•Connection to recently adopted Countywide
Backbone Network or Pedestrian Focused
Area
•TDA 3 Project Funding History
•Field Video (highly encouraged)
CANDIDATE SELECTION
•2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
•Community Engagement
•San Mateo Countywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan (2021)
•Equity Focus Area
•Safe Routes to Schools
10/10/2021
4
2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Proposed Project Location
Davis Drive
(Albemarle Way and Quesada Way)
Trousdale Drive
(California Drive and Quesada Way)
Murchison Drive
(California Drive and Sequoia Avenue)
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NO:
7a.
MEETING DATE:
October 14, 2021
To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
Date: October 14, 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 an update provided by staff on various Public
Works – Engineering projects and activities.
BACKGROUND
• Broadway Grade Separation Project – Staff to provide the City Council a project
update at an upcoming meeting.
• Broadway Pedestrian Street Lighting Improvements – Contractor has started project.
Construction not to impact Broadway businesses during upcoming holiday season.
• Highland Parking Garage Update – Garage ribbon cutting on October 14, 2021 at 11
am.
TSPC Priority List (revised September 2021):
TSPC Led Effort
1 Bike\Ped Plan Priorities 5/13/21: Item 6b
2 School Transportation and Safety Issues 1/14/21: Item 7a
3 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor 4/8/21: Item 7a
4 Neighborhood Traffic Calming/Controls 2/11/21: Item 7a
5 Old Bayshore Corridor Study (s/o Broadway) 5/13/21: Item 7a
6 Electric Vehicle Discussion with Planning 2/13/20: Item 6c
7 Downtown Parking and Access 7/8/21: Item 6c
8 Broadway Parking 2/11/21: Item 7a
9 Citywide Transportation Alternatives 12/12/19: Item 6b
Item 7.a – Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update October 14, 2021
2
Staff Update via Report
1 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor 4/8/21: Item 7a
2 Hoover School Update 8/12/21: Item 7a
3 Downtown Parking Strategies 7/8/21: Item 6c
4 City Hall Traffic Calming/Floribunda 4/11/19: Item 6b
5 California Roundabout 5/9/19: Item 7a
6 Oak Grove/Carolan Traffic Signal 3/11/21: Item 6b
7 Bike\Ped Plan Update: fwd to BPAC 1/14/21: Item 7a
8 Rec Center Parking 3/12/20: Item 7a
9 Old Bayshore Corridor Study 8/12/21: Item 6c
10 Grant Opportunities 11/12/20: Item 7a
11 Broadway Grade Separation 8/12/21: 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 8/12//21: Item 7a
16 300 Burlingame Point Traffic Impacts 12/10/20: Item 7a
17 Broadway/California Update
2021 Agenda Item Action Status
1 Highland Garage Parking Restrictions Approved by Council February
16, 2021
DISCUSSION
Some of these items may have been originally presented to City staff and/or the Traffic Safety
and Parking Commission as public requests or comments. Items on this list are matters that
would typically be addressed by City staff on an administrative level, or are City Capital
Improvement Projects. Matters that require broad public input or have a wide-spread impact are
addressed as Commission “Discussion/Action Items” (TSPC Agenda Item 6).
Case #Date Time Road Type Speed
Limit
Minor
Injuries
Major
Injuries
DUI
Involved
Collision Type Caused By
Juve?
Primary Collision
Factor
Hit & Run
Misd.
Hit & Run
Felony
Occurred On At Intersection Vehicle Involved With
BRM2102599 09/24/2021 1150 Private Property 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F Unsafe Backing T F 1326 MARSTEN RD Parked motor vehicle
BRM2102658 09/29/2021 1925 City Street 35 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22107 VC T F 1600 ROLLINS RD Parked motor vehicle
BRM2102534 09/18/2021 700 Public Property 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F 22106 VC F F 295 CALIFORNIA DR Fixed object
BRM2102633 09/27/2021 1746 City Street 25 1 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21453(a) VC F F BROADWAY S/B 101 OFF RAMP Other motor vehicle
BRM2102455 09/09/2021 2205 City Street 35 0 0 T Vehicle-Vehicle F 23152(a) VC F F CALIFORNIA DR Parked motor vehicle
BRM2102489 09/14/2021 1524 City Street 35 1 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21801(a)VC F F CALIFORNIA DR HOWARD AVE Other motor vehicle
BRM2102652 09/29/2021 1317 City Street 25 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F 22350 VC F F CHAPIN AV Fixed object
BRM2102535 09/18/2021 1210 Highway 35 1 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21801(a) VC F F EL CAMINO REAL CARMELITA AV Other motor vehicle
BRM2102574 09/22/2021 1539 Highway 35 1 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21801(A) VC F F EL CAMINO REAL OAK GROVE AV Other motor vehicle
BRM2102625 09/27/2021 1011 Highway 35 1 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22350 VC F F EL CAMINO REAL CHAPIN AV Other motor vehicle
BRM2102485 09/14/2021 840 City Street 25 2 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle T 21801VC F F HOWARD AV CALIFORNIA DR Other motor vehicle
BRM2102447 09/05/2021 1500 City Street 25 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F unknown T F OAK GROVE AV Other motor vehicle
BRM2102476 09/13/2021 1330 City Street 35 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21804(a) VC F F OLD BAYSHORE BL Other motor vehicle
BRM2102427 09/08/2021 258 City Street 25 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22107 VC F F OXFORD RD Parked motor vehicle
BRM2102370 09/02/2021 1126 City Street 35 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F 22107 VC F F PENINSULA AV ANITA RD Fixed object
BRM2102481 09/13/2021 1906 City Street 35 1 0 F Vehicle-Bicycle F 21760(b) VC F F ROLLINS RD Bicycle
BRM2102583 09/23/2021 856 City Street 25 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22106 VC F F VANCOUVER AV Parked motor vehicle
17 Accidents