HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2022.06.09Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Online7:00 PMThursday, June 9, 2022
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 May 16, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 054-2022 stating that the City Council
and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the following reasons:
1) There is still a declared state of emergency;
2) County Health Orders require that all unvaccinated individuals in public spaces maintain social
distancing and wear masks; and
3. The City can't maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff, and Commissioners, in
their meeting spaces.
Pursuant to Resolution Number 054-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for
the June 9, 2022 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, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 9. 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 6/6/2022
June 9, 2022Traffic Safety and Parking
Commission
Meeting Agenda
1. Call To Order
To Join the Zoom Meeting (Note - the link below doesn't look like a hyperlink, but it is):
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84914235602?pwd=RTU0UHoya1o3MXRFVUJyRE42cHBSZz09
Webinar ID: 849 1423 5602
Passcode: 094672
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
April 14, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutesa.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
May 12, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutesb.
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 Only Item)a.
Broadway Grade Separation: Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvementsb.
7. Information Items
Engineering Division Reportsa.
Staff ReportAttachments:
Police Department Reportsb.
Collision ReportAttachments:
TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communicationsc.
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2022
June 9, 2022Traffic Safety and Parking
Commission
Meeting Agenda
8. Committee Reports
Burlingame Avenue Safety and Access (Leigh & Ng)a.
Community Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (Leigh & Rebelos)b.
BIS Safety Audit (Israelit & Ng)c.
Mercy School Traffic Calming (Israelit & Martos)d.
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: July 14, 2022
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2022
1
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of Thursday, April 14, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:06 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Israelit, Leigh, Martos, Ng, Rebelos
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) March 10, 2022 Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Leigh made a motion to accept the meeting minutes as submitted; seconded by
Commissioner Ng. The motion passed by a roll call vote, 4-0. Vice-Chair Israelit abstained as she
was not present for the March meeting.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA
Former TSPC Chair and Commissioner Howard Wettan stated he was just walking on Broadway picking
up dinner and was in the intersection of Laguna and Broadway. He indicated this is also the location
his daughter was hit and as he understands, where another woman was hit a few days prior. Mr.
Wettan stated it is also his understanding that in both collisions, the driver was going straight
(westbound). He stated this evening he was observant as he was crossing at Laguna and Broadway
and noted this intersection is not a perfect square—it’s more of an odd parallelogram. Using an
example of walking westbound on Broadway and entering the crosswalk, Mr. Wettan said he thinks
it’s possible to catch a driver off-guard, even though the driver may have made the initial assessment
it was clear to go through the intersection. He suggested it might be worth considering a stop sign at
this intersection in order to improve safety.
2
The Commission Secretary read the following email received from the public comment inbox.
Hi,
I live on Clarendon Road and use the traffic circle on Dwight and Vernon / Clarendon eastbound /
westbound every school day. Ever since the traffic circle has been installed I have noticed two
issues:
1. The speeds on eastbound and westbound Dwight between Burlingame Ave and Rollins Rd have
not been diminished.
2. The cars going westbound on Dwight do NOT yield to Clarendon/Vernon cars that are already
in the traffic circle.
I suspect the 2nd issue is due to the rare occurrence of traffic circles in California and the public's
unfamiliarity with the rules governing their use. However, I'm not advocating for an education
campaign to teach drivers how to use circles. I would rather just see traffic speeds on Dwight
slowed down for westbound cars between Burlingame Ave and Rollins Rd.
My suggestion is to install another speed bump on Dwight about 20 feet from the westbound
entrance to the circle. I believe this bump will solve both of the issues mentioned above. It will
force westbound cars to slow (after having 2 blocks from Burlingame Ave to accelerate) and it will
pause westbound cars long enough to allow cars within the circle to complete their turn safely
without fear of getting hit by speeding drivers.
I look forward to your comments.
Thanks,
Albert Tam
Manito Velasco stated he is seeing the traffic rubber tube counters out around town and said it
appears to be the season to update the speed limits throughout the City. He indicated speed limits
are to be updated every five years as its state law (with some exceptions). Mr. Velasco said the last
Burlingame speed survey was completed in 2014 based on data prior to 2014, and that our speed
limits are at least eight years old. He stated since then, several streets have changed characteristics,
such as Carolan and California Drive north of Broadway. Mr. Velasco said he hopes the Commission
will take the time to review the speed limits to see if they still apply. Secondly, he shared he was
interested in the bike boulevard study and the last communication regarding the project was in
October 2021 when the City requested residents to complete a survey. He said he is also interested
in the California Drive project between Broadway and Oak Grove and the City-wide pedestrian safety
crosswalk improvements. Mr. Velasco asked the Commission to consider adding those three projects
as standing items on the Engineer’s Report to keep everyone abreast.
3
6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
a) Community B/PAC Update (Informational Item Only)
No update.
b) California Drive Bicycle Facility Update (north of Peninsula Avenue)
Transportation Engineer Michael Tsai provided a presentation regarding the proposed interim
bike facility improvement in the auto row corridor. Mr. Tsai went over California Drive as a whole,
the specific segment on California Drive for the improvement, and how it all fits into the Bike and
Pedestrian Master Plan.
Mr. Tsai stated that currently, California Drive north of Broadway, has a Class II bike lane that was
installed in 2018. He explained that California Drive between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue is
at 95% design for a separated bike facility. He indicated the segment of California Drive from Oak
Grove Avenue to Burlingame Avenue was completed as part of the California Drive Roundabout
Project, which includes a Class III bike facility. Mr. Tsai then focused in on the segment between
Burlingame Avenue and Peninsula Avenue (auto row) which currently has no bicycle facility and
is where staff is proposing an interim facility. Mr. Tsai stated the City of San Mateo has installed
a Class II facility which leads up to Burlingame City limits at Peninsula Avenue. He reviewed
portions of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan, citing the preferred alternative—Alternative 3
(35% of the votes). Mr. Tsai explained that Alternative 3 consists of full removal of parking on both
side of the road, with a Class II bike lane, while maintaining four vehicle travel lanes. He shared
that implementation for this project will be based on priority and said the City has been applying
for a number of grants to help fund various projects. Mr. Tsai went on to share the City is
proposing an interim solution until they are able to fund the permanent improvements. He stated
the interim improvements consist of a Class III bike lane (shared lane) and said it can be designated
with pavement markings and shared lane signage, roughly three per block. For additional
presentation details, please access the meeting video on the City’s website.
Vice-Chair Israelit stated that when she looks at the breakdown of voting for the alternatives in
the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan, she indicated the percentage of votes are close and feels
that the TSPC should have an opportunity to weigh them equally. Mr. Tsai explained that when
the time comes to consider the permanent improvements, there will be much more research and
discussion for which alternative the City ultimately chooses.
Commissioner Leigh inquired about the Class III facility between Oak Grove and Burlingame
Avenue and stated there is no facility in the roundabout for bicyclists. Mr. Tsai provided an aerial
view of the street segment and pointed out the shared bicycle lane markings in both directions
on California Drive. Commissioner Leigh confirmed with Mr. Tsai that the City of San Mateo
completed a road diet for their bicycle facility improvements on California Drive leading up to
4
Peninsula Avenue.
Commissioner Rebelos inquired about a target date for the interim improvements to which Mr.
Tsai stated the improvements would be installed once they are approved—installation will not
take long. For the record, Commissioner Rebelos wanted to vocalize the importance of reviewing
all three alternatives when the time is appropriate because the numbers are very close. In regards
to the survey of alternatives, he inquired if the survey was completed by residents and or
businesses. Mr. Tsai said the survey was a mix of residents and businesses but noted eventual
additional outreach would include more participation from the businesses.
Chair Martos confirmed with Mr. Tsai that the speed limit on the portion of California Drive in
question was recently reduced to 25 MPH. He stated he was happy to hear there would be
additional outreach to the businesses when the permanent improvements are ready to move
forward as businesses will be impacted by any removal of parking. Chair Martos indicated he liked
what San Mateo did with their bike facility and does not think we need four lanes of traffic on that
segment of California Drive. He said he would like to eventually see some concepts similar to San
Mateo as he likes the dedicated bike lanes. Chair Martos closed his comments by stating he
believes there is a need to bridge the gap until we get to a point where the funding is available
for more permanent improvements and he looks forward to the opportunity to weigh on the
three close alternatives.
Commissioner Ng echoed Chair Martos’ views. He also stated the last thing we want to do is
impact local businesses even further by solving one problem, only to create another.
Commissioner Ng acknowledged that the voting on alternatives was close, but said if you know
that you’re going to have parking impacts but at the same time you’re adding bike lanes to make
strides in bike safety, choosing the alternative with the lowest bicycle comfort level is nonsensical.
He said from a pure logical standpoint, why we would want to go down the same road if we are
trying to fix these problems.
Vice-Chair Israelit stated she likes the green paint for the sharrows as it stands out more than the
white-painted sharrows.
Commissioner Rebelos seconded Vice-Chair Israelit and is in favor of the green sharrows. He said
going forward, anticipating the end of the interim improvements, a few things in his mind seem
certain: 1) it’s a busy corridor and will only get busier; 2) it is a short ride; and 3) the proliferation
of e-bikes. With that, Commissioner Rebelos said he could see this area becoming a very popular
route between downtown Burlingame and downtown San Mateo. He said he felt any concept in
the future should really prioritize the comfort of bicyclists in this corridor. Commissioner Rebelos
also stated he is not enthusiastic about the interim improvement, but he appreciates that it is
better than what we currently have.
Commissioner Leigh stated she appreciates staff bringing this project forward to think about what
5
can be done in the interim since there is no funding currently available for a study or bike lanes.
She said having not noticed the sharrows between Oak Grove and Burlingame Avenues, she feels
adding additional sharrows south of Burlingame Avenue is a waste of money. Commissioner Leigh
said she does not think the sharrows are helpful to bicyclists nor do they increase safety or
encourage more bicycle activity. Additionally, she stated she is overwhelmed with the amount of
signage and that Burlingame has a lot of visual clutter. Commissioner Leigh also said it would be
helpful to reduce some of the signage so drivers know what is really important. She went on to
say she is not in favor of the interim proposal and feels we are just slapping some paint on instead
of solving the engineering problem of how to make it safer for bicyclists. Commissioner Leigh also
expressed her fear that these interim improvements may delay any real bike improvements going
forward.
Chair Martos inquired when the TSPC might see concepts for the permanent design. Mr. Tsai
indicated that staff is working on three other projects to be funded through grant opportunities.
Mr. Wong interjected to say there are additional grant opportunities coming, pointed out the bike
and pedestrian master plan priority list, and indicated staff would be bringing an item on the
agenda next month to further discuss grant opportunities and priority projects for the
Commission.
No public comments were received.
c) Mercy High School Traffic Calming Update
Mr. Wong provided an update and shared staff met with some of the neighbors, as well as Mercy
High School staff and Vice-Mayor Brownrigg, to discuss school related traffic in the area. Mr.
Wong stated they are looking at what is occurring during peak periods of drop off and pick up for
Mercy High School on Adeline Drive, Hillside Road, and Alvarado. He explained that the drop off
for Mercy School requires drivers to enter and exit out of the same stretch of Alvarado. He shared
residents and parents are concerned with traffic speeds, the type of traffic, and the narrow roads.
As a result, Mr. Wong explained that the City is looking at improvements in the area and would
like to form a TSPC subcommittee to work with City staff, school staff, and the community
members to identify improvements and an implementation plan.
Commissioner Leigh inquired if there was a reduced school speed limit and if not, could they
widen the range of it. Vice-Chair Israelit stated that was something they looked at with former
Commissioner Londer as part of a previous school safety audit, but encouraged the new
subcommittee to reevaluate that as they ran into some limitations in the past. Mr. Wong clarified
the speed limit is currently 25 MPH on Adeline and Alvarado and there is no reduced school speed
limit at this time.
Chair Martos shared he spoke to Vice-Mayor Brownrigg regarding his concerns with the traffic
associated with Mercy High School and said this is why this item is on tonight’s agenda.
6
Subsequently, he stated he also spoke to Director Murtuza regarding the neighborhood concerns.
Chair Martos then requested Vice-Chair Israelit join the subcommittee with him to study the area
since she lives in the neighborhood. As a result of the new subcommittee, Commissioner Ng stated
he would take Chair Martos’ spot on the Burlingame Avenue Safety and Access Subcommittee.
No public comments were received.
7. INFORMATION ITEMS
a) Engineering Division Reports
Mr. Wong provided updates on the following projects.
• El Camino Real Water Main Improvements – Water main installation on El Camino Real
has been completed. The contractor is continuing to install water service lines and fire
service connections at the north half of the project. Remaining work includes tie-ins to
the existing system at each cross street and a new water main up Chapin Avenue between
El Camino Real and Occidental. Remaining work is expected to be in construction through
May.
• 2022 Street Resurfacing Project – Project was awarded at the April 4, 2022 Council
meeting. Construction is anticipated to start in the summer. Based on feedback received,
Mr. Wong said they are also reviewing some additional bike facilities as part of this effort.
Commissioner Leigh inquired if any of the additional improvements as part of the
repaving project include streets near schools or improvements that are in the Bike and
Pedestrian Master Plan. Additionally, she asked if the Commission could view the streets
and provide feedback that is helpful to all users of the transportation system. Mr. Wong
stated the list is mostly residential streets and shared the pedestrian improvements
include high visibility crosswalks and the bike improvements include sharrows. He said
the project details can be found in the April 4, 2022 City Council agenda packet.
Commissioner Leigh also inquired about stop bars for the busier intersections as part of
this effort, to which Mr. Wong said those are usually reserved for signalized intersections,
but indicated he would double check the design.
• 220 Park Road (Town Square) Update – Project has started with excavation activities and
preservation of the Post Office façade. With the heavy truck traffic, some traffic
congestion is anticipated along both Lorton Avenue and Park Avenue, along with sidewalk
closures during the construction hours. Based on previous TSPC feedback, staff is
exploring any possibilities of enhancing pedestrian circulation around the site.
7
• Bike Improvements on Trousdale, Murchison, and Davis – The City was notified that the
C/CAG Board approved the list of TDA Article 3 grant projects, which means the City will
receive $400,000 in grant funding for this bike project. He said they do not have a project
timeline to share yet.
TSPC Priority List (revised March 2022):
TSPC Led Effort
1 Broadway/Carmelita Bike/Ped TSPC Study 2/10/22: Item 6c
2 BIS School Safety Improvements
3 Pedestrian Safety at California/Burlingame Ave
4 Lorton Corridor TSPC Study (Roundabout to Howard)
5 SB California Lane Configuration (Bike Mobility)
6 Bike\Ped Plan Priorities 3/10/22: Item 6c
7 Parking Garage Usage 2/10/22: Item 7a
8 Downtown Parking and Access
9 Broadway Parking
10 School Transportation and Safety Issues
Staff Updates
1 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor
2 Downtown Parking Strategies
3 City Hall Traffic Calming/Floribunda
4 Oak Grove/Carolan Traffic Signal
5 Bike\Ped Plan Implementation 3/10/22: Item 6c
6 Chapin Avenue Green Streets Project
7 Old Bayshore Corridor Study (n/o Broadway)
8 Grant Opportunities 3/10/22: Item 6b
9 Broadway Grade Separation
10 San Mateo's Peninsula Ave OC
11 School Speed Limit Updates
12 School Safety Improvements
13 Lyon-Hoag Neighborhood Traffic Calming
14 300 Burlingame Point Traffic Impacts
15 Broadway/California Update
2022 Agenda Item Action Status
1 Various Stop Signs Approved at the 4/4/22 CC mtg.
8
b) Police Department Reports
Sergeant Perna reported 24 documented collisions for this reporting period. He stated he
highlighted three collisions and then pointed out a fourth he wanted highlight, which was a
vehicle/bicycle collision at Trousdale and Hunt that occurred on the evening of March 2. Sergeant
Perna explained the side view mirror of a vehicle clipped a bicyclist, which resulted in minor
injuries to the bicyclist.
Commissioner Rebelos sought specific clarification on the collision location and current road
conditions, pointing out there are no sidewalks or designated bike lane(s). Commissioner Rebelos
stated he has concerns with that strip of road and expressed the strain the sun and bushes add.
He also indicated this was a concern he brought to the TSPC years back as a resident. For the
record, Commissioner Rebelos wanted to point out that the pedestrian and bicyclist access in that
area is really lacking.
Commissioner Leigh stated the TSPC has had a discussion about bike lanes on Trousdale and it is
also in the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. She said she feels that this collision exemplifies one
of the reasons they need it, particularly going uphill. Commissioner Leigh also stated that even
though it’s called “minor injuries,” if you’re a biker or pedestrian pushing a stroller and get hit,
you are traumatized by that experience. She also said she would love to have a bike lane on the
north side of the street where the hill gets steep, past BIS. Additionally, she indicated she would
love to see bike lanes east of that on both sides of the road for kids to get to school.
Commissioner Ng inquired about the collision at El Camino Real and Ray involving a vehicle and
pedestrian. Sergeant Perna explained the pedestrian was in the crosswalk on Ray and the vehicle
was at fault for failure to yield to a pedestrian in the crosswalk. He also shared the driver
estimated their speed to be 5 MPH while trying to execute the turn. Commissioner Ng stated the
scenario Sergeant Perna provided is something he has seen a thousand times. He said he doesn’t
know where this falls under staff review, but it isn’t the first time he has seen this location on the
collision report, and is interested in seeing the longstanding data/frequency of incidents at this
location. Sergeant Perna shared the location is on the Department’s list for additional
enforcement and that he is unsure what the City can do as El Camino Real is under Caltrans’
jurisdiction. Commissioner Ng also pointed out the crosswalk lighting is nonexistent and
suggested the consideration of some form of left-turn controls because everyone is competing as
soon as the traffic light turns green. Mr. Wong also reiterated that El Camino Real is under
Caltrans’ jurisdiction but the City worked with them to add the “right turn yield” signage.
Additionally, Mr. Wong reminded the TSPC of the El Camino Real Renewal Project that is in
progress.
Commissioner Rebelos stated he agreed with Sergeant Perna’s statement that there should be no
left turns from El Camino Rea, but recognizing that it is a state highway, he commented to go
through the process from Caltrans to request a left turn arrow northbound El Camino Real to
9
westbound Ray Drive as part of the El Camino Real Renewal Project.
Chair Martos inquired about the status of the heat map. Sergeant Perna stated he has an older
map available (minus a few months of data) and anticipates an updated heat map shortly. Chair
Martos stated the heat map may help them identify potential areas for improvement and also
asked Sergeant Perna if any of the patrol staff have certain locations that should be brought to
his attention and that of Mr. Wong.
c) TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communications
No updates.
8. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a) Burlingame Avenue Safety and Access (Leigh & Martos)
Commissioner Leigh shared that she spoke to City Manager Goldman and Parks and Recreation
Director Glomstad regarding the Burlingame train station plaza project and that Director
Glomstad forwarded the project plans to the TSPC subcommittee to review. She stated the
Subcommittee provided suggestions to staff regarding the crosswalks, bollards, eliminating trip
hazards, and improving the lighting for pedestrian and bicyclists.
b) Community Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (Leigh & Rebelos)
No update.
c) BIS Safety Audit (Israelit & Ng)
Commissioner Ng shared him and Vice-Chair Israelit met and walked through some of the School
Safety Audit summary results received from Mr. Wong. He stated they went through some of the
ideas for that area and the map/flow of traffic. Additionally, he shared they also reached out to
Amanda Bonivert at the Burlingame School District and she has agreed to meet with the
Subcommittee in the coming weeks. Commissioner Ng stated he hopes to get a sense as to why
things have come to a halt and what they can do collectively to get things moving again as a lot of
time and energy has been spent on this effort to date.
9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• Upcoming grant opportunities/criteria
• Bike and pedestrian master plan priorities (not currently in design)
• Bike boulevards
• Top five projects for TSPC to help prioritize for upcoming grant funding
10
• Repaving program opportunities for improvements
Chair Martos requested a sortable list of project priorities for the TSPC. Mr. Wong confirmed staff is
working on the sortable list.
10. ADJOURNMENT 8:49 p.m.
1
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of Thursday, May 12, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:04 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Israelit, Leigh, Martos, Ng, Rebelos
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) April 14, 2022 Study Session Minutes
Commissioner Leigh made a motion to accept the study session minutes; seconded by Vice-Chair
Israelit. The motion passed by a roll call vote, 5-0.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA
Jackie Haggarty resides on Hoover Avenue and she indicated she wanted to raise grave concern about
the traffic on Adeline Drive. She stated she has been a resident on this street since 2010 and has made
observations through the pandemic. Ms. Haggarty stated the traffic on Adeline has a number of safety
concerns, citing lack of any traffic mitigation near the Hoover and Adeline intersection, constant
speeding, and high volume traffic during specific periods. She said she knows the City erected some
equipment to measure traffic patterns at that intersection recently but was disappointed to see it was
up during Mercy High School’s spring break and suggested an observation period that is more
reflective of the traffic on that road. Ms. Haggarty also pointed out that other neighbors have
expressed similar concerns with the City, stating a petition was recently submitted, but she was
disappointed to see no action being taken. She said she wants to flag that for this Commission and
requested the Commission add this to a future agenda for discussion as soon as possible.
2
Jay Kershner, a resident of Burlingame since 2006, stated he sent an email to the TSPC and did not
receive a response from anyone. He said his issue is that he recently rode his bike over the pedestrian
bridge at Broadway coming from Carolan down Cadillac Way and tried to connect to Old Bayshore,
ultimately ending up near the hotels. Mr. Kershner said he noticed a lack of signage and bike lanes
connecting the bike bridge to those roads. He indicated he also met with the B/PAC this evening and
expressed his concerns to them. Mr. Kershner said he is here to advocate to improve the bike lanes,
signage, and making it easier and safer for bicyclists to ride the pedestrian bridge.
Chair Martos requested details from Mr. Kershner regarding the email that was sent and never
responded to. The Commissioners stated they did not receive the email. Mr. Wong said staff would
look into the issue.
Manito Velasco encouraged the Commission to take immediate-term safety improvements around
BIS. He stated there was another incident near the school and felt there should be action taken to
mitigate the safety concerns there. Mr. Velasco indicated there were some small improvements made
as a result of an audit, but it’s been radio silence since then. He also shared that the BIS principal
recently issued a plea to parents to drive the speed limit of 15 MPH in front of the school, but he
hopes the City will help normalize 15 MPH or lower in front of the school. Mr. Velasco said the problem
also extends to the streets leading up to the school, such as Davis, Quesda, and Albemarle. He
indicated there is one month left in the school year, which is also bike to work/school month, and
hopes to see something done in the short term. Additionally, Mr. Velasco said it is still dangerous on
California Drive between Village Park and the BART station. He said there are kids riding to Caltrain to
get to DTech and suggested to redesign the area to be safer for the kids and commuters that bike to
the transit hub.
Ms. Huang stated last Thursday, May 5, she witnessed a traffic accident at Clarice and Quesada while
taking her children to BIS. She explained that an SUV making a right turn on Clarice hit a family of
three (one in a stroller). She said she was unable to stop but stated another parent called the police.
Ms. Huang said she notices that parents do not always stop at that junction (Quesada and Clarice).
She stated she believes people should stop there (even though there is no stop sign) and that the
Commission should consider a stop sign at that location. Ms. Huang said she feels that with no
improvement the situation will get out of control and is a bigger accident waiting to happen. Ms.
Huang also pointed out on Davis Drive that people drive over 25 MPH and there is no priority for
pedestrians.
James Green was directed to reserve his comments concerning the bike boulevards for that specific
agenda item.
AJ inquired with the Commission regarding their thoughts pertaining to the additional housing going
in near the Mercy campus. He stated the streets are pretty narrow in those neighborhoods with
significant traffic and dangerous driving already. He also stated there are number of large vehicles
that drive through the neighborhood to get to the Mercy campus and indicated it is already a
3
significant challenge to manage. AJ asked if as a result of the additional housing, if the City would be
considering widening the streets to accommodate the additional vehicles or possibly install lights or
other forms of entryway. He went on to ask if the additional traffic will have to squeeze through an
already narrow roadway. Chair Martos stated the Commission cannot respond to that at this time but
has taken note of the concerns and also pointed out there will be future traffic studies and traffic
mitigation in the area in question.
Mr. Wong clarified with Ms. Huang the date of the accident observed at Clarice and Quesada, to which
she replied it was Thursday, May 5 at 8:06 am.
6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
a) Community B/PAC Update (Informational Item Only)
B/PAC Chair Lesley Beatty shared what was discussed at tonight’s B/PAC meeting. In regards to
the upcoming bike and pedestrian priorities for future grant opportunities, she shared that
B/PAC’s top three bike priorities include: 1) California Drive between Oak Grove and Howard; 2)
California Drive between Peninsula and Howard; and 3) corridor between the Broadway Caltrain
crossing and pedestrian bridge, inclusive of the jaunt through Carolan to Cadillac, across Rollins
onto the pedestrian bridge. Ms. Beatty pointed out that B/PAC still has concerns surrounding the
northbound bike lanes on California Drive north of Broadway. She stated the City is not going to
go back and revisit those designs, but B/PAC wants to encourage anything that can be done within
our control to make that area safer for bicyclists. Ms. Beatty offered the suggestion to consider
reducing the speed limit from 35 to 30 MPH. For pedestrian related projects, Ms. Beatty shared
the following priorities of B/PAC: 1) crossing at Quesada and Clarice; 2) crossing at Clarice and
Sequoia; and 3) crossing at California and Trousdale. If a fourth priority was allowed, Ms. Beatty
said they would like to discuss the crossing at Broadway and Laguna, which had a second
pedestrian hit this month.
Ms. Beatty said she would hold off on the additional B/PAC comments for the upcoming bike
boulevards discussion.
b) Capital Improvement Project Process
Mr. Wong provided the Commission with a Capital Improvement Program project process work
flow chart. To view the flow chart, please access the agenda packet on the City’s website. Mr.
Wong stated this document was provided to clarify the Commissions role in capital improvement
projects. He then went through the flow chart and opened it up to Commissioner questions.
Commissioner Leigh used the Broadway Lighting project as an example for gathering TSPC
feedback. She said it would be great if they (or the subcommittee) received the plans to review,
but they were never provided. Commissioner Leigh stated the desire to see the conceptual plans
4
in an effort to make comments earlier in the process and that it would give TSPC more of a role
in the design of items within their jurisdiction. She expressed the difficulty in obtaining the
conceptual plans early on.
Mr. Wong explained that TSPC does see the conceptual plans—as they are tonight for the bike
boulevards. Mr. Wong stated the issue with the Broadway Lighting Project was a field adjustment
and staff had to use engineering judgment on the placement of the light poles based on utility
conflicts that were not discovered until the excavation process.
Vice-Chair Israelit confirmed with Mr. Wong that projects need to have the ground work
developed and public comment gathering before a solid preliminary plan goes to TSPC for
consideration. Essentially, Vice-Chair Israelit confirmed projects should be “flushed out” before it
goes before TSPC, otherwise the Commission would be looking at every single detail in the
beginning stages of the project.
Chair Martos summarized to say that the TSPC would have the opportunity to review and provide
feedback on two occasions, just as the process allows for community feedback twice.
No public comments were received for this discussion item.
c) Burlingame Bicycle Boulevards
Mr. Wong stated the hope of tonight’s presentation is to receive additional feedback on the bike
boulevard designs. Consultant John Pulliam from Kimley-Horn provided an updated presentation
regarding the bike boulevard design concepts on Capuchino, Carmelita, Grove, Mills, and Paloma.
For presentation details, please review the presentation available in the agenda packet on the
City’s website.
Vice-Chair Israelit inquired about the triple four crosswalk (Grove/Laguna) and wondered if that
is the standard for crosswalks going forward. She said she is trying to get a better understanding
of the crosswalk as it seems like a heavy duty crosswalk that would fit better in more of an urban
situation vs suburb situation. She went on to explain that she is trying to understand
implementing them on our bicycle boulevards as opposed to what we have in the rest of the City.
Mr. Pulliam stated there is a lot of variation of crosswalks between cities and said this design is
somewhat of a new variation. He said they are seeing them in other cities (a lot in the South Bay)
and are recommending them for two reasons: it’s more visible to drivers and it’s more accessible.
Vice-Chair Israelit then asked about the striping on Carmelita Avenue between El Camino Real and
California Drive and the consultant’s comment that it might be misinterpreted by cars. She was
unsure by what he meant in the presentation and asked for clarification. Mr. Pulliam clarified he
is concerned that the parking lane turns into a vehicle lane from 7 – 9 am and does not like the
idea of cars getting confused by the parking stripe. He said they are open to discussing this further.
Vice-Chair Israelit confirmed when there is no parking during rush hour, it’s only one lane of travel
5
and cars would not be traveling in the parking lane. Mr. Pulliam responded to say vehicles would
be straddling the white parking line because there are only two 8-foot lanes. Mr. Wong interjected
to say that situation occurs when there are no vehicles parked. He said if we were to maintain the
existing parking restrictions, it would occur. Mr. Wong indicated the Commission could consider
removing the parking restrictions, which would then make this section of road look like what is
west of El Camino. Vice-Chair Israelit asked about the mini roundabouts and if they are being
proposed at all the uncontrolled four-way intersections. Mr. Pulliam stated they are looking at
incorporating them at every intersection on Carmelita Avenue that does not have a 4-way stop.
He said considerations will take into account how large trucks would maneuver around them,
including the potential turn restrictions.
Commissioner Leigh stated bicycle boulevards are meant to prioritize biking, not make them equal
with automobiles. Commissioner Leigh indicated that at the February TSPC meeting, B/PAC
requested full time parking on Carmelita Avenue. She also felt full time parking at this location
would make the residents happier. Commissioner Leigh said she felt dispersing the volume of
traffic from Carmelita Avenue would be good as it’s being used as a cut through street. She said
she is sad to see those B/PAC suggestions were not incorporated into this plan. She noted another
B/PAC request that was overlooked is the request for a 4-way stop at Paloma Avenue and
Carmelita Avenue. Overall Commissioner Leigh said she would like that intersection to be
addressed by traffic controls, not traffic calming. Commissioner Leigh said she hoped their
committee would reassess that and consider a 6 month trial as the City did at Sanchez Avenue.
Commissioner Leigh then asked about speed humps and whether or not they would be on every
single block as they are only seeing a one block segment. She said she was specifically interested
in the intersection of Paloma Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue. Additionally, Commissioner Leigh
communicated that B/PAC previously requested a bicycle crossing signal at the intersection of
Paloma Avenue and Broadway. Mr. Pulliam responded to say the bicycle crossing signal is out of
the scope of a quick-build project as it’s considered a signal modification. He went on to say this
would not be the project to implement such an improvement as this effort is more “paint and
plastic.” Mr. Pulliam also said that is the same for the request for a 4-way stop—it is not
considered part of a quick-build effort. Mr. Wong stated a 4-way stop is something City staff can
look into and consider at some of the intersections. In regards to the request to change the
parking, Mr. Pulliam stated that is something they could consider and discuss including in this
package moving forward if it is something this Commission feels strongly about.
Commissioner Ng requested clarification that the project objective is not for a temporary fix, but
to solve a problem and is permanent in nature. Mr. Wong stated the quick-build improvements
get something on the ground and people used to it. If the improvements are well received and
working as intended, he said at some point the City can make the improvements permanent.
Commissioner Ng also stated the intersections in the scope of these quick builds feel like larger
focus points for many of them and he is trying to understand if this puts a “Band-Aid fix” on it and
the Commission moves on, or is this effort a more permanent solution that will help a broader
focus. Commissioner Ng closed his comments by stating he would like to ensure the Commission
6
is using their time appropriately.
Commissioner Rebelos said his questions pertain to the stretch of Carmelita Avenue. Starting with
east of El Camino Real, he said he likes the crosswalks but is not happy with the traffic circles. He
stated he walks this area all the time and watches pedestrians traversing the area as well.
Commissioner Rebelos said everyone he sees seems to have a challenge crossing Carmelita
Avenue at Capuchino and Paloma Avenues and said this stretch is worse in his opinion than
Carmelita Avenue west of El Camino. He said he feels the intersections at Capuchino and Paloma
Avenues should be 4-way stops. Commissioner Rebelos stated that although he knows people can
blow through stop signs, he felt they are more likely to stop, especially at 4-way stops that are
considered “blind streets”. He said that is also a problem – you have to block the crosswalk in
order to see oncoming traffic to make safe turning movements or cross the intersection. He
reiterated that he prefers the 4-way stops over the proposed traffic circles (Capuchino and Paloma
Avenues). Commissioner Rebelos stated that everything else he is okay with and explained his
comments are based on also having the installation of speed humps, in addition to the stop signs.
On the other side of El Camino, Commissioner Rebelos said he also favors stop signs, but said he
wants to know what the residents in the area think. He closed to say he is comfortable with a pilot
effort west of El Camino but feels most strongly about the area east of El Camino.
Chair Martos opened the public comment period.
Gavin Johns, who lives west of El Camino near Bernal and Carmelita, stated he loves the initiative
and appreciates the Commission’s efforts. He explained that hundreds of people walk down this
specific corridor each day—specifically elementary school kids and that he can’t emphasize
enough the importance to slow down traffic. Mr. Johns requested to confirm that traffic calming
elements will be at each block of Carmelita. He also said he wants to understand the tradeoffs
between permanent and quick-builds and wants to understand other options. He advocated to
have traffic calming elements at each block. In regards to the quick builds, he inquired as to when
there would be a follow up or more permanent infrastructure. Mr. Johns stated that without a
timeline or knowing what they’d be giving up, it is hard to support quick build improvements. He
also wondered if staff considered gateways, such as curb jet outs at the intersections (pinch
points).
Consultant John Pulliam explained the intent is to have the improvements at each block. He also
stated they are focused on quick-builds and the intent of the project is to implement low-cost
improvements that can be implemented quickly. Mr. Wong also stated the intent is to implement
the improvements quickly and should the feedback for the quick-builds be positive, staff can then
evaluate the idea of more permanent infrastructure down the road. Mr. Wong also explained that
the current budget is also a factor.
Lesley Beatty thanked the Commission for this presentation and then went into questions
generated by the B/PAC. Ms. Beatty stated that on the outset, B/PAC was mostly worried about
7
the intersections (with the exception of Carmelita) for this network of bike friendly
accommodations, so that the danger to cyclists is not in the roadway—it’s crossing intersections.
She then inquired with the Commission what improvements have been made to make the
intersections safer. Secondly, Ms. Beatty asked why we would recommend a single bike lane for
Capuchino and Paloma and would like to understand the tradeoffs of a consistent approach. Ms.
Beatty then inquired what the speed reduction would be for cars on Carmelita with all of these
improvements based on a professional assessment. She stated she has concerns about the
intersection controls at Paloma and Carmelita—especially for the bicyclists coming through
Paloma and whether that traffic circle will allow cars to see and focus on cross traffic adequately
or if a stop sign would be better there. In regards to the options at Grove, Ms. Beatty said she
strongly prefers option A. She said she does not think the bike slots are a good idea on Grove
particularly where parking would be removed for residents that abut California Drive. Ms. Beatty
closed to reiterate the desire for stop signs at Paloma and Carmelita.
Consultant John Pulliam stated that in regards to the intersections, the first thing that will improve
safety is going to be the reduction in speeds that we will see with the speed cushions throughout
most of the network. He said part of this effort will include an analysis that looks at proper spacing
of speed cushions and working with the City to determine what we are looking at for speed
reductions. Mr. Pulliam said that getting vehicle speeds down to 20 MPH with speed cushions is
pretty typical. Additionally, Mr. Pulliam said based on support received, they will consider the use
of mini circles at some intersections with two-way stop controls and went on to say he intends to
check the feasibility. He stated that other streets are very narrow so that will also be taken into
consideration. As to the single bike lane on one block, in his professional opinion, Mr. Pulliam said
he is always for providing a separate bike facility if there is enough room for it. He stated they are
trading consistency for a block of dedicated bike lane. He closed by saying he made note of
B/PAC’s preference on Grove.
Manito Velasco stated he lives on Capuchino and said the bike lane that was just discussed feels
like a step backwards. He said he felt it would be unsafe for bike riders and vehicles to try to pass
each other in such a narrow space. Mr. Velasco also stated there is a post office and trucks coming
out of Broadway, and stated a bike lane there is a terrible idea and hopes the City will reconsider.
With regards to the stop signs, he was confused as to why that is an afterthought and stated it
should be a part of the value engineering process. He then cited the stop sign installation at
Sanchez as an example. Mr. Velasco said he hopes the stop signs will be considered as part of the
quick build improvements. In closing he stated the proposal is scary and he does not support the
bike slots.
Mr. Wong stated as part of this project, they will be looking at stop signs (no different than what
occurred at Sanchez), which includes the consideration of the large vehicles coming from
Broadway. He also stated that they are looking for additional input this evening in regards to the
bike slots on Grove. Mr. Wong pointed out that bollards have also been included in the design for
more protection at the corners—but ultimately they are looking for feedback tonight on those
8
features.
Mr. & Mrs. Reilly live on the corner of Drake and Carmelita and said they appreciate the hard work
that this Commission is doing and thanked Mr. Pulliam for the hard work he has put into these
designs. Mr. Reilly said he understands the tradeoffs between temporary and permanent
improvements. Having lived on the corner for the last twenty years, Mr. Reilly stated Carmelita is
a very busy street—highly walked, biked, and driven. He also said the number of large
construction trucks that traverse the area are very high as well. Mr. Reilly said speeding is a
problem and he has observed cars going 60 MPH between stop signs, specifically on Cortez and
Vancouver. He stated there is a lot of traffic in the area and felt as a result we should be sensitive
to the controls put in place to avoid blockages and trucks not being able to move. Mr. Reilly said
he is more in favor of traffic slowing measures, such as speed bumps, as they already have a lot
of stop signs in the area. He said traffic circles could be problematic for large trucks.
Chair Martos provided Gavin Johns another opportunity to provide public comments. Mr. Johns
asked clarifying questions— what public support means for this project and what the next step
will be to iterate these things (if this is essentially proof of concept). Mr. Wong explained that this
meeting is part of the information gathering process—for the public and from the Commission,
and staff would be taking the feedback received to refine the concepts. Mr. Wong stated staff will
more than likely show the final project design via the TSPC to make sure staff has covered
everything. Mr. Johns then asked how they will reach a decision regarding the refinements. Mr.
Wong explained it is staff’s responsibility to refine and finalize the concept by using their
engineering judgement and that staff will be working with the community to do additional “foot
work” to ensure the best design.
The Commission Secretary read the following emails received for public comment.
Dear TPSC,
I live on the 1200 block of Capuchino and am writing to express my support for designating
Capuchino Ave. and the other identified streets part of a bicycle boulevard neighborhood. Aside
from supporting bicycle transportation, the enhanced traffic calming features will make our
narrow streets safer by encouraging drivers to reduce their speeds and potentially reducing traffic.
Allow me to bring to your attention an ongoing traffic hazard on my block. The 1200 block of
Capuchino is a one-way street, with traffic entering at Lincoln and letting out onto Broadway.
Despite signage on the northwest and northeast corners of Broadway and Capuchino, drivers on
Broadway continue make turns on the 1200 block of Capuchino, entering from the wrong direction
and going the wrong way on our one-way street. On average, I believe this occurs 1-2 times per
month. This will pose a hazard to bike riders as well and I encourage you to take additional action
to address this issue.
9
Thank you for your consideration.
Davina Drabkin
To Members of the TSCP:
The Bike Boulevard idea might be reasonable if Burlingame had wider streets, less congestion in
the area and no One Way streets going opposite directions to confuse people. Parking is always
at a premium on many of these blocks, especially the ones bordering Broadway. Two of those
blocks (Capuchino and Paloma) have One Way streets going in opposite directions on the blocks
just north of Broadway. Bikes traveling south on Paloma would hit a One Way street going north
as they reached Lincoln. Bikes going south on Laguna would hit a One Way street going north just
as they cross Broadway. It’s unreasonable to assume that bikers would ride east and west to reach
the proper One Way street to continue to Carmelita. And why Is Carmelita the goal of this project
rather than Broadway? Is it to facilitate transition to California Drive? Makes no sense. Carmelita
is extremely narrow and two cars can’t pass now. Further impacting an already crowded area with
bikes isn’t going to make anyone happy. Bikes are free to ride on these streets now. No laws or
restrictions are needed for this to occur.
The entire neighborhood area bordered by California Dr., Broadway or Carmelita, El Camino Real
and Mills, is a very congested and slow moving area as it is. No real calming methods are needed
because all of us who live here and use the streets all the time know how slow they are. The two
faster streets in this area are Grove and Lincoln, and they are both wide streets.
I have a challenge for every member of the TSCP: Please grab your family and your bikes and
traverse this area in its entirety, One Way streets and all, and every one of the streets included in
this plan to feel exactly how this idea would play out for the public. If you don’t have bikes, please
take your cars through the entire area to see how illogical this plan is before voting to accept it.
Many of my neighbors feel the same way I do on this issue.
Thank you,
- Barbara Nagata
I live on Carmelita Avenue (2001 - corner of Bernal Avenue, 1 block east of Vancouver).
What exactly are "Neighborhood Bicycle Boulevards"? Is this a fancy name for bike lanes which
already exist in Burlingame? The fast-moving traffic on Carmelita (west of El Camino) is hazardous
enough, even worse east of El Camino.
Ronald Bulatoff
10
To Whom It May Concern:
I live at 1213 Capuchino Av., cross street Broadway Avenue. Capuchino Avenue is too narrow to fit
traffic, parked cars, and a bicycle lane. Installing a bike lane will increase the chances of damaged
cars (parked and moving), and could injure bicyclists. Right now bicyclists use the whole lane on
Capuchino, which works.
Please reconsider and avoid bike lanes on Capuchino Avenue.
Sincerley,
Orlando Montes
Hi,
I got a public meeting notice regarding the meeting on the Bicycle Boulevard today at 7:00 pm. It
said there was a zoom link on the City’s website. I could not find this meeting information
anywhere on the website?
I live on Paloma ave. between Mills and Oak Grove and will be directly affected by any Bicycle
Boulevard and would like to understand more about it and how it will affect the street in front of
our home.
Thank you.
Best,
Elisa Lee
Q: for Carmelita - bicycle improvement, which we are for, what is your plan for slowing traffic
below 20 MPH? Example, more stop signs or speed bumps or other slowing technology? Will you
be removing parking on the street?
Erica and Christian Reilly
I would just like to know with specific clarity what the next steps are for this project. Which month
is it going in front of Council? When is the contract going to be advertised? When is the selected
contractor anticipated to do the work? Is it 2022? 2023?
I live on Capuchino. And what’s planned for my street will not work. I walk and bike on Capuchino
every day. I drive it twice a week. If you put a bike lane as you plan to do there, it will be the
11
opposite of safety. You would be forcing bike riders to ride in a door zone bike lane. At the same
time, you are forcing drivers to drive offset from the center of the street, closer to the parking lane
on one side of the street, which then makes it difficult for residents who have driveways on that
side of the street to get out.
The issue with this project is that it’s portending to be improving conditions for bikes by basically
doing painted bicycle stencils on the ground. The main problem as I’ve commented on in the past,
and in the surveys, is at the intersections. That is where bicyclists are most vulnerable to getting
hit. Yet there’s nothing material in these plans that improve intersections. We need a stop sign
at Paloma and Carmelita the intersection of two bike boulevards. You did stop signs on the city’s
first bike boulevard on Laguna. There is already precedent for this.
I don’t know how many times I’ve commented that the ‘bike slots’ as being not feasible. But it
keeps coming back in the designs. Those will not work. They take away parking at the corners.
And you’re putting poles in people’s driveways at Grove and Laguna.
Sorry to say that it’s hard to support any of these concepts as a resident and as a regular bicycle
rider. None of the concepts are satisfying or effective.
-Manito Velasco
Chair Martos closed public comment. He stated that there is a lot of concern surrounding the
proposed plan and it is his opinion that the consultant and staff should take all the comments
received, digest it, and see what can be done to address bona fide concerns and make this a better
plan. He requested to see the plan once more before the Commission makes any kind of decision.
Commissioner Ng seconded Chair Martos’ suggestion above. He said there are a lot of holes in
what was discussed tonight and the goal is to produce serious strides in providing streets that are
more bike friendly, and this proposal is mostly road sharing with topics that have pressed a lot of
buttons. Commissioner Ng said he felt the project needs a little more work before the TSPC can
vote on it to move forward.
Vice-Chair Israelit said she felt the consultant did a great job of providing options based on current
road conditions and stated there are a lot of differing priorities and viewpoints between residents,
the Commissioners, and bicyclists. Vice-Chair Israelit said she felt the project isn’t too far away
from something they can get behind, they just have to hammer out the kinks so people can feel
more comfortable, especially on Carmelita. She then stated she did not think they needed mini
rotaries at every block on the west portion of Carmelita where there are no stop signs. Vice-Chair
Israelit stated that three traffic circles in a row is overkill and suggested the middle intersection
be a traffic circle or stop signs. Overall she felt these details need to be worked out more
concretely before the TSPC decides what they want to do on Carmelita. In regards to the pull out
lanes and verticals with bollards, she thought they are almost overkill for this particular plan based
12
on the tight streets and challenging angles. Lastly, Vice-Chair Israelit said she strongly feels they
should have restricted parking on Carmelita between El Camino and California Drive despite the
fact that B/PAC has stated they prefer it.
Commissioner Leigh agreed with her fellow Commissioner’s in regards to refining the concepts
based on the feedback received and providing another update to the TSPC. She then summarized
some of the comments that have been received. Commissioner Leigh pointed out two people
from the public requested no bike lane on Capuchino and she said she tended to agree. She stated
speed bumps are warranted up Carmelita, west of El Camino, and there wasn’t much support for
the traffic circles there or on Carmelita between California Drive and El Camino Real.
Commissioner Leigh noted there is strong support for stop signs on Carmelita, particularly at
Laguna. She stated the “devil is in the details” and said that the details are in the intersections, to
which she would like to see specific plans for each intersection. Commissioner Leigh explained
that parking on both sides of Carmelita would be a tremendous help to slow down the traffic in
order to make it a safer corridor for children to ride their bikes and for pedestrians.
Commissioner Rebelos stated he is concerned the Commission might be accidentally undermining
the concept of a quick build—which is to do this quickly. He said it is also his understanding that
a quick build project is intended to fix most of the issues, not a “fix all.” Commissioner Rebelos
said he appreciated all the comments from the public and what he heard is that the traffic on
Carmelita is moving too fast. He said he is grateful to staff and the consultants as this concept has
evolved. Commissioner Rebelos stated that although it is not perfect, it is very good and a step in
the right direction. He indicated he is also keeping in mind this is a quick build project. He said
what he took from staff is that they are approaching this in good faith with an open mind, as is
the consultant. Commissioner Rebelos pointed out the comments regarding the truck traffic on
Carmelita and said he is concerned about the public comments pertaining to the bike lane and
driveways on Capuchino. He stated again this is better than what we currently have and expressed
concerns that they may unintentionally continue to push these improvements too far down the
road. He stated for this project, he likes what he heard and the spirit he is hearing from staff and
the consultants. In his closing comments he stated he is willing to support a motion to approve
this project to move forward.
No formal motion was made to move the current concepts forward.
Chair Martos confirmed with Mr. Wong that the Commission would have another opportunity to
receive a revised presentation from staff.
d) TSPC Grant Priority List
Chair Martos pointed out B/PAC’s priorities, which were shared in item 6.a.
Mr. Wong went through each Commissioner’s grant priorities, which generated the following list
13
of top three bike and pedestrian locations for upcoming grant opportunities.
Bike Priorities
1. California Drive - Oak Grove to Howard
2. California Drive – Howard to Peninsula
3. Cadillac Way – neighborhood bike route
Pedestrian Priorities
1. Quesada/Clarice
2. Clarice/Sequoia
3. Marco Polo/Davis
7. INFORMATION ITEMS
a) Engineering Division Reports
Although there were no new active project updates at the time the agenda was published, Mr.
Wong provided an update concerning the Broadway area. He stated that over the weekend
Caltrain will be working on their Electrification Project. He said flaggers will be out and noted road
closures at North Lane and Howard.
Vice-Chair Israelit inquired about the Oak Grove/California Drive intersection and pointed out it
was discussed a long time ago. She asked for a status update. Mr. Wong stated the Oak Grove
and California Drive Traffic Signal Project is on hold in order to complete modifications and to
ensure the improvements are consistent with the bike facility that comes in.
b) Police Department Reports
Sergeant Perna addressed the accident reported at Clarice and Quesada involving a family of three
(which will be included in next month’s report). Sergeant Perna said he did not want to discount
the situation or that it was possibly a close call, but the police were dispatched to the scene and
no accident actually occurred.
Sergeant Perna reported 16 documented collisions this reporting period. He pointed out a vehicle
and bicycle accident involving a juvenile which occurred at Bernal and Hillside early in the
morning. He stated the bicyclist was traveling northbound Bernal behind the car and when the
vehicle went to make a turn onto eastbound Hillside, they struck the bicyclist. He indicated there
were no injuries and police were notified about four hours after the incident. He stated the driver
was at fault for an unsafe turning movement.
In regards to the bicyclist and vehicle collision at Howard and Bloomfield, Sergeant Perna stated
he responded to that call and indicated the bicyclist admitted they blew through the stop sign,
14
which resulted in the collision with the vehicle. He stated the bicyclist had minor injuries.
Commissioner Leigh stated that the intersection of Howard and Bloomfield was on the Lyon Hoag
neighborhood’s request for a four-way stop but it was not ever studied. She also pointed out
B/PAC requested a four-way stop at the same location and requested that staff study that
intersection.
For the vehicle and pedestrian collision at Laguna and Broadway, Sergeant Perna explained the
driver was traveling northbound on Laguna at a low rate of speed due to the sun in their eyes.
The driver stated they stopped at the intersection and thought it was clear to turn onto
westbound Broadway, but struck the pedestrian traveling at approximately 2 MPH.
Sergeant Perna stated he sent the Commissioner’s the heat map to view and noted he did not
think it could be sorted by month. He explained there is historical data for five years and what has
occurred in 2022 that can be toggled on and off.
Vice-Chair Israelit stated she missed the TSPC meeting right after the event occurred, which was
loss of power during a big storm in February, and caused all the lights on El Camino Real to turn
off. She stated she witnessed accidents at all the major intersections and was surprised she did
not see any police out helping to direct traffic. She then inquired about emergency protocols when
traffic lights are down. Sergeant Perna responded to say he would look into that further but stated
that during big storm events, typically 911 and Public Works receive a heavy influx of calls. He also
explained the intersections without working traffic lights become a four-way stop, but said he
would bring her comments forward regarding protocols under similar circumstances for
consideration.
c) TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communications
Vice-Chair Israelit shared that several people have asked her why the new parking garage is for
three hours as they are happy to utilize it, but it does not make sense to pay for three hours of
parking when running a 30 minute errand. She also stated the feedback received also included
that the signage is not clear that you have to pay for three hours of parking until you’re already
inside the garage. Vice-Chair Israelit said she explained to them the intent for long-term parking
for nearby businesses in an effort to free up the street parking closer to retail and restaurants.
She then suggested that if people are not using the garage as we hoped, they could reevaluate
the parking and open one floor up for short-term parking.
Chair Martos stated he had a discussion with Director Murtuza about utilization counts for the
garage. He said Director Murtuza indicated parking utilization is going up on the first three floors
and that staff is working on adding signage.
Mr. Wong clarified the parking rate for the new garage is $3.00 for all day, not for three hours. He
also confirmed with Chair Martos that staff is revising the circular parking signs that direct people
15
to the garage. Additionally, he said that effort includes a CMS board. Mr. Wong also indicated he
is working on pulling parking data from the server room.
Commissioner Rebelos stated he felt the $3.00 fee was very reasonable for all day parking and
then inquired about Caltrain parking rates. Mr. Wong stated the Caltrain rates are higher—he
thought either $5.00 or $8.00 per day.
Commissioner Leigh stated she spoke with Chair Martos regarding the conceptual plans for the
Burlingame Plaza in front of the train station on Burlingame Avenue, which were provided by the
Parks Department. She stated they provided comments in order to improve the crosswalks, which
was provided to the Parks Department. She indicated she met with Commissioner Rebelos to look
at a segment on the south end of Airport Boulevard just before the City of San Mateo. She said
they have come up with suggestions and photos for the block and a half that is scheduled for
repaving and they will be providing those to staff. Commissioner Leigh also shared that she met
with her new partner, Commissioner Ng regarding the Burlingame Avenue subcommittee and
indicated they are going to talk with staff about what the crosswalk improvements are on the
Avenue and discuss bike lockers in the new parking garage.
In regards to AB 43 and new speed limits code, Commissioner Leigh said she and Commissioner
Ng discussed the option of utilizing AB 43 to reduce the speed limit on Burlingame
Avenue/Broadway/downtown pedestrian zones to 20 MPH.
8. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a) Burlingame Avenue Safety and Access (Leigh & Ng)
No update—addressed in item 7.c.
b) Community Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (Leigh & Rebelos)
No update.
c) BIS Safety Audit (Israelit & Ng)
Vice-Chair Israelit stated she and Commissioner Ng met with Amanda at the Burlingame School
District who was very receptive and happy to hear about the safety audit. She stated they came
up with two potential traffic patterns and sent it over to Mr. Wong for staff review. Vice-Chair
Israelit indicated that once the traffic flow is ironed out, they can tack on the requests, such as a
stop sign at Marco Polo and Davis. Commissioner Ng stated they are trying to address some of
the broader concerns that we have heard today and historically. He also indicated that they have
been thoughtful regarding unintended consequences.
16
d) Mercy School Traffic Calming (Israelit & Martos)
Chair Martos indicated they have a draft of ideas of what can be done at this location and shared
there is a meeting tomorrow with the subcommittee and Mr. Wong to discuss the upcoming
meeting with Mercy School administrators.
9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• Proof of concept for BIS (requesting timeline, not necessarily next month).
Chair Martos said he would like to see mitigation measures implemented before the end of the
school year.
• Conceptual plans for Burlingame Avenue and California Drive intersection—west side of the
station (a top pedestrian priority)
• Conceptual plans for changes to pavers on Burlingame Avenue
• Traffic on Adeline and Hoover near Mercy
• Broadway, Carolan, and Cadillac safety concerns and connections
• Grant opportunities
• Updated bike boulevards presentation
10. ADJOURNMENT 10:19 p.m.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NO:
7.a
MEETING DATE:
June 9, 2022
To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
Date: June 9, 2022
From: Andrew Wong, Senior Civil Engineer – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission receive a presentation by staff providing an update on
various Public Works – Engineering projects and activities.
BACKGROUND
• El Camino Real Water Main Improvements – Water main installation has been
completed. The contractor is currently installing water service lines, fire service
connections, and tie-ins on the northern portion of the project area from Palm Drive/El
Camino Real to Sanchez Avenue/El Camino Real. Project completion anticipated in July
2022.
• 2022 Street Resurfacing Project – Construction anticipated to begin mid to late
June. The work consists of resurfacing and/or base failure repairs on various City
streets. Staff to notify affected residents regarding construction schedule and impacts,
and coordinate with the contractor to minimize disruptions.
• Burlingame Bicycle Boulevards – On May 20 staff was able to ride with members of
the Community BPAC to further obtain feedback on portions of the bike boulevard
project. Based on TSPC and community feedback, design concepts are being revised
and will be presented by staff at an upcoming meeting.
TSPC Priority List (revised June 2022):
TSPC Led Effort
1 Broadway/Carmelita Bike/Ped TSPC Study 2/10/22: Item 6c
2 BIS School Safety Improvements
3 Pedestrian Safety at California/Burlingame Ave
4 Lorton Corridor TSPC Study (Roundabout to Howard)
5 SB California Lane Configuration (Bike Mobility)
Item 7.a – Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update June 9, 2022
2
6 Bike\Ped Plan Priorities 5/12/22: Item 6c
7 Parking Garage Usage 2/10/22: Item 7a
8 Downtown Parking and Access
9 Broadway Parking
10 School Transportation and Safety Issues
Staff Updates
1 Caltrans’ ECR Corridor
2 Downtown Parking Strategies
3 City Hall Traffic Calming/Floribunda
4 Oak Grove/Carolan Traffic Signal
5 Bike\Ped Plan Implementation 3/10/22: Item 6c
6 Chapin Avenue Green Streets Project
7 Old Bayshore Corridor Study (n/o Broadway)
8 Grant Opportunities 3/10/22: Item 6b
9 Broadway Grade Separation
10 San Mateo's Peninsula Ave OC
11 School Speed Limit Updates
12 School Safety Improvements
13 Lyon-Hoag Neighborhood Traffic Calming
14 300 Burlingame Point Traffic Impacts
15 Broadway/California Update
2022 Agenda Item Action Status
1 Various Stop Signs Approved at the 4/4/22 CC mtg.
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 Locale 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 Other Location Vehicle Involved With
BRM2201296 05/06/2022 1145 Street City Street 35 1 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21804(a)VC F F CAROLAN AV BROADWAY AV Other motor vehicle
BRM2201333 05/10/2022 1611 Intersection City Street 25 1 0 F Vehicle-Pedestrian F 21950(a)VC F F PRIMROSE RD BELLEVUE AV Pedestrian
BRM2201368 05/14/2022 2212 Intersection City Street 35 0 0 T Vehicle-Object F 22152(a) VC F F AIRPORT BL LANG RD Fixed object
BRM2201396 05/17/2022 1428 Intersection City Street 35 1 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21801(A) VC F F EL CAMINO REAL (SR-82)GROVE AV Other motor vehicle
BRM2201416 05/19/2022 1523 Intersection City Street 30 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22350 VC F F TROUSDALE DR QUESADA WY Other motor vehicle
BRM2201432 05/21/2022 1155 Intersection City Street 35 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F 22350 VC F F ROLLINS RD INGOLD RD Fixed object
BRM2201452 05/23/2022 759 Street City Street 35 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22350 VC F F PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME AV Other motor vehicle
BRM2201491 05/26/2022 1231 Street City Street 35 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F 22350 VC F F CANYON RD SKYLINE BL Fixed object
BRM2201498 05/27/2022 1026 Street City Street 25 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21658(a)CVC F F PALOMA AV Parked motor vehicle
BRM2201517 05/28/2022 2232 Intersection City Street 35 1 F Vehicle-Vehicle T 21453(A) cvc F F TROUSDALE DR EL CAMINO REAL (SR-82)Other motor vehicle
BRM2201537 05/31/2022 1414 Street Highway 35 2 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22350 VC F F EL CAMINO REAL (SR-82)Other motor vehicle
BRM2201541 05/31/2022 1603 Parking Lot Private Property 0 1 F Vehicle-Pedestrian F Unsafe Starting F F 1300 ROLLINS RD MARSTEN RD Pedestrian
12 Accidents