HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2022.10.13Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Online via Zoom Webinar7:00 PMThursday, October 13, 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 September 19, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 114-2022 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 114-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for
the October 13, 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 October 13. 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 10/7/2022
October 13, 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
July 14, 2022 Regular 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
Mercy High School Related Traffic Calming Efforta.
PresentationAttachments:
Update on Burlingame’s Bike Sharing Programb.
PresentationAttachments:
Update on City-Wide Pedestrian Safe Routes and Mobility Improvements Projectc.
PresentationAttachments:
7. Information Items
Public Hearing Related to Informational Itemsa.
Community B/PAC Updateb.
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/7/2022
October 13, 2022Traffic Safety and Parking
Commission
Meeting Agenda
Engineering Division Reportsc.
Staff ReportAttachments:
Police Department Reportsd.
Collision ReportAttachments:
TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communicationse.
8. Committee & Sub-Committee Reports
Public Hearing Related to Committee Reportsa.
Burlingame Avenue Safety and Access (Leigh & Ng)b.
Community Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (Leigh & Rebelos)c.
BIS Safety Audit (Israelit & Ng)d.
Mercy School Traffic Calming (Israelit & Martos)e.
Hwy 101 Corridor Connectivity (Leigh & Rebelos)f.
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: November 10, 2022
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/7/2022
Item 4.a
1
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of Thursday, July 14, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:02 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 Regular Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Leigh made one motion to accept the regular meeting minutes for the April 14 and
May 12 meetings as written; seconded by Vice-Chair Israelit. The motion passed by a roll call vote,
5-0.
b) May 12, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Leigh made one motion to accept the regular meeting minutes for the April 14 and
May 12 meetings as written; seconded by Vice-Chair Israelit. The motion passed by a roll call vote,
5-0.
c) June 9, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Leigh made a motion to accept the meeting minutes for the June 9 meeting as
written; seconded by Commissioner Rebelos. The motion passed by a roll call vote, 3-0.
Item 4.a
2
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA
Drew thanked the City for having the Broadway Grade Separation meeting last evening about
aesthetics as he stated he has been following the project for years. He encouraged the City to have
additional community outreach meetings during the coming months as robust feedback can be
incorporated in because the project is only at 35% design.
The Commission Secretary read the following public comment received via email from Manito
Velasco.
Good Evening, Commissioners,
Thank you very much again for advocating for and approving the new STOP signs at Oak Grove and
Ansel. That new stop sign has made it so much safer to traverse that intersection on a bike, as a
pedestrian and even as a driver. Those stop signs along with the ones you approved in 2020 at Paloma
and Sanchez has significantly improved safety in that corridor connecting our neighborhood to
downtown.
I’m also interested in getting updates on the California Dr bikeway project between Broadway and Oak
Grove. What percent of the project is it at? If and when it’s still committed to coming back to TSPC or
Council? A suggestion perhaps is to make that project, as well as the Burlingame station project, be a
standing item on the Engineer’s Report. So folks who just need to see and know the update can see it.
Otherwise, folks are prone to forget about it. Out of sight, out of mind.
I’m interested as well in the Bike Boulevard project on your agenda. But there’s no proposal on the
website or on the agenda to review so regret that it will be impossible to digest tonight’s presentation
and be able to give thoughtful feedback. I hope the presentation is made available to the public. And
just like the aforementioned projects, that the project website is updated as to scope, timeline and
next steps so folks know what is going to happen next.
Thank you.
6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
a) Community B/PAC Update (Informational Item Only)
Commissioner Leigh stated there was no B/PAC meeting this evening and pointed out that
B/PAC would like to see the updated staff report regarding bike boulevards.
b) Burlingame Bicycle Boulevards
Prior to the presentation, Mr. Wong shared that since B/PAC did not meet tonight, he provided
Item 4.a
3
the B/PAC Chair with a link to watch the meeting recording and indicated that B/PAC can provide
comments up until July 28. Mr. Wong thanked B/PAC Chair Ms. Beatty and B/PAC member Mr.
Velasco for going on a bike ride with him to ride through some of the bike boulevard locations
and for the additional feedback. Mr. Wong also thanked Commissioner Rebelos for pointing out
at their last meeting that this effort is for quick-build improvements.
Mr. Wong provided a presentation on the bike boulevards, starting with the existing bikeways. He
pointed out there are gaps on the southern end and with east-west connections. Mr. Wong
showed the complete bike network with recommended bikeways from the Bike and Pedestrian
Master Plan. He also reminded the Commissioners of the various ways the City can fund bike and
pedestrian improvements, citing grant funding, City funds through the approved budget, or by
Capital Improvement Projects, such as the annual resurfacing and sidewalk projects.
Mr. Wong summarized some of the feedback that was received at a previous TSPC meeting:
• Improvements such as these should be considered “quick-build” projects;
• Concerns with the triple-four crosswalks;
• Support for speed cushions from the neighborhood;
• Concerns about speed cushions from the bicycle community;
• Concerns about the intersections from the bicycle community;
• Maintain street parking + no additional parking restrictions; and
• Consistent facilities.
Mr. Wong stated staff is proposing a phased approach for implementation of the Bicycle
Boulevards (Class IIIB facilities). He explained that phase 1 (minimum and immediate) would
include installation of “green-backed” sharrows and then Public Works staff would follow up with
a review of red-curbing at the intersections and any additional signage/stop signs needed. He
indicated that this is consistent with the City’s existing Class IIIB facilities (i.e. Laguna Avenue). Mr.
Wong indicated that phase 2, if necessary, would include identifying locations of other roadway
improvements, such as speed cushions, edgeline striping, traffic circles, channelizers, bulb-outs,
triple-four crosswalks, and splitter islands. He explained that if phase 1 improvements do not
meet the projects goals—slowing down traffic and providing a safe space for bicyclists—they can
introduce the phase 2 suggestions and conduct targeted polling/surveying for public preferences.
Mr. Wong went over each specific street (Mills, Grove, Capuchino, Paloma, and Carmelita) to
show the phase 1 and possible phase 2 improvements —existing crosswalks would get the high
visibility treatment, green-backed and/or bi-directional sharrows in the roadway, and some minor
red curb paint to increase visibility at some of the intersections. For Paloma, Mr. Wong shared
that additional stop signs will be added to make the intersection of Paloma and Carmelita a four-
way stop. He also pointed out that speed cushions are proposed for Carmelita as a phase 2
improvement.
In conclusion, Mr. Wong stated that staff is seeking support of the TSPC for the phased approach
Item 4.a
4
to implement the Class IIIB bike facilities as identified in the 2020 Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan
for bicycle boulevards.
Chair Martos opened the floor for Commissioner questions.
Commissioner Leigh stated she would have liked to see the proposal far earlier and is finding it
difficult to consider these streets—especially Capuchino and Carmelita, as she said she felt they
deserved more time and effort. She then asked where the stops signs are proposed specifically
and what are we doing to reduce traffic volumes, specifically on Carmelita. Commissioner Leigh
said the difference between a Class III bike facility and bicycle boulevard is bicycle boulevards
prioritize bicycle travel (not equal with cars), the mission is to reduce the speed of motor vehicles
to 20-25 MPH, and to reduce the volume of vehicles.
Mr. Wong indicated that the one stop sign at Paloma and Carmelita is proposed, which will make
the intersection a four-way stop. He also said that Carmelita is a collector road and traffic volumes
are not in excess. Additionally, he stated they are looking to reduce the speeds on this roadway
with speed cushions and explained they can move into phase 2 for Carmelita if needed.
Commissioner Rebelos clarified with Mr. Wong that the stop sign installation at the intersection
of Paloma and Carmelita would be included in the phase 1 improvements. Mr. Wong stated they
can also include the speed cushions as part of phase 1 if there is a desire and adequate support
for it.
Commissioner Leigh stated she is particularly concerned with Carmelita and said she reviewed
previous public comments. She stated feedback included concerns of speeding on Carmelita.
Commissioner Leigh pointed out that B/PAC inquired about the consideration of speed bumps on
every block. She also inquired about improvements west of El Camino Real on Carmelita.
Commissioner Leigh also pointed out that B/PAC suggested to squeeze the vehicles by allowing
parking on both sides of Carmelita, and stated it may deter people from using it as a cut-through
and greatly reduce vehicle speeds. She then asked if there has been any thought, discussion, or
studies to allow parking on both sides of the street and of the speed bumps on every block.
Mr. Wong stated as part of phase 2 they can discuss speed cushions on every block. As far as
parking, he also said that could come as part of phase 2 in order to survey the neighborhood. Mr.
Wong pointed out that with changes to parking, there would be tradeoffs and a need for
additional red curbing in some areas. He also said there may be unintended consequences, which
just pushes the problem to a different street.
Commissioner Leigh inquired how far west the speed cushions would go. Mr. Wong shared the
screen to show the project location on Carmelita goes to Vancouver, which is also consistent with
the bike boulevard identified in the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. Commissioner Leigh stated
again that bike boulevards are defined as reduced speeds and reduced traffic volumes to prioritize
Item 4.a
5
bicyclists.
Chair Martos requested clarification on the implementation of speed cushions on Carmelita,
stopping at Vancouver. Mr. Wong stated they would propose that but it would occur after staff
was able to survey the neighborhood (which is part of phase 2, if necessary). Chair Martos asked
if there is funding available for the phase 1 improvements and how quickly can the improvements
be installed. Additionally, he summarized that the phase 1 efforts will consist of green-backed
sharrows, high visibility crosswalks, and an all-way stop at Carmelita and Paloma.
Mr. Wong said he needs to obtain a quick cost estimate, but they can also attempt to complete
the phase 1 improvements with in-house resources. He also shared that once this gets through
TSPC, the proposal will go before City Council. After that, Mr. Wong indicated they would use the
pilot stop sign approach to install the stop sign quickly, and for the remaining improvements, it’s
just about scheduling the work.
Chair Martos confirmed that phase 2 would require more community feedback and pointed out
there would be an opportunity to weigh in on the possible phase 2 improvements down the road.
Mr. Wong indicated they would monitor the phase 1 improvements and take speed counts to
share with the Commission before outreaching the community for any possible phase 2
improvements.
Chair Martos opened the public comment period.
Gavin Johns thanked the Commission for hearing their feedback previously and noted a lot of their
comments were implemented and their concerns were heard. Mr. Johns echoed Commissioner
Leigh’s comments pertaining to the potential of adding a stop sign west of Carmelita. He indicated
he is a resident on Carmelita and he is very concerned about the speed at which people are
driving, especially during school and commute hours. Mr. Johns urged the Commission to
reconsider a stop sign between Vancouver and the other stop sign up the way (Carmelita). He also
suggested the use of a speedometer that flashes when you are moving too quickly. In closing he
commended the Commission for hearing their feedback and incorporating it into the design.
Mr. Wong responded to state the driver feedback signs are an option and although he stated staff
can look into the stop signs, he explained the concern with unwarranted stop signs and that they
do not slow traffic, they are meant to assign right-of-way.
Mr. Lucy stated they are a resident of 20 years and they are a walking commuter, which provides
the opportunity to watch traffic and bikes and such. He stated he is at a loss because he does not
observe adequate bike traffic to justify this type of investment. Mr. Lucy suggested to work on
speed reduction but without complicating it by putting in painted streets for bikes.
Alisa stated she resides on Capuchino and she could not understand by looking at the depictions,
Item 4.a
6
at which point the plan would impact her. She also wanted to confirm that Capuchino would
remain a two-way road. Alisa wondered how many green arrows would be on each block and
whether they would be subject to change. She stated one of the concerns she has is that
Capuchino is very narrow with overflow apartment parking from Lincoln. With the addition of the
bike lane on an already narrow street compacted by parked cars, she said she is concerned for
the safety of the bicyclists and wonders how it will further impact parking for residents.
Mr. Wong stated the bike facility impact to parking could be one parking space at the corners to
allow for portions of red-curbing in an effort to increase visibility. He also clarified they are
proposing sharrows—which requires cars and bikes to share the road; there is no proposed
dedicated bike lane. Mr. Wong indicated the street will remain as is with two-way traffic and a
portion for one-way traffic. He also shared that there are typically two sharrows per block in each
direction (four total). For red curbing, Mr. Wong said the length would be on a case by case basis.
He also pointed out that in order to remove any parking, staff would have to seek approval via
TSPC.
Drew advocated the double green boxes shown on the Capuchino slide be spaced maybe a foot
apart as they appear as a “green blob” and may lose some effectiveness. In regards to the high
visibility crosswalks, Drew noted that the stop bar can get lost in the perpendicular lines. Lastly,
he wanted to confirm what a triple-four crosswalk is. Mr. Wong stated his understanding is
correct.
Lisa resides on Grove Avenue and inquired if the crosswalk at Capuchino and Grove will also be
an additional four-way stop. She stated anything to make the area safer for cyclists and
pedestrians is fantastic. Lisa also asked if staff has considered that Grove Avenue is a regular route
for Central County Fire trucks. She said it was scary to think of the roadway being designated for
bikes but is also a frequent thoroughfare for safety vehicles—she wanted to know if that has been
considered.
Mr. Wong stated the intersection of Grove and Laguna is a four-way stop, but the intersection of
Grove and Capuchino is not a proposed four-way stop as part of this project, but stated staff would
be looking into increasing the visibility at that intersection. Mr. Wong stated fire trucks use
Capuchino, but it is considered low volume.
The Commission Secretary read the following public comment emails for the record.
I am in full support of creating bicycle boulevards as proposed by the TSPC. I live on Paloma Ave
and witness most cars speeding down the street on their way to Broadway. I'm concerned about
my daughter and other children who live on the Paloma Ave.
Thank you,
James Warren
Item 4.a
7
I am primarily interested in the 1200 block of Capuchino which is a narrow one-way block between
Lincoln and Broadway. I am 100% in favor of “traffic calming” and reduced speed on this street.
This is because:
1. There are numerous families who live on or near this street and who would like to use it for
biking.
2. Capuchino from Lincoln to Broadway is currently a major safety problem for children and other
residents as well as a major inconvenience due to noise and speeding.
There are 10-20 cars per hours that speed along the street at 40-50 miles per hour (sometimes
going against the one way street signs). This is because drivers going south on El Camino use the
left turn at Lincoln and then dogleg on Capuchino to Broadway as a means to avoid the left turn
at El Camino and Broadway. It is being used as a major thoroughfare to the freeway. Many of
these cars are speeding and frequently playing loud pounding music on the car stereo.
My first recommendation is for the Police Department to post an patrol car on the street. They
could earn a lot of revenue from the tickets and might save a few lives in the process.
In my opinion only speed bumps AND No Thru Traffic signs will slow down the Capuchino traffic.
“Slow Signs and pavement markings” will not do it. These drivers don’t care about rules and
regulations or the safety of others.
Tom Feeney
To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the same house on Paloma Ave since 1981. Over the years our street and our
neighboring street Capuchino have become extremely busy as Carmelita has become a main
conduit from Hillsboro and West side Burlingame to California Drive.
Every morning at rush hour and school delivery, I find it very difficult to get across Carmelita to
start my morning walk.
The increasing density on the 1000 block of Paloma Ave leaves many neighbors with no place to
park at days end. Also, two cars passing each other cannot pass safely. One always must pull to
the side. This same situation goes on all day and night on Carmelita. How would anyone safely
ride these streets safely?
My serious concerns for this bicycle plan is two-fold. If we add bicycle lanes to our street and
several others around here, I absolutely do not believe that anyone will use the bike lane because
Item 4.a
8
of the density of traffic and cars. We cannot fairly be asked to not park on our street. There are no
alternatives for us.
I propose that you chose wider, one-way, streets for bicycles and please not make safety even
more difficult for all of us.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Catherine Gamlen
Hello,
I haven’t read in full the excellent bike facility report, but I have listened in on previous Zoom talks.
A few concerns:
I am opposed to green paint on neighborhood streets along Palama/Capuchino as well as possible
bollards. I do not think it fits the aesthetic of these streets.
Especially when a few blocks away is the California Drive bike pathway—if you are that kind of
rider— use that corridor. Put some bollards and green there to advance that corridor’s safety.
As an avid cyclist and one time bike commuter to SF, I love the idea of an alternative bike route for
Leisure family or solo rides—away from the two lane California Drive and El Camino corridor.
However, your very own report shows groups of cyclists riding abreast which is the norm — as also
is riding middle of the road. (I see BIS students riding in packs as well as families. Also solo riders
use middle of right side of road). Painting a green stripe I really doubt will change this behavior.
Biking right along parked vehicles turns a leisure ride into one where must be hyper vigilant —
focus aware to car doors suddenly opening or a car idling and perhaps pulling out.
Concern 2
If a 4 way stop is added at Carmelita and Paloma which I have heard discussed — what
considerations might then be needed on Sanchez? I feel vehicles will turn to Sanchez as an
alternative to Carmelita. There are no traffic lights there at California Drive and El Camino as there
are at Carmelita— and a nursery school is at both corners of Sanchez and San Mateo drive.
Thank you for considering these concerns.
Sheila Krakow
Burlingame resident/cyclist for 20 years
Chair Martos closed the public comment period.
Item 4.a
9
Vice-Chair Israelit stated the plan presented incorporates the comments from the last meeting and
she is happy with outcome.
Commissioner Leigh requested to look at each of the slides slowly to see if there was any questions
and said she noticed the California Drive and Grove slides showed diagonal crosswalks, not crosswalks
perpendicular to the path of travel and didn’t know if that was true for the others. She also wanted
to clarify that they are voting on adding a temporary stop sign at Paloma and Carmelita, sharrows on
the road and some crosswalks. Mr. Wong clarified what has been shown are not the official plans, but
concept,s and confirmed the new high visibility crosswalks will be parallel with the existing roadway.
Chair Martos interjected during the dialog between Mr. Wong and Commissioner Leigh to state that
the implementation of the crosswalks would be at the discretion of the engineer’s because they have
standards to follow as those details should not be up for debate.
Commissioner Leigh requested again to go through each slide since the Commission did not receive
the presentation in advance of the meeting. She also asked again if the Commission is voting on adding
a stop sign, sharrows, and crosswalks. Mr. Wong stated they are requesting a vote on the process—
phase 1 and phase 2. He said if those are supported, it will go to City Council and the process will be
used to implement the improvements. Commissioner Leigh clarified that phase 1 are the sharrows,
enhanced crosswalks, and red curbing. She also confirmed that the stop sign implementation is part
of phase 1 on Carmelita at Paloma.
Mr. Wong went through each of the conceptual slides once more. During the review, Commissioner
Leigh requested the stop line be moved back 4 feet. Mr. Wong stated these are renderings and that
it is a balance. He said you have to consider the impact to visibility the further back the stop line is.
Vice-Chair Israelit stated that they should not be so granular where stop lines are and exactly what
angle the crosswalk lines are painted as that is up to the Engineering staff to determine. She said she
felt the Commission has been spending a lot of time micromanaging staff and noted the slides are
schematic and that she trusts that staff knows how to paint sharrows, etc. Vice-Chair Israelit said it is
her hope that the Commission focus on higher level decision making about safety. Based on the extra
time spent in the weeds, she stated she felt the Commission is getting less done. Commissioner Leigh
stated that the devil is in the details. Commissioner Leigh reiterated the concern of giving the stop
line and painted signs some space and she thought four feet was the standard. Commissioner Leigh
also requested the consideration of a stop sign on Bernal as that a main route to BIS.
Commissioner Rebelos stated the democratic process can be a grind but it is worth it. He said
Commissioner Leigh covered all his questions and comments. Additionally, he suggested the
Commission approve what has been presented and move on.
Commissioner Ng wanted to emphasize Commissioner Leigh’s comment about receiving the
presentation in advance. He suggested a standard to receive any items they are required to vote on
“X” amount of days prior to the meeting to give them more time to review things. Mr. Wong stated
Item 4.a
10
there was a delay with graphics which is why it wasn’t provided sooner. Mr. Wong also said what was
presented tonight was a simplified version of the previous presentation. He also apologized for the
delay and indicated staff would try to get these things out sooner—at least three days prior with the
agenda packet. Chair Martos said he shares similar concerns about receiving the presentation in
advance and confirmed again that tonight the Commission is voting on the phased approach and
phase 1 includes the crosswalks, sharrows, and one stop sign. Chair Martos also confirmed phase 2
has stronger implementation artifacts that are still negotiable/in the concept phase and the public
and Commission will have an opportunity to weigh in on those. Mr. Wong confirmed the Chair’s
understanding of phase 1 and phase 2.
Commissioner Ng asked if the Commission would have an opportunity to comment once the project
was out of the conceptual phase and is more of a formal design. Mr. Wong reiterated design details
would be left to the engineer’s. He stated things such as current utility locations can impact decisions
and if staff got into that level of detail with the Commission, nothing would get done. In summary,
Commission Ng said he is trying to see the best way to get things across the line with the least amount
of conflict.
Commissioner Leigh requested the next rendering be provided by 7 pm on the Monday prior (3 days)
to the meeting and would like the presentation to be block by block so she can see every single block
and every single street.
Commissioner Rebelos made a motion that the Commission vote to approve or support this item as
it has been presented; seconded by Commissioner Ng. The motion passed by a roll call vote, 5-0.
7. INFORMATION ITEMS
a) Engineering Division Reports
• El Camino Real Water Main Replacement Project – Water main installation and water service
connections have all have been completed. The contractor is currently finalizing minor punch
list items.
• 2022 Street Resurfacing Project – Construction now anticipated to begin in July pending
coordination with the City’s annual sidewalk project. 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.
• Broadway Grade Separation Project – On July 13, 2022, there was a community meeting
regarding the aesthetics and landscaping of the grade separation structure. An online poll on
the City’s website with the various alternatives is now open for input; up until midnight on
July 20, 2022.
Item 4.a
11
• Grant Opportunities – Staff has applied for and received a pair of Congestion Relief &
Transportation Demand Management (ACR/TDM) Program grants from the San Mateo
County Transportation Authority (SMCTA). The two projects are a pilot bicycle share program
with Millbrae, and an upgrade to the video detection systems at specific intersections along
California Drive. Additionally, staff is awaiting for the results of our OBAG 3 grant applications
for bicycle infrastructure improvements along California Drive and Rollins Road.
Commissioner Leigh inquired when the Commission would receive an opportunity to see what
is proposed for Rollins Road as she noticed a lot has been passed through Planning. Mr. Wong
stated those improvements they are talking about are what is in the Bike and Pedestrian
Master Plan.
Chair Martos went back to the Broadway Grade Separation Project and inquired why there is
only a week to provide public input via the survey. He requested they extend it a month as
it’s a very important project. Mr. Wong responded that staff pushed for a longer survey period
but Caltrain is the lead on the effort. He also said they have posted the survey in other places
such as NextDoor. Mr. Wong also shared the item would be presented to City Council which
would provide another opportunity for public feedback.
b) Police Department Reports
Sergeant Perna provided the Collision Report and stated there were more collisions this reporting
period but that he was happy to report there were no documented bicycle or pedestrian
collisions. Of the 24 documented collisions, Sergeant Perna stated 8 were injury accidents, which
is low. Commissioners Leigh and Rebelos asked questions regarding some specific collisions. Chair
Martos requested to see an updated heat map next month.
c) TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communications
Commissioner Rebelos stated that he and Commissioner Leigh were hoping to form another
committee around the 101 corridor in order to look at the areas of Rollins Road east to the Bay
and from Adrian to Peninsula—roads on both sides of 101 and the crossing over 101. Chair Martos
requested Mr. Wong bring up a map to view the area. Chair Martos also requested what the
objective would be. Commissioner Rebelos stated it is to make the crossings easier (3 specific
crossings and the area near the Millbrae train station). Commissioner Rebelos said it is one of his
top concerns–traversing the City east to west. He also noted the new housing development going
up on Rollins.
Mr. Wong said in regards to connectivity, there is a preferred road diet in the Bike and Pedestrian
Master Plan and inquired if that was the goal of the Commission to move that vision forward.
Commissioner Rebelos stated the intent is to review it and consider potential concepts to
Item 4.a
12
introduce since the Master Plan is a very high level look at the area. Mr. Wong also stated they
have been pointing Planning staff to the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan in terms of future
improvements, which has already been vetted by the community and City Council. Commissioner
Leigh stated they don’t want the intersections forgotten and connectivity is lacking.
Commissioner Rebelos made a motion to form a committee to examine the area between Rollins
Road east of the Bay, and from the City limits from the north of Adrian Road to the City limits
south of Peninsula. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Leigh and the motion passed with
a roll call vote of 5-0.
Commissioner Leigh said she sent in a See, Click, Fix ticket in for red curbing on the north side of
Burlingame Avenue fronting the new Community Center. She noted the poor visibility and hoped
staff could speed up that effort.
8. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a) Burlingame Avenue Safety and Access (Leigh & Ng)
No update.
b) Community Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (Leigh & Rebelos)
No update.
c) BIS Safety Audit (Israelit & Ng)
Vice-Chair Israelit stated she thought they were waiting on a new iteration of the plan based on
the feedback received. Mr. Wong said the next step is to forward it to Amanda at BIS but staff has
been vetting concerns with Sergeant Perna. He indicated they can discuss further before sending
to BIS if desired. Chair Martos confirmed this item would return to the TSPC once it has been
reviewed by BIS staff.
d) Mercy School Traffic Calming (Israelit & Martos)
Mr. Wong said staff is waiting to confirm the August 3 meeting, which includes the TSPC
Subcommittee, with Mercy staff. Chair Martos said once a plan is worked out, the concepts will
be brought to TSPC for discussion. Chair Martos also noted he discussed Mercy School traffic
concerns with Councilmember Brownrigg.
9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Vice-Chair Israelit stated that it might be helpful to have a list of the current status of things that have
Item 4.a
13
been discussed or in the process of being worked on. For instance, she pointed out the
Broadway/California intersection parking removal discussion, and BIS safety plans. She stated with all
the Commission discusses, things fall off the radar and it would be a great help if they knew exactly
what the status was for each of those efforts.
Mr. Wong confirmed staff can generate a status update at the bottom of the Engineer’s Report. Chair
Martos confirmed with the remaining Commissioners that they also would like to see a status of the
items discussed/actively in progress.
Vice-Chair Israelit made a motion to cancel the August TSPC meeting and have a “summer break.”
This was seconded by Commissioner Leigh. The motion passed by a roll call vote, 5-0.
Mr. Wong shared that he can provide data on the new parking garage at a future meeting.
10. ADJOURNMENT 9:24 p.m.
Burlingame/ Mercy School Related Traffic Calming EffortTraffic Safety and Parking Commission October 13, 2022Item 6.a
IntroductionLast March, City staff along with Mercy High School staff met with neighbors to obtain feedback regarding Mercy related traffic. In August, the TSPC Mercy Subcommittee, Mercy, and staff again met with neighbors and presented draft improvements for discussion purposes. Tonight’s meeting continues that discussion with a larger audience. •Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC):•John Martos, Chair (jmarto@burlingame.org)•Lynn Israelit, Vice‐Chair (lisraelit@Burlingame.org)•Mercy High School:•Natalie Cirigliano Brosnan, Head of School (ncb@mercyhsb.com)•Burlingame Public Works:•Andrew Wong, Senior Engineer (awong@burlingame.org)Page 1
Discussion (March Neighborhood Meeting)1. Difficult to access Alvarado when vehicles are parked on both sides and two‐way traffic (narrow street)2. Speeding concerns along Alvarado and Adeline 3. Crossing Alvarado can be difficult for pedestrians4. Considerable vehicle queuing along Alvarado5. Lack of traffic control at Adeline/Alvarado6. There should be more use of transit7. Above issues have led to some verbal conflicts between neighbors and Mercy trafficTSPC Committee identified the following areas:1. Morning Drop‐off:2. Afternoon Pick‐up:3. School related traffic outside of normal school operating hoursPage 2
Proposed Drop‐Off CirculationMercy INBOUNDMercy OUTBOUNDPage 3Discussion (August Neighborhood Meeting)
Mercy INBOUNDMercy OUTBOUNDPage 3Discussion (August Neighborhood Meeting)Proposed Pick‐up Circulation
Hardened Hardened CenterlineHardened HV Yellow Crosswalk with Ped PaddleWest side AM & PM parking restrictionHardened SB Driver Feedback signHardened Speed Cushion InstallationHardened Speed Cushion Installation*Hardened Mercy to reinstitute traffic control officerHardened * Staff to obtain traffic data (speed and volume) before and after the improvements. Staff to use data to determine impacts, including traffic diversion and speed reduction. Results will determine implementation of speed cushions on Benito Hardened BPD to provide periodic enforcement at intersectionHardened RRFB for drop‐off assistance along Hillside or AlvaradoHardened Discuss with Mercy possibility of delaying start time to differ from HooverHardened Mercy to send out reminder notifications to student body regarding proper drop off/pick‐upproceduresHardened Mercy options to increase usage of both existing shuttles. Off‐site satellite stops along route to school. Confirm number of shuttlesHardened Consideration of 15 MPH School speed limitsHardened Mercy to consider queuing vehicles on‐site during afternoon pick period.1235647Hardened Consider “time of day” turn restrictions to reduce the amount of two‐way traffic along Alvarado. Deter traffic travelling towards Hillside along Alvarado8ABCDEFGHJKLMNPDiscussion (August Neighborhood Meeting)
Discussion (August Neighborhood Meeting)
Discussion (August Neighborhood Meeting)1. Could there be a parking district with like parking permit?2. Crosswalk coming into the school is needed. If we are going to have drop of in the neighborhood, parents need to know the neighborhood is safe.3. Can we have crossing guards to help assist pedestrians?4. Pick up at the end of the day and the traffic queuing associated with it. 5. Thought of putting cameras up from an enforcement standpoint?6. Speed bumps on Benito and Alvarado7. Neighbors are roaring down from 280 and they are coming down too fast8. Is there a lot of foot traffic of kids walking to Hoover? Tend to be across from Hillside Circle and park on Hillside9. Concern over people who use Alvarado to go to 28010. Concern turning right out of Mercy onto Adeline‐very dangerous11. If this is decided there should be a further look at putting restrictions on Adeline one way direction12. If we push traffic more W of Adeline we have to think of traffic not coming down Adeline13. Speed humps‐feedback signs flash at you when you exceed a certain speed14. Question regarding turn restriction and how it affects residents15. If neighbors are leaving the area they are allowed to go the opposite way16. Speed bumps‐are they rubber? hey are rubber and they are the ones that the CCFD has supported staff using. 17. How many are you looking at?” Someone recommended start with 1 and we can see how it goesPage 2
Area of NoticingPage 6Noticing Area:Alvarado: Adeline to HillsideBenito: Adeline to HillsideAdeline: Hoover to Hillside
Hardened CenterlineSpeed Cushion Installation* Staff to obtain traffic data (speed and volume) before and after the improvements. Staff to use data to determine impacts, including traffic diversion and speed reduction. Results will determine implementation of speed cushions on Benito Hardened Satellite drop‐offs along Hillside and AlvaradoHardened Mercy to consider queuing vehicles on‐site during afternoon pick period.GPage 5Hardened Mercy to reinstitute traffic control officer with additional person acting as a crossing guardHFABCEJKD
NEXT STEPS/QUESTIONS•Obtain feedback from TSPC and public•Revise draft improvements to incorporate feedback•Prior to the installation of any improvements, staff will obtain traffic data along the above streetsPage 6
Multijurisdictional E-Bike Sharing ProgramOctober 3, 2022Item 6.b
Why Spin?Local experience.Resilience.Hybrid system.Low user fees.Local staff.Sustainability.No cost to cities.
How it WorksDownload appReview safety rulesRide and send photo of parked e-bike at end of ride.Scan QR code
Parking CorralsFlexibleAccessible to allIncentivized parking
Potential Locations
Next StepsMillbrae to present to Council on October 11, 2022Finalize Contract Agreement & MOUIdentify parking station locationsApply SMCTA grant fundsOutreach to communityLaunch program!
City‐Wide Pedestrian Safe Routes and Mobility ImprovementsTraffic Safety and Parking Commission October 13, 2022Item 6.c
Background•In 2021 Burlingame submitted a Safe & Seamless Mobility Quick‐Strike Grant for a project to install pedestrian an mobility improvements City‐wide.•The pedestrian priorities listed in the 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) were used in selecting project locations •While our application was not initially selected, upon discovery of additional grant funding it was selected for funding ($200K).
Background (Project Locations Map)234568317119121434201013161718152726223225302933232428211
Background (Project Locations List)No. LocationImprovement1 Hunt Dr/AlcazarCompleted (C, G)2 Hunt Dr/Trousdale D, G3 Trousdale/Martinez A4 Trousdale/Quesada A5 Trousdale/Sequoia D, G6 Trousdale/Marco Polo D, G7 Quesada/Clarice A8 Balboa/Devereaux D, G9 Balboa/Ray Park A10 Balboa/Adeline D, G11 California/Rosedale C12 Laguna/MillsF13 Laguna/Grove D, G14 Old Bayshore Highway @Hyatt E15 1125 Airport (Near Bayside Park) E16 Broadway/Airport/Bayshore D17 Broadway/Rollins D18 Cadillac/Rollins D1920 Hillside/Cabrillo D, G21 Ansel/Oak Grove Completed (C, G)22 Winchester/Oak Grove D, G23 Primrose/Floribunda D, F24 Primrose/Chapin A, B, D, G25 North LaneD26 Airport/Beach Rd. E27 Airport/AnzaG28 Carolan/Morell D29 Howard/Primrose D, G30 Howard/Lorton A, B, D, G31 Bernal/Devereaux A, G32 Humboldt/Howard A33 Occidental/Ralston D, G34 Cortez/Adeline F
Background (Project Improvement Guide)A : Striped Bulb Out B : Striped Splitter IslandC : High Visibility Crosswalk (Continental)D : High Visibility Crosswalk (Ladder)
Background (Project Improvement Guide)E : Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)F : Advanced Yield Marking (Shark’s Teeth)G : Advanced Stop Bar/ Limit Line
Summary•Project part of a Safe & Seamless Mobility Quick‐Strike Grant (Federal)•Awarded $200K•33 project locations•Some locations have already been complete by City forces•Pedestrian improvements include:•High visibility crosswalks•Striped bulb outs•Advanced stop bars/limit lines•Yield lines•Splitter islands•Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)•Project currently under review by Caltrans•Anticipate project bidding in January 2023 and constructing in March 2023
Next Steps•Obtain and review TSPC and public feedback provided tonight•Complete Caltrans review and obtain their approval to begin construction phase•Simultaneously staff will work to finalize PS&E package for advertisement•Once projects has been awarded, staff to work with contractor in determine project’s construction schedule
QUESTIONS
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NO:
7.c
MEETING DATE:
October 13, 2022
To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
Date: October 13, 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
• Grant Opportunities – Staff has submitted three applications for San Mateo County
Transportation Authority’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Cycle 6 Program. The
applications were for South Rollins Road Traffic Calming Project, Occidental Avenue
Pedestrian Improvements and Traffic Calming Project, and the California Drive Bicycle
Facility Project (Oak Grove to Burlingame Avenue).
Item 7.a – Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update October 13, 2022
2
TSPC Priority List (revised July 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 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 7/14/22: Item 6b
6 Chapin Avenue Green Streets Project
7 Old Bayshore Corridor Study (n/o Broadway)
8 Grant Opportunities 7/14/22: Item 7a
9 Broadway Grade Separation 6/9/22: Item 6b
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
Fatal
Injuries
DUI
Involved
Collision Type Caused By
Juve?
Primary Collision
Factor
Hit &
Run
Misd.
Hit &
Run
Felony
Occurred On At Intersection Other Location
BRM2201856 07/02/2022 1000 Parking Lot Private Property 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F T F 1501 TROUSDALE DR
BRM2201860 07/03/2022 130 Street City Street 35 3 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21755(a) CVC F F PENINSULA AV DWIGHT RD
BRM2201895 07/06/2022 1650 Street City Street 25 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22350 VC F F RALSTON AV OCCIDENTAL AV
BRM2201936 07/11/2022 1000 Street City Street 25 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F unknown T F LORTON AV BURLINGAME AV
BRM2201969 07/13/2022 1421 Street City Street 35 0 0 0 T Vehicle-Object F 23152(a) CVC F F BAYSHORE HWY MAHLER RD
BRM2201970 07/13/2022 1611 Intersection City Street 35 2 0 0 F Vehicle-Motorcycle F 21453 cvc F F BROADWAY OVERPASS 101 SOUTH OFF RAMP
BRM2201975 07/13/2022 2005 Intersection City Street 35 3 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21801(a) VC F F CALIFORNIA DR CARMELITA AV
BRM2201979 07/13/2022 2119 Parking Lot Private Property 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F F F 799 CALIFORNIA DR
BRM2201980 07/13/2022 2311 Parking Lot Private Property 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F F F 1111 TROUSDALE DR
BRM2201989 07/14/2022 1449 Parking Lot Private Property 15 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F Private Property F F BURLINGAME MUNI LOT G
BRM2201990 07/14/2022 1602 Intersection City Street 35 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21453(b) VC F F SR-82(EL CAMINO REAL)BURLINGAME AV
BRM2201998 07/15/2022 742 Other Public Property 35 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F 22107 CVC F F CALIFORNIA DR TROUSDALE DR
BRM2202002 07/15/2022 1130 Parking Lot Private Property 15 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F T F 1871 EL CAMINO REAL
BRM2202039 07/20/2022 1248 Intersection City Street 35 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21801(a) cvc F F SR-82 (EL CAMINO REAL)BURLINGAME AVE
BRM2202041 07/20/2022 1259 Street City Street 25 0 0 0 T Vehicle-Vehicle F 23152(a) CVC T F PARK RD PENINSULA AV
BRM2202049 07/21/2022 1256 Intersection Highway 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21801(a) CVC F F SR-82 (EL CAMINO REAL)CHAPIN AV
BRM2202072 07/23/2022 1350 Street City Street 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22107 VC F F 271 CALIFORNIA DR BURLINGAME AV
BRM2202074 07/23/2022 1713 Street City Street 35 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22350 VC T F CALIFORNIA DR BURLINGAME AVE
BRM2202107 07/27/2022 851 Street City Street 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22107 VC F F CALIFORNIA DR PALM DR
BRM2202120 07/28/2022 2051 Intersection Highway 35 2 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21453(a) CVC F F MURCHISON DR STATE HIGHWAY 82
BRM2202142 07/30/2022 1900 Street City Street 25 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F T F CARMELITA AV CHULA VISTA AV
BRM2202157 08/02/2022 1636 Street City Street 25 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22107 VC F F CHULA VISTA AV CARMELITA AV
BRM2202158 08/02/2022 1657 Other Private Property 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Pedestrian F F F 1612 WILLOW AV
BRM2202186 08/05/2022 2150 Parking Lot Private Property 0 0 0 T Other F 23152(a) CVC F F 1450 HOWARD AV
BRM2202202 08/06/2022 2326 Intersection City Street 35 0 0 0 T Vehicle-Vehicle F 23152(a) VC F F SR-82 (EL CAMINO REAL)BURLINGAME AV
BRM2202204 08/07/2022 1235 Street City Street 25 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Motorcycle F 22350 CVC F F MARCO POLO WY CLARICE LN
BRM2202224 08/09/2022 1738 Intersection City Street 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Bicycle F 21801(a) CVC F F CALIFORNIA DR TROUSDALE DR
BRM2202259 08/14/2022 1505 Intersection Highway 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21453(a) CVC F F STATE HIGHWAY 82 HILLSIDE DR
BRM2202263 08/15/2022 835 Intersection City Street 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21453(a) CVC F F CALIFORNIA DR BAYSWATER AV
BRM2202268 08/15/2022 1841 Street City Street 35 0 1 0 F Motorcyle-Object F 22350 VC F F ROLLINS RD TOYON DR
BRM2202287 08/17/2022 1615 Intersection City Street 35 2 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22107 VC F F SR-82 (EL CAMINO REAL)HILLSIDE DR
BRM2202289 08/17/2022 1430 Street City Street 25 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22350 CVC T F INGOLD RD ROLLINS RD
BRM2202290 08/17/2022 1904 Street City Street 15 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21703 VC F F CALIFORNIA DRIVE BELLEVUE AVENUE
BRM2202314 08/20/2022 1807 Street City Street 25 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Pedestrian F 22350 VC F F PARK RD BURLINGAME AV
BRM2202326 08/22/2022 757 Street City Street 25 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22517 cvc F F GROVE AV CAPUCHINO AV
BRM2202327 08/22/2022 913 Street City Street 25 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22107 CVC F F EASTON DR MONTERO AV
BRM2202337 08/23/2022 1043 Street City Street 25 2 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22450(a) CVC F F CRESCENT AV BARROILHET AV
BRM2202342 08/23/2022 1229 Intersection City Street 25 0 1 0 F Vehicle-Bicycle F 22450(a) VC F F PALM DR FARRINGDON LN
BRM2202343 08/23/2022 1859 Street City Street 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21804(a) CVC F F ROLLINS RD INGOLD RD
BRM2202355 08/25/2022 904 Intersection City Street 35 1 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21801(a) cvc F F ROLLINS RD DAVID RD
BRM2202363 08/26/2022 1058 Street City Street 35 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21650 VC F F CALIFORNIA DR SUMMER AV
BRM2202364 08/26/2022 1313 Street City Street 25 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22350 CVC F F BROADWAY CALIFORNIA DR
BRM2202385 08/28/2022 1749 Street Highway 40 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21804(a) VC F F SR-35 (SKYLINE BL)RIVERA DR
BRM2202407 08/30/2022 853 Street City Street 35 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 23152(f)F F ROLLINS RD EDWARDS RD
BRM2202413 08/30/2022 1613 Street Private Property 25 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F unsafe starting F F 149 PEPPER AV
BRM2202429 09/01/2022 208 Intersection City Street 35 0 0 0 T Vehicle-Vehicle F 23152(a) CVC F F AIRPORT BL BAYSHORE HY
BRM2202431 09/01/2022 1030 Street City Street 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Motorcycle F 21703 VC F F DAVID RD ROLLINS RD
BRM2202443 09/02/2022 1351 Street City Street 25 2 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22350 VC F F TROUSDALE DR SR-82 (EL CAMINO REAL)
BRM2202476 09/06/2022 1822 Intersection City Street 25 1 0 0 T Vehicle-Object F 23152(a) CVC F F PENINSULA AV ARUNDEL RD
BRM2202506 09/08/2022 1700 Parking Lot Private Property 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F T F 1730 ROLLINS RD
BRM2202519 09/09/2022 1835 Street Highway 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22350 VC F T SR-82 (EL CAMINO REAL)MURCHISON DR
BRM2202528 09/10/2022 1237 Street City Street 25 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22107 VC F F DONNELLY AV LORON AV
BRM2202533 09/10/2022 2007 Street City Street 25 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle T 21658(a) CVC T F BURLINGAME AV PARK RD
BRM2202544 09/11/2022 639 Street City Street 25 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F F F 1322 MARSTEN RD
BRM2202551 09/12/2022 1131 Street City Street 25 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22017 VC F F CALIFORNIA DR HOWARD AV
BRM2202552 09/12/2022 1428 Parking Lot Private Property 15 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F F F 975 ROLLINS RD
BRM2202558 09/13/2022 1016 Intersection City Street 25 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F 22350 VC F F BROADWAY CALIFORNIA DRIVE
BRM2202577 09/15/2022 1549 Street City Street 25 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F 22107 VC F F DWIGHT RD CLARENDON RD
BRM2202591 09/16/2022 2211 Intersection City Street 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21453(a) CVC F F OLD BAYSHORE BL OFF-RAMP 101 N ON RAMP
BRM2202595 09/17/2022 657 Street City Street 25 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22107 CVC F F BALBOA AV BROADWAY
BRM2202601 09/17/2022 1738 Street City Street 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21804(a) CVC F F ROLLINS RD BURLINGAME AV
BRM2202609 09/18/2022 1336 Street Highway 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22350 CVC F F SR 82 (EL CAMINO REAL)FOREST VIEW AV
BRM2202617 09/19/2022 1255 Street City Street 35 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F T F ROLLINS RD DAVID RD
BRM2202621 09/19/2022 1750 Intersection City Street 25 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21802(a) cvc F F HOWARD AV MYRTLE RD
BRM2202646 09/20/2022 1729 Street City Street 25 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22106 CVC F F BURLINGAME AV PRIMROSE RD
BRM2202642 09/21/2022 900 Street City Street 35 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F T F CALIFORNIA DR HOWARD AV
BRM2202650 09/21/2022 1609 Intersection Highway 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 21801(a) VC F F SR-82 (EL CAMINO REAL)CARMELITA AV
BRM2202657 09/23/2022 134 Street City Street 25 0 0 0 T Vehicle-Vehicle F 23152(f) CVC T F RAY DR MONTE CORVINO WY
BRM2202665 09/23/2022 1420 Street City Street 25 0 0 0 F Vehicle-Vehicle F 22106 F F 1200 BROADWAY LAUGNA AV
BRM2202714 09/30/2022 1858 Street City Street 35 1 0 0 F Vehicle-Object F 22350 CVC F F SR-82 (EL CAMINO REAL)BROADWAY
BRM2202718 09/30/2022 2234 Intersection City Street 35 0 1 1 F Vehicle-Pedestrian F 21950(b)CVC F T CALIFORNIA DR OAK GROVE AV
71 Accidents