Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - TSP - 2022.07.141 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Approved 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. 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 introduce since the Master Plan is a very high level look at the area. Mr. Wong also stated they 12 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 been discussed or in the process of being worked on. For instance, she pointed out the 13 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.