HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2024.08.08August 8, 2024Traffic Safety and Parking
Commission
Meeting Agenda
Engineering Division Reportsc.
Staff ReportAttachments:
Police Department Reportsd.
Collision Report - June
Collision Report - July
Attachments:
TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communicationse.
8. Committee Reports
Public Comment Related to Committee Reportsa.
BIS School Safety Study (Israelit & Ng)b.
Hillside Drive Safety and Traffic Calming (Israelit & Ng)c.
Key Performance Indicators (Cauchi & Rebelos)d.
Vision Zero (Martos & Rebelos)e.
9. Future Agenda Items
10. Adjournment
NOTICE: Any attendees who require assistance, a disability related modification, or language
assistance in order to participate in the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
by 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 8, 2024 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org.
Any individual who wishes to request an alternate format for the agenda, meeting notice, or other
writings that are distributed at the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk by
10:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 8, 2024 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org.
Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to the meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment.
NEXT TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION MEETING: September 12, 2024
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/5/2024
1
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on Thursday, May 9, 2024
The meeting minutes are intended to provide a high-level summary and action items. The official record is the meeting
recording, which can be found on the City’s website or the City’s YouTube Channel:
https://www.burlingame.org/departments/public_works/agenda_and_minutes.php
https://www.youtube.com/@cityofburlingame3486
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Cauchi, Israelit, Martos, Rebelos
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ng
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) March 14, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to accept the regular meeting minutes for the March 14,
2024 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Israelit. The motion passed 4-0.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA
The following email was received and read for the record.
Hello TSPC Commissioners and staff,
I'd appreciate it if the agenda for these meetings contained a little more detail about what each
agenda item will contain. For example, I have no way to provide input on agenda item 6.
Discussion/Action Items tonight by reviewing information in advance and providing this email with
2
comments. I'd have loved to read about the city's Bike/Ped Project Updates and what's happening with
Project Selections for Upcoming Grants. Please include a short staff report with a little bit more info
for these types of agenda items. Thank you!
Doug
6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
a) Bike/Ped Project Updates
Mr. Wong provided a presentation regarding bicycle and pedestrian project updates. He stated
the goal of the presentation was for TSPC to review the update on bicycle and pedestrian projects
that are currently in construction or design. Mr. Wong said that these projects will be coming
back to the Commissioner so they can have “more than one bite at the apple.” He encouraged
the Commissioners to attend upcoming community meetings for each project, provide feedback
and/or support at upcoming TSPC meetings, and after determining the level of community
support, for TSPC to provide a motion to the City Council when necessary.
Mr. Wong shared information pertaining to the following seven projects. Please refer to the
meeting recording for specific project elements and visuals.
Projects Under Construction
1. Bicycle Boulevards – Phase I
2. Citywide Quick-Build Pedestrian Improvements
Mr. Wong indicated that these projects are scheduled to be completed by this summer.
Projects in Preliminary Engineering Stage
3. Trousdale, Murchison, and Davis Bicycle Improvements
Mr. Wong stated the second community meeting is tentatively scheduled for June 6 at
the Community Center.
4. Occidental Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Improvements
Mr. Wong shared the next community meeting for this project will be at an upcoming
TSPC meeting.
Projects in Concept Development Stage
5. California Drive Bicycle Improvements (Phase 2, South of Oak Grove)
6. South Rollins Traffic Calming
7. North Rollins Bike and Pedestrian Improvements
Mr. Wong said staff is in the process of selecting a consultant this month for design for
these projects and that initial community meetings are TBD.
Commissioner Israelit stated she appreciated the flow chart and said it is very helpful.
3
Commissioner Cauchi confirmed with Mr. Wong that the preference is to provide project
comments on the Occidental Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Improvements at the upcoming TSPC
meeting. Mr. Wong said this presentation is more of an update to the Commission and the
presented concepts will be cleaned up for the upcoming meeting.
Regarding the California Drive Bicycle Improvements Project south of Oak Grove, Commissioner
Cauchi suggested the project limits extend one more block to Howard Avenue to connect with the
existing bike lane and to consider extending it through the intersection at Burlingame Avenue.
Vice-Chair Martos asked what the motivation was to study the area of Occidental for traffic
calming and pedestrian improvements. Mr. Wong indicated the City was selected for a grant and
it was on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Vice-Chair Martos also confirmed it was in
response to community concerns. Mr. Wong also confirmed with Vice-Chair Martos that the
pedestrian quick-build effort is about 95% complete.
Chair Rebelos said he has seen most of the quick-builds and that he likes the one at Howard and
Lorton because it feels much safer. He said he can see the impact of the quick builds on Trousdale
slowing down traffic and also at Beach and Airport.
Chair Rebelos stated the US 101 Connectivity Committee ended near the end of last year and one
of the areas in their purview was North Rollins. He said he hopes that the Committee report is
kept in mind when exploring project concepts.
Commissioner Israelit inquired about the temporary bulb-outs for the quick-build project and
wondered if they would be made more permanent if they are working well. Mr. Wong stated they
will find out their effectiveness, and noted the long-range plan would be to upgrade from the
delineators. He pointed out more permanent bulb-outs would require additional engineering and
said they cost much more.
No public comments were received for this item.
b) TSPC Bike/Ped Master Plan Project Selections for Upcoming Grants
Mr. Wong stated at the March TSPC meeting they spoke about the Bike and Pedestrian Master
Plan and how to apply it to grant opportunities. Mr. Wong then went into an exercise to obtain
the Commissioner’s project preferences for bicycle and pedestrian projects for upcoming grant
opportunities.
Mr. Wong and the Commissioner’s went through an exercise to determine the following
preferences.
4
Chair Rebelos
Bicycle Project Preferences: Class IV Bike Facility on Rollins Road between Broadway and
Murchison Drive, Class II Bike Facility on California Drive between Howard and Peninsula Avenues,
and Class III Bike Facility on Adeline Drive between Benito and Bernal Avenues.
Pedestrian Project Preferences: At the Old Bayshore/US 101 Intersection, study installing a high-
visibility crosswalk across the northern approach, implement approach signal timing
modifications (requires coordination with Caltrans); and install mid-block crosswalk on Airport
Boulevard to connect the Bay Trail to Bayside Park, install an RRFB at this mid-block crossing.
Vice-Chair Martos
Bicycle Project Preferences: Oak Grove (east) and Dwight Neighborhood Class IIIB Bike Route,
Cadillac Neighborhood Class IIIB Bike Route, and Oak Grove (west) and Primrose Neighborhood
Class IIIB Bike Route.
Pedestrian Project Preferences: Enhance existing crosswalks with traverse crosswalk markings
over decorative pavement and additional treatments at Burlingame and Lorton Avenues,
Burlingame Avenue and Park Road, and Burlingame Avenue and Primrose Road; and install high
visibility crosswalks across the Burlingame Avenue and Victor Road approaches, including
Installation of advance stop pavement markings and curb extensions if feasible.
Commissioner Cauchi
Bicycle Project Preferences: Class IV Bike Facility on Rollins Road between Broadway and
Murchison Drive, Class IV Bike Facility on California Drive between Oak Grove and Howard
Avenues, and Class II Bike Facility on Howard Avenue between El Camino Real and Myrtle Road.
Pedestrian Project Preferences: At the Broadway/US 101 Pedestrian Bridge, install pedestrian-
scale wayfinding signs to the pedestrian/bicycle bridge and to the Bay Trail, including providing
public art and other placemaking elements around the overpass; and install high-visibility
crosswalks at all four approaches at the intersection of Bloomfield Road and Burlingame Avenue.
Although it was not on the list, Commissioner Cauchi requested that they make some of the quick-
build improvements permanent (Lyon Hoag).
Commissioner Israelit
Bicycle Project Preferences: Class II Bike Facility on California Drive between Howard and
Peninsula Avenues, Oak Grove (east) and Dwight Neighborhood Class IIIB Bike Route, and Oak
Grove (west) and Primrose Neighborhood Class IIIB Bike Route.
Pedestrian Project Preferences: At the Broadway/US 101 Pedestrian Bridge, install pedestrian-
scale wayfinding signs to the pedestrian/bicycle bridge and to the Bay Trail, including providing
public art and other placemaking elements around the overpass; and install high-visibility
crosswalks and advanced stop pavement markings at all four approaches at the intersection of
Balboa Way and Adeline Drive.
No public comments received.
5
7. INFORMATION ITEMS
a) Public Hearing Related to Informational Items
The following email from Andrea Capozzoli was read for the record. Some personal information
has been removed.
Hello Syed and Andrew,
Donna forwarded to me your response to the email I sent her regarding the new traffic
adjustments (speed bumps and stop signs on Carmelita Ave. I appreciate your immediate response
to her communication and wanted to formally add my concerns to this evening's meeting agenda.
While I can understand the goal to reduce the speed of traffic on Carmelita from east of ECR to
California, the speed bumps now installed from ECR through Vancouver feel excessive for the
traffic patterns in this section of Carmelita. I live on Drake Ave and been a resident since 1997. I
can confidently share that I am aware of the traffic patterns for the last 25+ years. While there is
heavy use of Carmelita during Roosevelt's drop off time, the speed pattern is not overly excessive
compared to the other portion of Carmelita. Several of my neighbors have children and we walk
our families and dogs multiple times daily on Carmelita. I'd like bring the following items and
observations to the Commission:
1) The addition of the speed bumps on each block has now created a much more significant and
serious safety problem for those of us on Drake, and as I understand my neighbors on Bernal are
experiencing a similar scenario. For the 1000 block of Drake we have always had cars using the
Sanchez west bound direction to Drake as an alternative to get into Easton Addition. The speed
bumps on Carmelita now have increased traffic turning off of Carmelita onto Drake to Sanchez. It
is already a tight and practically blind corner, and cars are now nearly head on. This is a new
situation since the speed bumps were installed. I would also like to add that as a cyclist this is now
an extremely dangerous corner for those walking children, our dogs, cycling and, of course, drivers.
2) There are six houses on each side of the 1000 block of Drake. I believe you have or will hear from
four of my neighbors on the west side (odd numbers). The other two houses are vacant and
construction will begin on one house. Regarding construction, there is currently one house in active
construction and two more will begin this year. As I shared with Donna, the construction vehicles
will only increase the probability for traffic incidents once the street is filled with parked resident
cars and construction trucks and cars.
3) I also understand that there were residents requesting monitoring the speed of Carmelita. Did
the City actually check with each resident west of ECR on Carmelita? I know of three who are
extremely irritated with the speed bumps and one home has been vacant for nearly a year due to
a remodel. Carmelita from ECR to Vancouver has only two houses for each of the four blocks. Half
6
or more of those have addresses on Cortez, Balboa or Cabrillo. I haven't counted the houses, but I
believe there are fewer than 12 houses with Carmelita addresses. My neighbors on Carmelita have
told me they were never consulted on this topic. Could you share how many houses on this end of
Carmelita requested speed bumps? They are curious and so am I.
3) I, and I believe my neighbors have security cameras that are recording the traffic. I had to adjust
my range since the camera was recording much more often. If the Commission wanted to see what
is happening on Drake, please consider installing a camera or ask the residents to share our
security videos.
Thank you for sharing my concerns at this evening's meeting (5/9). I look forward to more
discussion on how the City can address the new safety and traffic concerns resulting from the
installed speed bumps.
b) Community Group Updates
No update.
c) Engineering Division Reports
Mr. Wong provided the following updates on Public Works-Engineering related efforts.
• Citywide Pedestrian Improvements Update – The project is about 95% complete, with all of
the striping and quick build improvements installed. The remaining phase of the project is
the installation of the RRFB at Airport and Beach. The contractor is waiting for parts to
begin this installation.
• Bicycle Boulevard Improvements - Phase I Update – Project is well under construction. About
95% of speed cushions have been installed. The all-way stop at Paloma and Carmelita was
installed roughly 3 weeks ago, with temporary advanced warning signs. Sharrows are
scheduled to be installed later this month.
Commissioner Israelit stated she felt there were a lot of emails coming in regarding the speed
bumps (Bicycle Boulevard Improvements) and felt there are two issues: (1) there are too many
speed bumps and (2) people are avoiding Carmelita and using parallel streets. She stated the
project has had unintended consequences. She requested the Commission reevaluate sooner
rather than later and suggested this be a future agenda item. Mr. Wong stated that staff
would be making their observations first and would check for diversion traffic. He also stated
he would check with the Director concerning the various feedback that is coming in from
those on Carmelita and the paralleling streets.
Vice-Chair Martos also stated they received a lot of emails and encouraged Mr. Wong to
7
respond to all of them. Vice-Chair Martos said the Commission feels obligated to provide a
response, but they cannot. Mr. Wong indicated he has been replying to the messages and if
he missed any to please let him know. Vice-Chair Martos specifically requested a response to
Manito Velasco.
Commissioner Cauchi agreed the item should return to the Commission given the number of
emails received, but also acknowledged there needs to be an observation period.
Chair Rebelos reminded the Commission that the speed bumps did come before the TSPC for
approval and discussed at length. He said the speed bumps have only been in a couple of
weeks, and he wants to be cautious of the Commission micromanaging projects based on
initial reactions. He pointed out that this issue was a result of outcry from residents on
Carmelita. Chair Rebelos stated the speed bumps can be removed easily if need be and
reiterated he did not want to micromanage.
d) Police Department Reports
Sergeant Roberts reported 15 collisions in March. Of those 15 collisions, he said 12 were with
another vehicle, 1 with a parked motor vehicle, and 2 with fixed/other objects. He stated the
common collision factors were unsafe turning movements or speed.
Commissioner Israelit inquired as to why the DUI collisions were now being filtered out of the
report. Sergeant Roberts explained that he didn’t believe DUI collisions and the cause behind
them was relevant to infrastructure changes.
Commissioner Cauchi pointed out a lot of collisions occur on El Camino Real and inquired if that
information was being shared with Caltrans in conjunction with the ECR Project. Sergeant Roberts
stated all their reports are sent to the state. Mr. Wong said Caltrans isn’t seeing the actual reports,
but they are aware that it’s part of the problem with that corridor and its being addressed through
the ECR Renewal Project.
For the month of April, Sergeant Roberts reported 12 collisions. He said 7 of those collisions were
vehicle collisions, 1 with a parked vehicle, 3 with fixed/other objects, and 1 pedestrian collision.
Sergeant Roberts elaborated on the pedestrian collision and stated it occurred at Primrose Road
and City Hall Lane (near CJs Deli). He said it was a juvenile that ran out into the street at mid-block.
Sergent Robets called out a vehicle-on-vehicle collision that occurred on Burlingame Avenue in
the area of Lorton Avenue. He explained a vehicle passed a vehicle waiting for a parking spot and
while trying to reenter the correct lane, the parked vehicle had established their place in the
roadway and a collision occurred.
Commissioner Israelit said it seems there is a lot of double parking and similar activity on
8
Burlingame Avenue and inquired if BPD was issuing more citations for bad behavior over the last
six months. Sergeant Roberts said he does not have that data but did say they issue citations for
bad driving behavior.
No public comments received.
e) TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communications
No updates.
8. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a) Public Hearing Related to Committee Reports
No public comments received.
b) BIS School Safety Study (Israelit & Ng)
Commissioner Israelit stated they planned to keep the Committee active until it’s complete. She
confirmed with Mr. Wong the only outstanding item is to confirm the white zone on Quesada
Way. Commissioner Israelit said she will wait for Commissioner Ng but thought they can phase
out the Committee at a following meeting.
c) Hillside Drive Safety and Traffic Calming (Israelit & Ng)
Commissioner Israelit stated that she and Commissioner Ng have not met yet.
d) ECR Renewal (Israelit & Martos)
Vice-Chair Martos said they found out at the Joint Council meeting that this project won’t begin
until spring of 2025. Since they have not been contacted, he suggested they pause or disband the
Committee at this time. Commissioner Israelit said they plan to revive it once the project is
underway.
Chair Rebelos agreed with Vice-Chair Martos and Commissioner Israelit to sunset the Committee
for now.
e) Key Performance Indicators (Cauchi & Rebelos)
Commissioner Cauchi stated they have made good progress and narrowed down the three KPI
buckets: (1) safety, leaning into the Vision Zero metric, (2) execution, mostly on bike and ped
master plan implementation, and (3) results, looking at implementation changes that have
9
occurred and if they’ve accomplished the goals we’ve set.
f) Vision Zero (Martos & Rebelos)
Per the Chair and Vice-Chair, there has been no activity on this effort.
9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• Speed cushions from the Bike Boulevard Project
• Occidental Project
• Trousdale/Murchison/Davis Project
• AB 413
• Southbound California Drive at Broadway
• No left-turn on California Drive near Goodwill
Vice-Chair Martos requested the status on other projects that haven’t seen movement in a while in
the Engineer’s Report, such as the Oak Grove/Carolan Traffic Signal Project.
Vice-Chair Martos inquired if there were any more concerns from the Burlingame schools. Mr. Wong
said they’ve touched Washington, Hoover, Roosevelt, BIS, McKinley, and Franklin.
Commissioner Cauchi mentioned a dip in the Lyon Hoag area on Bloomfield Road.
Commissioner Israelit suggested having the Bike Boulevard item on the agenda again to give residents
another opportunity to provide feedback. Chair Rebelos felt it was way too soon. Mr. Wong stated
that staff is monitoring the project.
10. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m.
1
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on Thursday, June 13, 2024
The meeting minutes are intended to provide a high-level summary and action items. The official record is the meeting
recording, which can be found on the City’s website or the City’s YouTube Channel:
https://www.burlingame.org/departments/public_works/agenda_and_minutes.php
https://www.youtube.com/@cityofburlingame3486
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Cauchi, Israelit, Martos, Rebelos
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ng
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) May 6, 2024 Joint City Council & TSPC Meeting Minutes to be Approved at Next TSPC Meeting
b) May 9, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes to be Approved at Next TSPC Meeting
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA
No non-agenda public comments received.
6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
a) California Assembly Bill 413: Parking Prohibition Near Crosswalks (Presentation Only)
Michael Tsai provided a presentation to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission regarding AB
413. Mr. Tsai went over the existing law, the new law, potential impacts, exceptions, City goals,
2
outreach and education, and what other cities are doing as a result of AB 413. Specifically, Mr.
Tsai said the new law is as follows:
No stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side
of any unmarked or marked crosswalk or 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb
extension is present. He pointed out that signs and markings are still not required.
Mr. Tsai provided some examples of potential impacts, including the loss of parking at
intersections such as Primrose Road and Chapin Avenue, Oak Grove Avenue and Winchester Road,
Morrell and Laurel Avenues, and Bayswater Avenue and Park Road. He also shared that local
authorities may establish a different distance if both requirements are met: (1) a local authority
establishes the different distance by ordinance that includes a finding that the different distance
is justified by established traffic safety standards, and (2) a local authority has marked the
different distance at the intersection using paint or a sign.
Mr. Tsai stated the City’s goal is to be in compliance and outlined that for 2024 jurisdictions are
authorized to issue warnings but prohibited from issuing a citation unless the area is marked with
paint or a signage. Starting January 1, 2025, he stated jurisdictions are authorized to issue citations
for violations regardless if they are marked or signed. Mr. Tsai conveyed staff’s recommendation
to only mark or sign priority locations such as the downtowns areas, schools, the Community
Center, and high collision areas. He reiterated AB 413 does not require red markings/signage and
is in effect on all approaches to marked and unmarked crosswalks throughout Burlingame. Mr.
Tsai explained that addressing every intersection Citywide would be cost prohibitive and resource
intensive.
In terms of education and outreach, Mr. Tsai said the City would issue warnings prior to January
1, 2025, issue warnings and citations after January 1, 2025 at the Police Department’s discretion,
and would communicate with the community through changeable message signs on major
roadways, direct mailers, and the City’s social media accounts (NextDoor, Facebook, Instagram),
including the weekly eNews.
In his closing remarks, Mr. Tsai stated that cities are working to be in compliance with AB 413 but
the bill is in many ways incomplete, and changes are anticipated in the future. He said there are
significant issues involved including resources, intensive implementation, education,
enforcement, and funding.
Commissioner Israelit confirmed with Mr. Tsai that this effort is mandatory. Commissioner Cauchi
said clarity on when and how this goes into effect would be helpful to the public when
disseminating this information.
Manito Velasco provided a public comment. He stated the presentation showed the challenges
that California cities face with implementation. Mr. Velasco pointed out that this information is
3
already in the DMW handbook. He said that this is state mandated, and the City doesn’t need to
paint or provide signs—it’s illegal according to state law. Mr. Velasco said with limited resources,
he hoped the City would be enforcing this on a complaint basis. He felt the issue for the City is the
streets with parking meters since that would give people a conflicting message. He did not feel
the City should have to proactively go out and paint red curbs to enforce the state law. He agreed
with Mr. Tsai in that the law was not well written. In closing, he said he hoped that the San Mateo
cities would get together with the legislator that wrote this for clarification to make it more
intuitive and effect pedestrian safety—not be strictly punitive.
Chair Rebelos confirmed with Sergeant Roberts that BPD would accept online reports for this
matter. Sergeant Roberts stated residents can also use See, Click, Fix or call BPD directly.
b) Murchison Drive, Trousdale Drive, and Davis Drive Bicycle Improvement Project Update
(Presentation Only)
Mr. Wong provided an update on the Murchison Drive, Trousdale Drive, and Davis Drive Bicycle
Improvement Project. He said the presentation would mimic what was provided at last week’s
community meeting and indicated the TSPC meeting provided another opportunity to outreach
the residents regarding the plan and to obtain additional feedback.
Mr. Wong went over the following goals and benefits excerpted from the Bike and Ped Master
Plan document.
Goals
• Create comprehensive, connected, and accessible bicycle and pedestrian networks
• Enhance safety and increase comfort for all road users, especially people walking and
bicycling
• Develop data-driven recommendations with input from Burlingame residents
• Prioritize walking and bicycle improvements near schools, parks, Caltrain, commercial
areas, and other community destinations
• Implement policies and build infrastructure that foster active trips and enhance the
experiences of pedestrians and bicyclists
• Create vibrant and inviting places to walk and bike that include street furniture,
wayfinding, lighting, and placemaking elements (including public art)
Benefits
• Increase the livability and quality of life of a city
• Increase recreational opportunities through improved access to outdoor amenities
• Decrease the risk of bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions and injuries
• Provide affordable transportation options for low-income and disadvantaged residents
• Reduce visual and noise pollution caused by automobiles
• Improve air quality through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from single
4
occupancy vehicles
Mr. Wong went into the community meeting format, which included a presentation, breakout groups,
and recap. He indicated staff was still in the process of compiling all the feedback from the community
meeting and said the plan would be to hold another community meeting or bring it back to TSPC again
to share the results.
The project limits, per Mr. Wong are as follows:
• Murchison Drive between California Drive and Sequoia Avenue;
• Trousdale Drive between California Drive and Castenada/Martinez Drives; and
• Davis Drive between Albemarle and Quesada Ways.
Mr. Wong noted that the portion of Trousdale in front of Mills Peninsula Hospital will remain
unchanged (ECR to Ogden Drive).
Mr. Wong shared the preferred project alternatives from the Bike and Ped Master Plan:
• Murchison Drive – Alternative 2, which has no changes to the roadway (parking on both sides),
but includes separated bike lanes (89% community preferred).
• Trousdale Drive – Alternative 2, which includes a road diet with buffered bike lanes, turn lane,
and parking (67% community preferred).
• Davis Drive – Class IIB neighborhood bike route.
Mr. Wong also went over the outreach efforts to date, including the project website and survey.
Please refer to the presentation for the statistics provided. He also went into detail regarding the
study areas, including the existing conditions before diving into the project alternatives.
Project Alternatives
• Murchison Drive
• Alternative 1 includes parking-protected buffered bike lanes.
Pros Cons
No change to vehicle capacity Potential loss of parking at driveways
Protection for bicyclists Parked vehicles may encroach into buffer
Less direct driveway access
• Alternative 2 includes buffered bike lanes.
Pros Cons
No change to vehicle capacity Vehicles need to cross bike lane to enter /
exit parking
5
Protection for bicyclists Smaller buffer between bike lane and
travel lane
Less direct driveway access
• Trousdale Drive
Alternative 1 includes two travel lanes, a center-turn lane, and buffered bike lanes.
Pros Cons
Protection for bicyclists Reduced vehicle capacity
Increased delay at Quesada in AM peak
from level of service C to F (school traffic)
Alternative 2 includes four travel lanes, a center-turn lane, buffered bike lanes, and no
parking.
Pros Cons
Turn lane would reduce delay No on-street parking
Protection for bicyclists
Alternative 3 includes four travel lanes, bike lanes, and street parking.
Pros Cons
No change to vehicle capacity Increased traffic stress for bicyclists
New bike lanes Minimum width for vehicle, bike, and
parking lanes
Mr. Wong shared the summary of key issues for Trousdale: (1) Class II or Class IV bike lanes
not recommended between El Camino Real and Ogden Drive due to increased emergency
response times, (2) Alternative that required removal of all parking is not recommended due
to community needs, (3) Alternative 1 with the conversion or two travels lanes would result
in a Level of Service F at Trousdale and Quesada during the AM peak period, (4) Alternative 3
would reduce all travel lanes to the minimum widths (7’ parking, 5’ bike, and 10’ travel lanes),
(5) Demand for bicycle facilities primarily due to school access and alternative routes available
for most students.
• Davis Drive
Includes Class IIIB facility with potential new markings, speed cushions, and signage as part of
the Bike Boulevard Project.
In closing, Mr. Wong went over the project’s next steps which includes stakeholder outreach,
obtaining community input, and returning to the Commission again at some point to make a
motion to support the project or not.
Each Commissioner asked clarifying questions, including the following requests before moving on
6
to the public comment period.
• Commissioner Cauchi requested a connection to/from Murchison and Trousdale Drives, since
there will be no improvements happening in front of the hospital.
• Commissioner Israelit suggested painting the parking lines on Davis Drive as it would assist
with making the road more visually narrow and help with traffic calming.
• Commissioner Israelit thought staff should shelve the Trousdale bike plans on the west side
because it doesn’t make sense to have only a portion of the road improvements. She
requested staff to stop and think about the purpose of the project. Commissioner Israelit said
she did not love any of the alternatives presented for Trousdale Drive.
Manito Velasco stated for the Murchison alternative where the parking is in the middle of street,
he felt it would be problematic since the street is on a grade and curved. He felt what Millbrae did
by Habit Burger would be a good alternative, with no parking impacts. In regard to Davis Drive,
Mr. Velasco said it is a steep street and speed humps could cause people to lose control. He also
said there are trees, and the shade of the trees hides the pavement imperfections. He suggested
the edge line idea may work and suggested to do traffic calming on Albemarle to slow people
down prior to arriving at Davis Drive. Mr. Velasco stated the narrow road alternative on Trousdale
may be problematic for SamTrans.
Mr. Wong read the following seven emails for the record.
Dana Gross
Hello, I am writing regarding the bikes possible lanes being discussed at the meeting. I am very
much opposed to our resources being used for these lanes because we don’t have enough cyclists
to warrant it and the lanes negatively impact the flow of traffic. We should focus on making
improvements on Broadway and California where the train tracks create a very dangerous
situation. Please do not proceed with wasting the City’s money on bike lanes.
Amanda Wallace
I am writing to ask that you not install more bike lanes. The ones we already have are hardly ever
used. Can you spend a bit more time monitoring how many bikes actually use the lane before
installing more. The idea of putting them on Trousdale, a street that is already clogged with drop-
off and pick up from two schools, is particularly bothersome. The traffic there is impossible twice
a day. I should add my husband is an avid biker, so I am definitely not against bicycling. It is more
of issue of existing lanes not attracting any bikers so why keep adding them. Many thanks.
Takashi Yamashita
I live a few blocks from Trousdale. Trousdale is a major route for automobile traffic to access 280
and exit 280 to access Burlingame, Millbrae, BART, Caltrain, Mills hospital, and neighboring areas.
It also has a relatively steep grade. All streets in the area of Martinez are in Burlingame Hills. The
area is not ideal for bike riding. Any reduction of the existing traffic lanes will create severe traffic
7
gridlock in the area during school drop off and pick during the rush traffic. The traffic gridlock will
severely impact emergency access to Mills Hospital. Also, the mix of bike riders and heavy vehicle
traffic is very dangerous, especially to adolescents. I live in the neighborhood and have witnessed
very heavy traffic during BIS, Franklin, and Lincoln school drop off and pick up. The entire area is
impacted by vehicle traffic. Also, the vehicle traffic increases during commute hours and
sometimes combines with the school traffic. As a frequent traveler on Trousdale in a vehicle and
on foot, I have very infrequently observed bicycle riders, the area up Trousdale is too steep for
bicycles. As a retired engineer I do not see any benefits of the proposed bicycle lanes on Trousdale.
During the initial stages of a project for alternatives, a benefit cost study needs to be conducted.
If the benefit cost ratio is less than one, the project alternative was eliminated. Given the lack of
bicycle usage on Trousdale I believe the cost far outweighs any benefits. To move forward on the
project a benefit cost study should be conducted on the project. Without the study the project is
not justified and if continued would be a waste of taxpayers’ money and negatively impact the
area. It would severely affect Burlingame citizens’ view on how our elected officials manage
feedback from its citizens.
Roman Arrow
Dear Burlingame City, with respect to spending money to redesign a perfectly sensible stretch of
roadway on Trousdale, please stop wastefully spending taxpayer money on such a project.
Trousdale is sufficiently spaced to accommodate bikes and motor vehicles without changing the
road. We have seen the poorly constructed design of California Drive and many of us fear what
damage can be done. Trousdale is easily navigated as is and many of us are angry with the idea
of wastefully spending more money on an unnecessary project. The survey conducted on this
stretch of roadway indicated a daily flow of more than 11k motor vehicles with less than 40
bicyclists during peak times. If you cannot comprehend this proposed project is not needed that
you are severely short of an item described as common sense. Thank you for your time and
attention.
Additional public comments against the bike lanes on Trousdale were received and read for the
record from Ginny and Karen Tsai, Sandra Lang, and Donna Lutton.
In closing, Commissioner Cauchi said it was important for people to know this project is grant
funded and how future projects are being funded. She thought it was important for them to know
that grant funds can only be used for certain purposes.
7. INFORMATION ITEMS
a) Public Hearing Related to Informational Items
No public comments received.
8
b) Community Group Updates
No update.
c) Engineering Division Reports
Mr. Wong provided the following update on Public Works-Engineering related efforts.
• Grant Opportunity Update – The Call for Projects (CFP) for both the Pedestrian and Bicycle
(Ped/Bike) and Alternative Congestion Relief/Transportation Demand Management
(ACR/TDM) Programs will be accepting applications. This year approximately $19 million in
Measure A and W Ped/Bike Program funding with $6 million in ACR/TDM funding will be made
available. Applications will officially be due on August 30, 2024 with awards expected to be
adopted at the San Mateo County Transportation Authority’s (SMCTA) Board Meeting in
December.
Mr. Wong also mentioned the lighting at Howard and Lorton Avenues have been adjusted to
increase the wattage for better visibility.
d) Police Department Reports
Sergeant Roberts reported 18 collisions for the May reporting period. Of those 18 collisions,
Sergeant Roberts stated 16 were vehicle collisions, 1 was with a parked vehicle, and 1 with a
bicyclist. He stated the primary collisions factors were related to right-of-way, unsafe turning
movement, and speed.
e) TSPC Chair/Commissioner’s Communications
Vice-Chair Martos inquired with Chair Rebelos regarding the recruitment fair. Chair Rebelos said
he and Commissioner Ng attended and it was mostly youth looking for volunteer opportunities
and people wanting to understand what they do.
8. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a) Public Hearing Related to Committee Reports
No public comments received.
b) BIS School Safety Study (Israelit & Ng)
No update. Commissioner Israelit said they could sunset this Committee when Commissioner Ng
returns.
9
c) Hillside Drive Safety and Traffic Calming (Israelit & Ng)
No update. Commissioner Israelit stated they would be meeting next week.
d) Key Performance Indicators (Cauchi & Rebelos)
Commissioner Cauchi said they have made progress in the framework on what they want to
accomplish as well as a general timeline. She said they have also met to talk about the three
metrics: safety, implementation, and results. Commissioner Cauchi also shared they have a
meeting with the Mayor, City Manager, and Public Works Director to talk through the concepts
and general approach to ensure they are all on the same page. Lastly, she said the goal is to have
some concepts and targets by the end of the year.
e) Vision Zero (Martos & Rebelos)
No update. Chair Rebelos said there has been no activity.
9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• Grant projects – more detailed update
• Commissioner Israelit asked for additional updates in the Engineer’s Report such as the signal
at Oak Grove and the Broadway/California parking.
10. ADJOURNMENT 9:08 p.m.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NO:
6.b
MEETING DATE:
August 8, 2024
To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
Date: August 8, 2024
From: Andrew Wong, Senior Engineer
Subject: Occidental Avenue Pedestrian and Traffic Calming Improvements
Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) review the
presentation for the Occidental Avenue Pedestrian and Traffic Calming Improvements
Project, discuss, and then determine the level of community support for the revised
concepts.
BACKGROUND
In November 2022, the City applied for and was awarded a Measure A and Measure W
Cycle 6 grant for the Occidental Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project by
the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA). The grant was for $420,000
in grant funds with a $180,000 City match.
In November 2023, City and design team hosted a virtual community meeting and
received initial feedback. Based on the feedback obtained, the design team made
significant changes to the concepts.
In March 2024, the City and design team hosted a second community meeting which was
in-person at the City’s Community Center. At this meeting, there was greater support for
the changes made to the concepts, allowing the design team to move forward with
finalizing the concepts prior to design.
The attached Figure A and B show the revised concepts for Occidental/Chapin and
Occidental/Ralston, respectively. Both concepts reflect the community feedback from the
most recent community meeting.
Item 6.a – Occidental Avenue Pedestrian and Traffic Calming Improvements Project August 8, 2024
2
DISCUSSION
Based on the above, staff is seeking a TSPC motion of support to either revise the
concepts further, or move forward with finalizing the design process.
ATTACHMENTS
Figure A
Figure B
Figure A
Figure B
OCCIDENTAL PEDESTRIAN AND TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTSTraffic Safety and Parking CommissionAugust 8, 2024
Presentation OverviewBackgroundDiscussionObtain FeedbackDetermine Next Steps
BackgroundIn November 2022, the City applied for and was awarded a Measure A and Measure W Cycle 6 grant for the Occidental Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. The grant was for $420,000 in grant funds with a $180,000 City matching. In November 2023, City and design team hosted a virtual community meeting and received substantial initial feedback. Based on this feedback, the design team made significant changes to the concepts. In March 2024, City and design team hosted a second community meeting which was in‐person at the City’s Community Center. At this meeting, a set of revised concepts were introduced. Based on the feedback obtained, there was greater support for the changes made to the concepts. Next steps from this meeting allowed the design team to move forward with making minor changes prior to finalizing the concepts.The concepts being presented reflect the community feedback from primarily the second community meeting. Over 500 notices were mailed out for tonight’s meeting as well as posting of the notice at the project’s intersections.
DiscussionOccidentalOccidental Avenue/Chapin Avenue (Existing)
DiscussionOccidentalOccidental Avenue/Chapin Avenue (Proposed)
DiscussionOccidentalOccidental Avenue/Ralston Avenue (Existing)
Discussion (Proposed)OccidentalOccidental Avenue/Ralston Avenue (Proposed)
DiscussionOccidentalOccidental Avenue/Burlingame Avenue (Existing)
Discussion• Occidental/Chapin:• Stop-controls improve right-of-way assignment at the intersection• Curb extensions narrow lane widths and reduce speeds• Traffic island provide a pedestrian refuge, reduce pedestrian crossing distances, and “square-up” the intersection• Red-curbing at corners enhances visibility of pedestrians• High visibility crosswalks highlight active pedestrian area (school/church)• On-street parking loss with some of the improvements (red-curbing curb extensions)• Occidental/Ralston:• Stop-controls improve right-of-way assignment at the intersection• Curb extensions narrow lane widths and reduce speeds• Traffic island provides pedestrian refuge, reduce pedestrian crossing distances, and “square-up” intersection• Red-curbing at corners enhances visibility of pedestrians• High visibility crosswalks highlight active pedestrian area (park)• On-street parking loss with some of the improvements (red-curbing curb extensions)
Next StepsDetermine community support for the revised concept If support cannot be determined, staff to review feedback and develop other options If the support for the revised concepts can be determined, the design team can move forward with finalizing the design process
Questions & Feedback
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NO:
6.b
MEETING DATE:
August 8, 2024
To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
Date: August 8, 2024
From: Andrew Wong, Senior Engineer
Subject: Amending Section 13.36.020 of Chapter 13.36, “No parking during specified
hours,” of Title 13 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to address
southbound vehicle throughput and bicycle safety along the 1200 block of
California Drive
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) review, discuss, and
make a motion of support amending Section 13.36.020 of Chapter 13.36, “No parking during
specified hours,” of Title 13 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC). The change in the BMC is
to address southbound vehicle throughput and bicycle safety along the 1200 block of California
Drive.
BACKGROUND
At the February 13, 2020 meeting, the TSPC discussed proposed changes to the 1200 block of
California Drive; between Rhinette Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. The proposed changes were
developed to address the following concerns:
1) Queuing on southbound California Drive
2) Drivers stopping on Class II bike lane
3) Drivers crossing centerline to southbound left-turn lanes
4) Drivers not utilizing inside left-turn lane
The proposal was developed to improve the throughput of southbound vehicles and enhance
bicycle safety along this section of California Drive. This proposal would eliminate the on-street
parking on the 1200 block of California Drive, and then shift the Class II bike lane and travel
towards the curb. This change would reduce the queuing along southbound California Drive,
reduce the number of drivers stopping/blocking the bike lane, and improve access to the
southbound left-turn lanes at California/Broadway.
A traffic analysis was completed to determine the potential traffic impacts; the analysis reviewed
three scenarios:
1) Scenario 1 – Current lane configuration along California Drive.
2) Scenario 2 – Pre-2017 lane configuration along California Drive.
3) Scenario 3 – Proposed lane configuration.
8/2/2024
1
1200 BLOCK OF CALIFORNIA DRIVE
PARKING RESTRICTIONS
Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
August 8, 2024
Presentation Overview
Background
Discussion
Obtain Feedback
Determine Next Steps
8/2/2024
2
Background
At the February 13, 2020 meeting, the TSPC discussed proposed changes to the 1200 block of California
Drive; between Rhinette Avenue and Lincoln Avenue.
Currently, the issues created at above section of California Drive include the following:
•Queuing on southbound California Drive
•Drivers stopping on Class II bike lane
•Drivers crossing the centerline to access the southbound left‐turn lanes
•Drivers not utilizing inside left‐turn lane
Staff presented a proposal to both improve the throughput of southbound vehicles and enhance bicycle
safety along this section of California Drive. This proposal consists of:
•Eliminating the on‐street parking (8 spaces) on the westside of California Drive
•Shifting the Class II bike lane and southbound travel lane towards the curb
These changes would effectively:
•Reduce the queuing length along southbound California Drive
•Reduce the number of drivers stopping/blocking the bike lane
•Improve access to the southbound left‐turn lanes at California/Broadway.
In order to move this forward, the on‐street parking along the west side of California Drive between
Rhinette Avenue and Lincoln Avenue would need to be removed by amending Section 13.36.020, “No
parking during specified hours.”.
Discussion
California
Audi Parking (Formally Lot T)
(Lot S)
8/2/2024
3
Discussion
Discussion
Looking to the northwest from California/Rhinette
8/2/2024
4
Discussion
Existing Red-Curbing
Left-Turn Lane Extension
Existing Red-Curbing
Proposed Red-Curbing
Discussion
Scenario 1 – Post-California Drive bicycle improvements.
Scenario 2 – Pre-California Drive bicycle improvements (prior to 2017).
Scenario 3 - Proposed striping improvements.
Scenario Traffic Control A.M. Peak Period P.M. Peak Period
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Signal 41.1 D 42.0 D
2 Signal 41.5 D 39.7 D
3 Signal 40.9 D 41.6 D
Table 1: LOS at Broadway/California
Scenario California Drive Broadway
A.M. Peak Period P.M. Peak Period A.M. Peak Period P.M. Peak Period
NB SB NB SB EB WB EB WB
1 228 919 233 969 223 563 190 597
2 231 978 239 704 212 486 186 490
3 230 731 239 779 213 484 185 567
Table 2: Queue lengths at Broadway/California
8/2/2024
5
Discussion
• Currently in Lot S there are:
• 15 two-hour spaces
• 7 ten-hour spaces
• 1 ADA parking space.
• Parking Enforcement have observed that the lot is usually full by midday, but then empties
in the mid-afternoon; and the entire lot is well used on Saturdays.
• Based on feedback, there is flexibility to replace the number of ten-hour spaces with
additional short-term spaces to mitigate the loss of the on-street spaces on the 1200 block
of California Drive. Depending on the feedback from the 1200 block businesses, there may
be an option for some 24-minute parking spaces.
Discussion
Chapter 13.36, “Parking Limitations,” of Title 13 of the Burlingame Municipal Code regulates parking on City streets.
Section 13.36.020 states “No Parking During Specified Hours” and under sub-section (6): California Drive, west side
from Juanita Avenue to Broadway between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.; west side
from Trousdale Drive to Dufferin Avenue, between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; east side from
Carmelita Avenue to Oak Grove Avenue between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
In order to make the shift of the southbound lanes possible, staff recommends that the TSPC support amending the
Ordinances with regards to the block of California Drive from RhinetteAvenue to Juanita Avenue.
Current BMC:
• 13.36.020 No parking during specified hours.
It is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to park the vehicle on the following streets on the designated
hours and days as follows:
(6) California Drive, west side from Juanita Avenue to Broadway between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and
between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.; west side from Trousdale Drive to Dufferin Avenue, between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday; east side from Carmelita Avenue to Oak Grove Avenue between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
Revised BMC:
• 13.36.020 No parking during specified hours.
It is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to park the vehicle on the following streets on the designated
hours and days as follows:
(6) California Drive, west side from Juanita Avenue to Broadway between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and
between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.; west side from Trousdale Drive to Dufferin Avenue, between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00
p.m., Monday through Friday; east side from Carmelita Avenue to Oak Grove Avenue between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00
a.m.;
8/2/2024
6
Next Steps
Obtain TSPC motion for the changes to the BMC
Staff to submit staff report to City Council for approval
Staff to seek opportunities to complete striping changes through an upcoming project or to
include work into the budget.
Questions & Feedback
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NO:
7.c
MEETING DATE:
August 8, 2024
To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
Date: August 8, 2024
From: Andrew Wong, Senior Engineer – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission receive an update on various Public Works – Engineering
projects and activities.
BACKGROUND
Grant Opportunity Update – The Call for Projects (CFP) for both the Pedestrian and
Bicycle (Ped/Bike) and Alternative Congestion Relief/Transportation Demand
Management (ACR/TDM) Programs are due on August 30, 2024 with awards expected to
be adopted at the San Mateo County Transportation Authority’s (SMCTA) Board Meeting
in December. Based on communications with San Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA) staff, the City will be submitting the following three applications:
Citywide Quick Build Pedestrian Improvements
California Drive / North Lane Transit Hub Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
Bay Trail Gap Closure at South Airport Avenue
Oak Grove/Carolan Traffic Signal Improvements Update – Staff has completed a
diagnostic meeting with Caltrain and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) staff.
The meeting reviewed the proposed traffic signal plans as well as signal timing and train
pre-emption with both agencies. Initial feedback was received, with more to follow. Staff
is awaiting receipt of all feedback before completing the final design.
ECR Renewal Update –This project is being coordinated with not only Caltrans, but
PG&E as well. With the emergency tree work now completed, the project will move back
to potholing activities. When this occurs, notifications will be sent via the City’s eNews.
Project is anticipated to start mid-2025. Staff has requested that the project maintain one-
lane in open each direction for the majority of the project. Staff has also requested that
regional detours be established at Peninsula Avenue and Millbrae Avenue to assist in
reducing the amount of traffic on ECR. The project’s limits are from Millbrae Avenue to
Santa Inez Avenue, with an unknown the starting location; once determined, staff will
provide an update. Caltrans will be providing an overall project update Council an
Item 7.c – Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update August 8, 2024
2
upcoming meeting.
BIS Update – All project changes have been implemented; including relocated
crosswalks, high visibility crosswalks, RRFBs, turn restrictions, and satellite drop-off
spaces. The changes have been met with positive feedback from the impacted community
(parents, neighborhood, crossing guard, BIS staff). Staff to continue monitoring the area
including the drop-off areas, and in obtaining feedback from BIS staff. Outstanding items
include the painting of the drop-off areas, BIS exit lane improvements, and coordinating
with BIS staff to resend the “turn restriction” notice for the upcoming school year.
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 Location Minor
Injuries
Major
Injuries
Primary Collision Factor Occurred On At Intersection Other Location Vehicle Involved With
Desc
BRM2401506 06/07/2024 1801 LORTON
AV/DONNELLY AV
1 22107 CVC LORTON AV CALIFORNIA DR Parked motor
vehicle
BRM2401530 06/09/2024 1056 DONNELLY
AV/LORTON AV
1 21802(a) CVC DONNELLY AV LORTON AV Other motor
vehicle
BRM2401541 06/10/2024 1647 SKYLINE
BL/TROUSDALE DR
1 22450(a) CVC SR-35 (SKYLINE
BL)
TROUSDALE
DR
Other motor
vehicle
BRM2401551 06/11/2024 1248 EL CAMINO
REAL/WILLOW AV
1 CVC 22350 SR-82 (EL
CAMINO REAL)
WILLOW AV Other motor
vehicle
BRM2401572 06/13/2024 1712 CALIFORNIA
DR/FLORIBUNDA
1 21802(a) CVC CALIFORNIA DR FLORIBUNDA
AV
Other motor
vehicle
BRM2401575 06/13/2024 2021 1323 BURLINGAME
AV
1 22350 VC 1323
BURLINGAME
PARK RD Parked motor
vehicle
BRM2401630 06/17/2024 1439 1205 BURLINGAME
AV
1 22107 VC BURLINGAME
AV
LORTON AV Fixed object
BRM2401650 06/18/2024 1843 EL CAMINO
REAL/RAY DR
1 21801(A) CVC SR-82 (EL
CAMINO REAL)
RAY DR Other motor
vehicle
BRM2401659 06/19/2024 1808 1232 BURLINGAME
AV
22107 VC BURLINGAME
AV
PARK ROAD Parked motor
vehicle
BRM2401681 06/22/2024 2201 1095 ROLLINS RD 2 22107 CVC ROLLINS RD CADILLAC WY Other motor
vehicle
BRM2401698 06/25/2024 1257 1045 EL CAMINO
REAL
21453(a) VC SR-82 (EL
CAMINO REAL)
CARMELITA AV Other motor
vehicle
BRM2401713 06/27/2024 525 EL CAMINO
REAL/BURLINGAME
21800(a) VC HOWARD AV SR-92 (EL
CAMINO REAL)
Fixed object
BRM2401744 06/30/2024 1528 MAGNOLIA
AV/MURCHISON DR
1 21802(a) CVC MAGNOLIA AV MURCHISON
DR
Other motor
vehicle
13 Accidents
Collision Report - June
Item 7.d
Case #Date Time Location Minor
Injuries
Major
Injuries
Primary Collision Factor Occurred On At Intersection Other Location Vehicle Involved With
Desc
BRM2401758 07/02/2024 1038 LAGUNA
AV/BROADWAY
22107 CVC LAGUNA AV BROADWAY Fixed object
BRM2401768 07/03/2024 1517 BROADWAY/BALBO
A AV
1 21802(a) CVC BROADWAY BALBOA AV Other motor
vehicle
BRM2401776 07/04/2024 1222 PENINSULA AV/N
DELAWARE ST
1 21453(a) CVC PENINSULA AV DWIGHT RD Other motor
vehicle
BRM2401814 07/08/2024 1548 SANCHEZ AV/EL
CAMINO REAL
2 CVC21802(a)SR-82 (EL
CAMINO REAL)
SANCHEZ AV Other motor
vehicle
BRM2401815 07/08/2024 1613 FRONTERA
WY/LOYOLA DR
22107 CVC FRONTERA WY LOYOLA DR Fixed object
BRM2401824 07/09/2024 1230 OLD BAYSHORE
BL/HINCKLEY RD
1 22107 CVC OLD BAYSHORE
BL
HINCKLEY RD Bicycle
BRM2401849 07/11/2024 1033 1111 HOWARD AV 2 22106 CVC HOWARD AV HATCH LN Other motor
vehicle
BRM2401855 07/11/2024 1806 BROADWAY/CALIF
ORNIA DR
2 22350 CVC BROADWAY CALIFORNIA DR Other motor
vehicle
BRM2401952 07/25/2024 1318 BROADWAY/EL
CAMINO REAL
VC 22107 BROADWAY SR-82 (EL
CAMINO REAL)
Fixed object
BRM2401962 07/26/2024 1026 CHAPIN
AV/PRIMROSE RD
1 21950(a) VC PRIMROSE RD CHAPIN AV Pedestrian
BRM2402008 07/30/2024 1621 EL CAMINO
REAL/BAYSWATER
22107 SR-82 BAYSWATER
AV
Fixed object
BRM2402017 07/31/2024 1313 720 HOWARD AV 22107 HOWARD AV ARUNDEL RD Parked motor
vehicle
12 Accidents
Collision Report - July
Item 7.d