Summary cards
Admins can regenerate summaries after agenda text has been extracted.
From:Yiming Luo To:Foster City Public Comment Cc:Foster City Public Works Department; Rob Lasky; Aaron Siu; Austin Walsh; Priscilla Schaus; Sandy Loi Subject:5/4 Special meeting comment Date:Monday, May 4, 2026 9:41:39 AM Attachments:Outlook-uroso4od.png Outlook-lsqqiy2t.png Outlook-xc4ki0ln.png Hello council, I want to first thank the staff and consultant team that have been working on the Bike/Ped Master Plan since last year. This plan is long overdue for the City and critical to making sure our streets are safer for all road users, whether they’re driving, biking, walking, or rolling. I raised some concerns at TRC regarding some of these projects; I know that staff is considering feasibility and balancing near-term improvements with longer-term efforts so that the City can demonstrate what a great Complete Street can look like, and I concur – I would prefer five projects that get implemented rather than four that end up on a shelf. But I still have two concerns after listening to staff speak at TRC: The first priority project on Beach Park Blvd from Foster City Blvd to Gull Ave should include the segment from Shell to Foster City Blvd as well (BPMP 06b). For most District 1 residents, the Cutter Lane entrance is the most direct and comfortable access point to the Bay Trail. This segment is well-suited for a bikeway: it has no on-street parking to remove and does not carry traffic volumes that justify two lanes in each direction. Most importantly, adding this segment would connect many students who would use such facility to get to school: pupils who live in the Sand Harbor or Beach Cove apartments or who live near Ketch Park are all assigned to Beach Park Elementary and live less than a five minute bike ride away, and many Bowditch students ride the bus to get to and from school on this segment of Beach Park. This is a low-cost, high-impact addition that strengthens connectivity and equity. I question whether the project on Edgewater from the city limits to East Hillsdale Boulevard represents the highest-impact use of limited resources. The City of San Mateo has only committed to a bike lane (unprotected) on the other side of the city limits, and that would only begin right before the highway, on the bridge over 92, so the project would be discontinuous. I would prefer a project like 07b, which would be on Shell between Bounty and Beach Park Blvd – this would connect people going to Catamaran Park across the bridge, and could serve as a proof of concept of a separated bikeway on a bridge, since none of the other proposed priority projects cross bridges. I will admit that this project would also connect my house to the pickleball courts. It is important to emphasize that any delay to the approval of this plan threatens possible grant funding. For example, until April 16, $4.7 million in TDA Article 3 Grants for FY26-28 were available for projects included in a bike ped master plan, and as a city without a Priority Development Area or Transit Oriented Community, Foster City would have been awarded additional points in the consideration of projects. But since we don’t have an approved plan, none of these projects could get this grant funding. Or the OBAG Cycle 4 grant – a once-in-four-year grant that requires engineering drawings and an approved bike/ped master plan – that is due in June, which we also might miss out on. I want to thank Councilmember Sullivan for his continued support for safer streets and actively listening to concerns I’ve raised at Traffic Review Committee meetings and Councilmember Venkat for her continued support on safer streets and her vote for the addition of Complete Streets infrastructure to the previous CIP. Specifically, I want to thank Councilmember Jimenez for her inquiry into the addition of a Class IV bike lane onto Foster City Blvd. It’s helpful to understand where staff is coming from - and I want to address some of their comments. The memo describes stop bars and turn lane arrows as “pedestrian safety enhancements.” These are, at best, the bare minimum. Stop bars are simply paint indicating where drivers are already required to stop, and turn arrows primarily reduce driver confusion. How are either of these pedestrian safety enhancements? Neither address the underlying risks that people walking face on a high-volume, multi-lane corridor. As a parent, would you suddenly let your kid walk to school because the City striped a line right before the crosswalk? These types of measures do not address the broader safety concerns the community continues to raise, including unsafe behaviors from both drivers and users of e-motorcycles. A painted line does not change behavior in these situations. If anything, this reinforces the need for design solutions that are self-enforcing: measures that physically slow turning vehicles, shorten crossing distances, and create clearer, safer spaces for all users. On the contrary, there were, and still are, easy, temporary, removable, quick-build options that the City can test out as a pilot and remove quickly without needing a traffic study, like using high- visibility continental crosswalks instead of the basic crosswalk design as proposed in the plans: Or a flexpost bulbout, specifically at the intersections of Foster City and Polynesia and Balclutha; this is an example in Hayward: A flexpost bulbout is cheap to install and meaningfully enhances the safety of people walking and biking by physically reducing the crossing distance and forcing cars to turn slowly and sharply, reducing the chance that a car will cut a corner and hit a person walking. The memo has presented a false dichotomy of a) rushing a public feedback process and doing an unpopular, half-baked, unsuccessful bikeway that will worsen traffic, or b) wait for the multi-year study process that will do nothing in the short-term to alleviate dangerous conditions on FCB, where two children have been already hit since the planning process started. But there is an option C: allocate money tonight and in the upcoming budget process for staff to do quick-build pilot projects without discretionary approval. Why not test-run improvements on FCB or on Polynesia and Comet where cars keep on rolling through stop signs and nearly crashing into each other? Or near the entrance of the Shadow Cove apartments on FCB where two children have been hit biking? Many cities, including Belmont1 , San Mateo2, and San Luis Obispo3, have successfully implemented temporary, low-cost improvements such as the aforementioned flex-post curb extensions and high-visibility crosswalks. These treatments can be installed quickly, evaluated in real-world conditions, and adjusted or removed if necessary. They provide immediate safety benefits, allow the City to gather meaningful feedback based on lived experience and interaction with the project rather than conceptual designs, and help build public support for permanent improvements. They also reduce risk by allowing the City to test changes before committing to costly capital projects. Rather than waiting for a full corridor redesign, I encourage council to provide policy direction for staff to develop and implement quick-build pilot projects on Foster City Boulevard and other high- priority locations. We need an all-of-the-above approach, which allows the City to act now while continuing to plan for long-term improvements. Sincerely, Yiming 1 https://www.belmont.gov/departments/public-works/transportation/belmont-village-bicycle- improvements-phase-ii 2 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/85623/Bike-Safety-E-28th-Ave-FAQ--- POSTED-71421?bidId= 3 https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/transportation- engineering-planning/grand-avenue-paving-project
SimpleCity summarizes official public meeting documents. Always check the original source before making formal decisions.
