Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Foster City council approves pavement rehabilitation on Foster City Boulevard amid bike‑plan debate
Summary
Council approved a pavement rehabilitation project for Foster City Boulevard after public and council debate about whether to delay work until the Bike & Ped Master Plan adoption; concerns included public outreach, safety for vulnerable road users, cost savings from a low bid, and potential to add striping improvements later.
Foster City’s council and EMID board approved a pavement rehabilitation project on Foster City Boulevard as part of the consent calendar on March 16, after multiple public commenters asked the council to delay work until the Bike & Ped Master Plan is finalized.
Yiming Liu — identified by the clerk as a council member and speaking in favor of tabling the item — told the board the master plan (near adoption) identifies a Class 4 bikeway at the location in question and said the public had limited access to the project plans when the bid was noticed. “Does it make sense to paint a street when we are literally going to adopt a plan in the coming weeks about having a class 4 bikeway there?” Liu asked, urging the council to bundle the improvements into a future CIP to ensure complete‑streets outcomes.
Public Works staff responded that the master plan remains in draft and that many of the bicycle improvements would be striping and pavement markings rather than structural reconstruction, so rehabilitating the pavement now would not necessarily waste the investment. Staff also noted the bid for the project came in about 30% under the engineer’s estimate, and delaying may result in higher future costs due to market uncertainty.
Council members discussed compromise approaches: proceeding now with the pavement work while asking staff to capture low‑cost “Vision Zero” measures (crosswalk treatments, colored markings or delineators) where feasible, and to prioritize projects after the master plan adoption. One council member said the council should not “rush” safety improvements for the corridor and abstained from the vote to signal concern about timing; the clerk later confirmed a final tally of three yes votes, one abstention and one no.
The council approved item 5.5 on the consent calendar. Staff said they will bring the master plan and CIP prioritization back to council for final direction and will explore whether any immediate low‑cost safety treatments can be incorporated into the current contract.
