Atherton City Council
November 20, 2024

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 27
ƒ If this question receives a majority vote, then the 15 candidates receiving the highest number of votes will organize as the charter commission.10 Once formed, a charter commission has two years from the date of the election to complete and submit a proposed charter. At the end of that two year period, the charter commission is abolished.11 A failure to submit a charter proposal within the two years could mean that the commission would have nothing to submit at the end of the term, and could not continue its work.

A charter commission may, however, submit portions of a proposed charter to the voters from time to time during its term.12 A vacancy on the charter commission is filled by an appointment by the mayor.13 Finally, the charter commission is subject to the Brown Act.

Any charter proposal from the charter commission requires the signature of a majority of charter commissioners, and is then filed with the city clerk’s office.14 Once filed, the proposed charter must be submitted to the voters of the city at the next established statewide general election, provided there are at least 95 days before the election.15

2. City Council
A city council may submit a draft charter to the voters without a charter commission or charter committee.

3. Appointed Charter Committee
The members of a charter committee are appointed by the city council. There is no fixed number of members, nor is there a fixed time for the charter committee to complete its work. When its work is completed, the charter committee submits the proposed charter as a recommendation to the city council. This allows the city council an opportunity to modify a proposed charter or totally reject the proposed charter and not submit it to the voters.

While the charter commission must complete its work within two years, a charter committee could take more time, if needed, to draft a charter or revision. On the other hand, the charter commission process provides for an absolute end point in which to complete the work of drafting a charter proposal.

C. Length
There is no prescribed length for a city charter. Some charters that have been passed are very short (e.g., Buena Park, at just over one page); others may be very long (e.g., Newport Beach, at over 100 sections). The length will be determined by how much detail the voters wish to put into the charter.

Consideration should be given to including in the charter two broad categories:
ƒ Provisions relating to the four core municipal affairs (elections; matters relating to labor relations including compensation for officers and employees; governance structure; and regulation of the police force). Not every charter city will include each “core” municipal affair. But many charter cities will have an interest in including provisions regarding the governance structure and elections.
ƒ The constraints on legislative authority that are relevant to the voters of the particular charter city. For examples, see Chapter 2.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 215 CC Agenda 01-07-20

28 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 3: DRAFTING, ADOPTING, AMENDING AND CHALLENGING A CHARTER D. How Much Detail?
The goal of becoming a charter city is to exert control over municipal affairs in the interests of the community. In order to become a charter city, the voters must approve a charter. However the charter is a limitation on a city council’s control over municipal affairs. Thus, a simple charter that establishes the city as a charter city and provides that all matters deemed municipal affairs may be controlled by ordinance enacted by the city council, provides maximum flexibility (and thus power) to the city council. However, such a charter does not explain how the voters intend the control to be exercised and therefore provides no policy direction to the city council. A more complex charter, which explains in more detail how to exercise control over municipal affairs, will restrict future councils’ power with respect to municipal affairs.

There are risks of both being too prescriptive and not being prescriptive enough. Rules built into the charter can provide protection against abuse, but at the same time be unduly restrictive in light of changed circumstances. For example, one city charter enacted in the 1950s contained a provision which requires public bidding for all public works contracts over $5,000. At the time, that certainly may have seemed an appropriate safeguard to prevent against contracting abuse by council members or staff. However, with the passage of time and inflation, the provision severely limited the city’s ability to use more modern statutory methods such as the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act Procedures (allowing for less formal bidding for contracts up to $175,000) or design/build contracting. On the other hand, areas that are less susceptible to change over time, such as governance structure, election procedures, voting systems, etc. may be appropriate to include in a charter to provide stability to the municipal organization. For further discussion related to the role charter provisions for police and fire employees’ salaries played in the bankruptcy of San Bernardino, see Chapter 5.

Thus, it is recommended that a prescriptive charter provision be evaluated with the ultimate goal of imposing the desired safeguard without overly restricting the ability to address changed social or economic circumstances. In the case of public works contracts, for example, use of a formula that takes inflation into account (rather than a fixed amount) as the threshold for public bidding would provide the requisite safeguard without being unduly restrictive in the future.

Or there could be a charter provision that allows the amount for a bid requirement to be set by ordinance. Or perhaps the goal of a charter provision is to allow much more leeway in whether public bidding is necessary or to allow exemptions that are not provided for in the general law. The important point is that limiting language should be carefully evaluated to ensure an appropriate amount of flexibility for the future. The amount of detail that is included in a proposed charter is a policy decision to be made by each city.

E. CEQA Compliance
When a city council votes to place a citizen-sponsored initiative concerning the question of whether to create a charter commission, or to amend or repeal a charter, on a ballot, it is not a project which is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).16 The ministerial duty CEQA exemption also applies to a situation where the city council has a mandatory option to either submit the initiative to the voters or to simply adopt the measure17 because it has a ministerial duty to do one or the other under the Elections Code.18 Thus, in the situation where the city council acts to place a voter initiative on the ballot to either create a charter commission or to amend or repeal a charter, or where it acts to place a charter prepared and approved by an elected charter commission on a ballot, any of these actions are exempted from CEQA.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 216 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 29
However, where the council acts on its own to place a proposed charter on a ballot (or to amend or repeal a charter), it is a project, and full compliance with CEQA will be required before placing the matter on the ballot.19 Exactly what must be done to comply with CEQA will vary depending upon the provisions contained in a proposed charter. Land use restrictions in a charter could obviously have at least a potential impact on the environment. Other provisions will have to be evaluated through an initial study unless the common sense exemption or some other CEQA exemption applies. Under the common sense exemption, CEQA does not apply if “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” 20
F. Meyers-Milias-Brown Act Compliance for Labor Items
The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Government Code section 3500 et seq., MMBA) requires good faith bargaining regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of recognized employee organizations prior to making a policy decision which could affect those issues.

Prior to the city council submitting a charter to the voters, a determination must be made as to whether any proposed element may affect wages, hours or other terms and conditions of employment for employees in one or more employee organizations. If so, the city will be required to meet and confer in good faith, which means that a public agency and recognized employee organizations have the obligation to personally meet and confer promptly upon request by either party and continue for a reasonable period to try and reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation prior to proposing a charter or amendments thereto.21 The process should include adequate time for the resolution of impasses when applicable or when such procedures are used by mutual consent.22
The requirement to meet and confer prior to submitting a charter proposal or amendment to the voters does not abridge the council’s power to propose charter amendments under California Constitution article XI, section 3, subdivision (b). Although the statutory requirement of the MMBA encourages binding agreements resulting from bargaining, the governing body retains the ultimate power to refuse an agreement and to make its own decision.23 “This power preserves the council’s rights under article XI, section 3, subdivision (b) — it may still propose a charter amendment if the meet-and-confer process does not persuade it otherwise.” Thus, the meet-and-confer requirement is compatible with the city council’s constitutional power to propose charter amendments.24 G. Voter Approval
Prior to seeking voter approval of a charter committee or council-drafted charter, there must be at least two public hearings of the city council concerning the fact that a charter is being proposed and on the content of the proposed charter. Public hearing notice must be posted in three public places at least 21 calendar days prior to each public hearing.25 The meetings must be at least 30 days apart, and at least one of them must be held outside normal business hours. No vote by the council can occur to place the proposed charter on a ballot until at least 21 days after the second public hearing.26
Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 217 CC Agenda 01-07-20

30 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 3: DRAFTING, ADOPTING, AMENDING AND CHALLENGING A CHARTER Thereafter, if the council determines to move forward with a proposed charter measure, it may proceed under either Government Code section 34458 or Elections Code section 1415. A council proposed charter and a charter commission proposed charter must be placed before the voters “at the next established statewide general election” under Elections Code section 1200, if there are least 88 days prior to the election.27
A charter (or charter amendment) proposed by a charter commission, once signed by a majority of the commissioners and filed with the city clerk, is required to be placed before the voters for consideration. If proceeding under Government Code section 34450 et seq., section 34457 requires submission of the measure at the next established statewide general election under Elections Code section 1200, if there are at least 95 days prior to the election.28 Public funds may not be used to advocate in favor of the passage or the defeat of any ballot measure, including a proposed charter measure. Informational materials are allowed.29 The description of the ballot measure proposing the charter must enumerate the new city powers that result from the adoption of the charter, including whether the city council will have the power to raise its own compensation and the compensation of other city officials without voter approval.30
The charter must be approved by a majority vote of the city’s voters.31 Following certification of the election results, the charter does not take effect until it is filed with and accepted by the Secretary of State in accordance with Government Code section 34460.32 After a charter is adopted by the voters, three copies of the adopted charter are signed by the mayor and city clerk. One copy is recorded with the county recorder, one is retained in the city archives, and the third is filed with the Secretary of State. Those recorded and filed in the city’s archives must include certified copies of all publications and notices required by law relating to the calling of the election and the charter process, certified copies of arguments for and against the measure, and a certified abstract of the vote.33 A charter is also published in the State Statutes at Large.34 H. Procedures for Amended or Repealed Charter
The procedure for amending, revising, and repealing a charter is essentially the same as the adoption of a charter, with some exceptions.35 First, unlike adoption of a charter, an amendment, revision or repeal of a charter can be proposed by initiative.36 Second, certain types of amendments must be presented at statewide general elections, while others may be placed on municipal or state primary election ballots. Charter amendments must be placed before the voters “at the next established statewide general election” under Elections Code section 1200, if there are least 88 days prior to the election37 unless the proposed amendment (or repeal) falls into one of two categories: (1) one which does not alter a procedural or substantive employment right of an employee or retiree; or (2) one which is proposed to amend the charter to comply with an injunction, consent decree or state or federal voting rights laws. These two types of charter amendments may be scheduled for “the next regularly scheduled general municipal election … or at any established statewide general or statewide primary election” at least 88 days away.38 This amendment was designed to preclude consideration of charter amendments affecting employee rights from being considered other than at a statewide general election.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 218 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 31
A Case Study: Los Angeles Dueling Charter Revision Committee and Commission39 In the opinion of some, Los Angeles’ 1925 charter provided for a weak form of mayor-council government because the mayor needed council concurrence to appoint and dismiss department heads and shared some of the administrative functions. In the mid-to-late 1990s, charter reform was championed as a way of solving Los Angeles’ problems by seeking to strengthen the mayor’s role.

At the same time, a secessionist movement in the San Fernando Valley, San Pedro and Hollywood was gaining momentum and charter reform was seen as a method to stymie that movement. The Los Angeles City Charter had not been extensively revised since 1925, although there were amendments through the years. Unfortunately, the mayor and city council could not agree on how to proceed.

In 1996, the council rejected the idea of an elected charter commission and instead appointed a charter committee. Other interests sponsored an elected charter commission initiative, which was approved by the voters in April 1997. For the next year and a half, both the charter committee and charter commission worked independently and held separate hearings. In November 1998, both the committee and commission formed a subcommittee to attempt to mediate and propose a unified charter.

A comprehensive proposal was reached. This unified charter proposal was sent back to the committee and commission for their review and approval. The compromise did not give the mayor complete authority to fire department heads but rather allowed an appeal to the council, which could reinstate a department head by two-thirds vote. The charter committee approved the unified charter but, the charter commission rejected it. After a ground swell of public outcry, the charter commission reversed itself and approved the unified charter. Thereafter, the city council approved it unaltered for the June 1999 election.

Even though the council placed the unified charter on the ballot, the council and others opposed its passage. The mayor, city attorney, city controller, secessionist’s leaders, Chamber of Commerce, NAACP, churches, other nonprofits, three leading newspapers and chairs of the committee and commission endorsed the unified charter. The unified charter passed by 60 percent of the vote.

The unified charter created a system of neighborhood councils and area planning commissions. These changes gave residents more decision making authority in land use matters, delivery of services and the budget process. The new charter took much of the structure of government out of the charter and into administrative and municipal codes. And as mentioned, the charter made the mayor stronger than under the previous charter. Lastly, the revised charter focused on general principles, so as not to be so prescriptive.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 219 CC Agenda 01-07-20

32 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 3: DRAFTING, ADOPTING, AMENDING AND CHALLENGING A CHARTER I. Challenging Adoption, Amendment or Repeal of a Charter Once a proposed charter adoption, amendment, or repeal takes effect (i.e., it is approved by the voters and filed with the Secretary of State), the only way to challenge its procedural regularity, such as whether the city council was required to meet and confer prior to submitting the measure to the voters, is through a quo warranto action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 803 et seq.40 In determining whether to grant a private party the authority to file an action in quo warranto, the Attorney General’s office looks to whether the application thereof would present a substantial issue of fact or law that would warrant resolution by the courts, and whether such an action would ultimately be in the public’s interest.41

ENDNOTES
1 Cal. Const., Art. XI, §3, subd. (a).
2 Id.; Elec. Code, § 9255, subd. (b).
3 Id.
4 People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach (1984) 36 Cal.3d 591, 598-99. 5 The procedure for submitting a charter to the voters by a charter commission or the city council itself is found at Government Code sections 34450-34462. The procedure for a city council-appointed charter committee is found at Elections Code sections 9255-9268. 6 Gov. Code, § 34458.5.
7 Gov. Code, § 34452, subd. (a).
8 Gov. Code, § 34452.
9 Ibid. (citing Elec. Code, §§ 1000 & 10403).
10 See Gov. Code, § 34452.
11 Gov. Code, § 34462, subd. (a).
12 Gov. Code, § 34462, subd. (b)
13 Gov. Code, § 34452, subd. (b).
14 Gov. Code, § 34456.
15 Gov. Code, § 34457.
16 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378, subd. (b)(3); Stein v. City of Santa Monica (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 458. 17 CEQA review is not required before direct adoption of an initiative. Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029.
18 Native American Sacred Site & Environmental Prot. Assn. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (2004) 120 Cal.

App.4th 961.
19 Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 191 (finding that initiatives placed on the ballot by a city are subject to CEQA).
20 Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 14, § 15061, subd. (b)(3).
21 People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach (1984) 36 Cal.3d 591. 22 Gov. Code, § 3505.
23 People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 601. 24 Ibid.
25 Gov. Code, § 6066.
26 Gov. Code, § 34458, subd. (b).

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 220 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 33
27 Gov. Code, §§ 34457 & 34458, subd. (a); Elec. Code, § 1415, subd. (a)(1). In an interesting, but perhaps minor, quirk of the law, it appears that if a council acts to submit without revision a charter proposed by a charter commission that is appointed by the council, such a charter proposal would be subject to the 95-day time period pre-election rather than the 88-day period for charters proposed by the governing body. See Elec. Code, § 9255, subd. (a) (providing for charter or amendment proposed by either elected or appointed commission to be submitted at statewide election held at least 95 days away); cf. Elec. Code, § 9255, subd. (b) (charter proposals of governing board submitted at statewide general election held at least 88 days away).
28 Gov. Code, § 34457.
29 Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1; Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206. 30 Gov. Code, § 34458.5. Copies of the proposed charter must be printed in at least 10-point type. Gov.

Code, § 34456.
31 Cal. Const., art. XI, § 3, subd. (a). If more than one conflicting charter measures are on the same ballot and both receive a majority vote, the one receiving the highest affirmative vote is the one which is deemed passed. Cal. Const. art. XI, § 3, subd. (d).
32 Cal. Const., art. XI, § 3, subd. (a); Gov. Code, § 34459. 33 Gov. Code, § 34460.
34 Cal. Const., art. XI, § 3, subd. (a).
35 Ibid.
36 Cal. Const., art. XI, § 3, subd. (b).
37 Elec. Code, § 1415, subd. (a)(1).
38 Elec. Code, § 1415, subd. (a)(2); Gov. Code, § 34458, subd. (a). 39 Information for this case study came from League of Women Voters of Los Angeles, “Los Angeles:

Structure of City Government” by Ralph J. Sonenshein, Ph.D. (2006) and “Richard Riordan & Los Angeles Charter Reform” by Matthew J. Parlow & James T. Keane (2002). 40 95 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 31 (2012); International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 55, AFL-CIO v. City of Oakland (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 687.
41 96 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1 (2013).

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 221 CC Agenda 01-07-20

34 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 4: CHARTER CITY ORGANIZATION AND ELECTIONS
Chapter 4

CHARTER CITY ORGANIZATION AND ELECTIONS
Charter cities may create their own governmental structure and establish procedures for local elections. This chapter describes the different types of governmental structures available to charter cities and discusses the organizational issues that must be addressed when varying from the typical general law city structure. This chapter also discusses different election systems and summarizes the California Voting Rights Act, a state law being used to attack the traditional “at large” voting structure in local governments across California.

A. Form of Government
State law vests authority to manage a general law city in a city council of at least five members, a city clerk, a city treasurer, a police chief, a fire chief, and any subordinate officers or employees provided by law. However, all general law cities may elect to be governed by the city manager (or council-manager) form of government that is established by an ordinance adopted by the council or voters. Such an ordinance must define the powers and duties of the city manager, which may include the power to hire and fire city employees except the city attorney. When the offices of city clerk and city treasurer are appointive, appointments to such offices are made by the city council unless the city council vests such power in the city manager by ordinance. The ordinance may also fix the city manager’s compensation or the minimum amount he or she is to receive.

As stated in Chapter 2, a charter city is not limited by the general laws and, therefore, can provide for any form of government, including the council-manager and strong mayor and other forms.

This means that a charter city may adopt, for example, a city manager form of government that looks and operates quite differently from a general law city because the charter city is not limited by the provisions of the Government Code described in the above paragraph.

1. Council-Manager Form of Government
Born out of the United States progressive reform movement at the turn of the 20th century, the council-manager form of government was designed to combat corruption and unethical activity in local government by promoting effective management within a transparent, responsive, and accountable structure. Since its establishment, the council-manager form has become the most popular structure of local government in the United States.

In the council-manager form of government, the elected city council is the policy making, governing body of the city. The council hires the professional manager to carry out the policies it establishes.

VOTERS

COUNCIL

MANAGER

DEPARTMENT HEADS
Council-Manager
Organizational Structure
Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 222 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 35
The council provides legislative direction while the manager is responsible for day-to-day administrative operations of the city based on the council’s policy input. The mayor and council collectively set policy and approve the budget. The manager serves at the pleasure of the council, as the council’s chief management advisor and is responsible for preparing the budget, directing day-to-day operations, and hiring and firing personnel. The city attorney reports directly to the council as the council’s chief legal advisor.

In a council-manager form of government, the mayor is recognized as the political head of the municipality, but is a member of the legislative body who does not have special authority such as the power to veto legislative actions. In some cities, the mayor is directly elected by the voters. In other cities, the mayor is appointed by the city council often on a rotational basis.

2. Strong Mayor Form of Government
The strong mayor-council form of government is the form that most closely parallels the federal government (and California government) with an elected legislature and a directly elected executive. It is called strong mayor because the mayor has more authority than the mayor in a city manager form of government.

The mayor is designated as the head of the executive branch of the city government and the extent of his or her authority can range from purely ceremonial functions to full scale responsibility for day-to-day operations. The duties and powers can include: hiring and firing department heads, preparation and administration of the budget, and veto power (which may be overridden) over council actions. The office of mayor in such a circumstance is typically a full-time job, and the mayor is therefore more involved in the dayto-day management of the city. The council has the following responsibilities: adoption of the budget,
passage of legislation, auditing the performance of the government, and adoption of general policy positions.

In some cities, however, the mayor may assume a
larger policy-making and political leadership role, and responsibility for day-to-day operations is delegated
to a manager or chief administrator appointed by and
responsible to the mayor.

In California, five charter cities have adopted the strong mayor-council structure: San Francisco (population 837,442), Fresno (population 509,924), Los Angeles (population 3.9 million), Oakland (population 406,253), and San Diego (population 1,355,896).

DEPARTMENT HEADS

COUNCIL
VOTERS
MAYOR
Strong Mayor-Council Organizational Structure
Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 223 CC Agenda 01-07-20

36 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 4: CHARTER CITY ORGANIZATION AND ELECTIONS
B. Organization Considerations

1. Council Size
General law cities must have at least five council members.8 If the council is elected by or from districts (see section C below), the number of districts must be five, seven or nine, unless there is an elected mayor, in which case the number is four, six or eight.9 Charter city councils are not limited by the state law size requirements and council size can be set by charter or ordinance.

2. Elected Mayor
The mayor of a general law city is generally selected by a vote of the members of the city council.10 However, upon a vote of its citizens, a general law city may establish a system for direct election of the mayor by voters and whether an elected mayor serves for two or four years.11 Charter cities have authority to determine the procedures for selecting a mayor and such charter provisions override any conflict in state law.12

3. Term Limits
For general law cities, state law gives the voters the option to impose (or repeal) term limits on council members, an elected mayor, or both.13 Prior case law held that charter cities can establish term limits either by charter or ordinance.14 The statute enacted in 1995 specifically refers to charter cities.15 As of publication, there were no cases determining that this statute is applicable to charter cities.

4. Compensation
The California Constitution gives charter cities plenary authority to establish the salaries of its officials, including council members and employees. California Constitution, article XI, section 5, subdivision (b) provides:
… (4) plenary authority is hereby granted, subject only to the restrictions of this article, to provide … the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and
the terms for which the several municipal officers and
employees whose compensation is paid by the city shall
be elected or appointed, and for their removal, and for their compensation, and for the number of deputies,
clerks and other employees that each shall have, and for the compensation, method of appointment, qualifications, tenure of office and removal of such deputies, clerks and other employees.

Case Studies: Two examples of the strong mayor form of
government are found in the cities of San Diego and Fresno. The San Diego City Charter makes the mayor the chief executive officer of the city.1
He or she has the authority to execute and enforce all laws, ordinances, and policies of the city, including the right to promulgate and issue administrative regulations that give controlling direction to the administrative service of the city.2
He or she has the sole
authority to appoint the city manager (subject to council confirmation), exercises direct control over the city manager, and may dismiss the city manager, chief of police or chief of the fire department.3 The
mayor has the sole authority to appoint most city representatives to boards, commissions, committees and governmental agencies.4 In
Fresno, the mayor has the sole authority to appoint and remove the chief administrative officer and exercises control over him or her.5 In both cities, the mayor may veto any legislation passed by the city council.6
In both cities, the mayor prepares the annual city budget to submit to the council, and in Fresno, he or she and may veto a particular budgetary line item.7
Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 224 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 37
For general law cities, council member compensation is prescribed by state law unless otherwise approved by vote of the electors.16 The maximum monthly compensation level depends upon the city’s population. These monthly rates range from $300 (for cities with populations up to 35,000) to $1,000 (for cities with populations over 250,000).17 Further, these amounts may be increased by ordinance; however, the amount of the increase may not exceed an amount equal to 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last salary adjustment in effect when the ordinance was enacted.18 Furthermore, increases may only take effect upon the seating of newly elected council members.19
The compensation limit that applies to general law cities includes any compensation a council member receives for serving on any city board or commission and for the most part such compensation is limited to a stipend of up to $150 per month for each commission or board.20 Compensation does not include payments by a city for retirement, health and welfare, and federal social security benefits. For general law cities, salary of appointed officers and employees is set by the city council.21
Scandals regarding excessive salaries for elected and some other officials in the City of Bell, a charter city, led to the passage of several general laws regarding compensation. Among the new rules that purport to apply to charter cities, as well as general law cities, is a section of the Brown Act requiring that any decisions regarding compensation be made at a regular meeting in open session.22 Additional sections prohibit both an automatic renewal of a contract that provides an automatic increase in level of compensation that exceeds a cost of living adjustment and a maximum cash settlement that exceeds levels set in the Government Code.23 As of publication, no cases have analyzed whether these statutes apply to charter cities.24 Other legislation adopted as a result of the Bell scandal requires any new proposal to adopt a charter include in the ballot description an enumeration of new city powers as a result of the adoption of the charter, including whether the city council will have the power under the new charter to raise its own compensation without voter approval.25 Lastly, the Brown Act was further modified to require that, prior to holding a serial or simultaneous meeting, the clerk or a member of the legislative body must verbally announce the amount of compensation that members of the legislative body will receive for attending the serial or simultaneous meeting.26 The Brown Act applies to charter cities.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 225 CC Agenda 01-07-20

38 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 4: CHARTER CITY ORGANIZATION AND ELECTIONS

5. Council Qualifications
For general law cities, council member qualifications are:
ƒ Be a United States citizen;
ƒ Be at least 18 years old;
ƒ Be a registered voter;
ƒ Be a resident of the city at least 15 days prior to the election and throughout his or her term; and
ƒ If elected by or from a district, be a resident of the geographical area comprising the district from which he or she is elected.27
Charter cities can establish their own qualifications for holding city office provided they do not violate the federal Constitution.28 However, the most common eligibility requirements are residency within the city (or district as appropriate) at the time of the election.29 C. Elections
In general law cities, municipal elections are conducted in accordance with the California Elections Code.30 The Constitution grants charter cities plenary authority over how the city council and other officers are elected.31

1. At-Large vs. By-District vs. From-District
There are three primary ways in which council members are elected. The first is at-large where candidates live anywhere within the jurisdiction of the city, and all voters vote for all councilmembers. The second is by-district where candidates live in a particular district and are elected only by voters in that district. The third is from-district where candidates live in the district, but are elected by voters citywide.

2. Other Election Processes
a. Instant Runoff or Ranked Choice
Four charter cities in California currently use some form of instant runoff or ranked-choice voting: San Francisco, Oakland, San Leandro and Berkeley. In instant runoff voting, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. The ballots are initially counted as one vote for the voter’s first choice candidate. If a candidate secures a majority of votes cast, that candidate wins. If no majority is achieved, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and a new round of counting takes place, with each ballot counted as one vote for the highest ranked candidate that has not been eliminated. The process continues until the winning candidate receives a majority of the votes against the remaining candidates. b. Cumulative Voting
Voters may vote for separate candidates or cast all of their votes for a single candidate.

Cumulative voting can help minority candidates because their supporters can single-shot all their votes behind one candidate, while majority voters may be more likely to spread out their votes among several candidates. Cumulative voting is a form of at-large voting.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 226 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 39
c. Seat-Based Voting
Under a seat-based system, council positions remain at-large, however, candidates are allowed to designate which particular seat they are running for, depending on which seats are open. Seats are often denominated by number. Voters are allowed to vote for a candidate for each available seat. Such a method arguably allows candidates a greater chance of being elected because they are running only against other candidates for that same seat; however, there is no assurance of how many candidates may choose to run for particular seats. d. Limited Voting
Regardless of how many seats are open, voters only cast one vote.

3. Timing and Method of Municipal Elections
In general law cities, the timing and method of local elections are conducted in accordance with the Elections Code.32 While the Legislature recently passed two laws significantly limiting the timing of elections relating to certain charter changes, charter cities may still establish their own election dates (other than elections relating to certain charter changes) and may still adopt their own election rules and procedures.33 Another recently-passed bill that goes into effect on January 1, 2018 (AB 415) requires cities to hold general elections on a statewide election date if an election held on a non-statewide election date in the past four elections had less than a 25 percent voter turnout. On its face, the bill does not directly state that it applies to charter cities.

Furthermore, charter cities may conduct all mail-in ballot elections, rather than the traditional polling place method of voting. The City of Burbank has its own election code and has conducted all mail-in ballot elections since 2001.34 The Santa Barbara City Charter allows the city council to conduct all mail-in ballot elections.35 Both cities use all mail-in ballot elections, in part, as a way to contain municipal election costs.

4. Campaign Reform
In Johnson v. Bradley, the Supreme Court considered the City of Los Angeles’ amendments to the city charter that adopted a comprehensive campaign, election and ethics reform plan (Measure H), which included direction to the city council to adopt a system of using public funds to fund campaigns under certain specified circumstances. A lawsuit was brought challenging Measure H arguing it was in conflict with state law imposing various campaign contribution restrictions.36 The California Supreme Court upheld Measure H. First the court found that the city’s public financing system was a municipal affair and then determined that although state law reflected a statewide concern regarding the integrity of the electoral process, its ban on public financing was not reasonably related to this concern.37

5. California Voting Rights Act Challenges
a. Violations
The California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) was enacted to implement the equal protection and voting guarantees of the California Constitution. The Act sets forth the circumstances where an at-large electoral system may not be imposed to dilute or abridge a protected class’s opportunity to elect candidates.38 Protected class means a class of voters who are members of a race, color or language minority group, as defined in the federal Voting Rights Act.39 Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 227 CC Agenda 01-07-20

40 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 4: CHARTER CITY ORGANIZATION AND ELECTIONS
When at-large or from-district voting dilutes the vote of a protected class in California, the CVRA provides a private right of action.40 To prove a CVRA violation, the plaintiffs must show that the voting was racially polarized.41 However, they do not need to show either that members of a protected class live in a geographically compact area or demonstrate a discriminatory intent on the part of voters or officials.42 b. CVRA Applicability to Charter Cities
The CVRA, purports to apply to cities without making any explicit distinction between general law or charter cities.43 The City of Palmdale, a charter city, was sued for violating the CVRA in its at-large elections. Although the city raised as a defense its charter status, both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal held that the CVRA applied to charter cities. The Superior Court found that Palmdale’s at-large system violated minority voting rights. The Court found that Palmdale’s system was designed to protect current incumbents and that the city had a history of racially polarized voting. As a remedy the court issued an injunction prohibiting the city from certifying the results from its at-large election of council members, ordered by-district elections, and required new elections for all existing council members who were deemed unlawfully elected.44
The Court of Appeal began its analysis of whether the CVRA applies to a charter city by acknowledging that how city council members are elected is the “essence of a municipal affair.”45 Then it noted that since Palmdale’s system of at-large elections diluted minority voting rights, it was in conflict with the CVRA that prohibited such dilution. The Court analyzed whether there was a basis for the Legislature to act in what otherwise was a local affair — city council elections — and concluded that implementing the equal protection and voting rights provision of the California Constitution was a matter of statewide concern.46 c. Standing
Any voter who is a member of a protected class and who resides in a political subdivision where a violation of the CVRA is alleged may file a lawsuit.47 d. Remedy
Upon finding a violation of the CVRA, a court must implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of district-based elections tailored to remedy the violation.48 The fact that members of a protected class are not geographically compact or concentrated, while not supporting a violation of the CVRA, may be a factor in determining an appropriate remedy.49 The scope of the court’s ability to fashion a remedy will likely be the subject of future litigation and legislative efforts.
e. Attorney’s Fees
A successful CVRA plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and expenses. A prevailing city, by contrast, is not entitled to recover any costs unless the court finds the action to have been frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation.50
Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 228 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 41
f. District Elections
The CVRA does not apply to by-district elections in which the council member candidate resides within an election district and is elected only by voters residing within that district.

California’s counties and most of its largest cities, including Los Angeles, San Diego and Long Beach, elect council members by geographic district.51 The CVRA does not mandate the abolition of at-large election systems, but makes the use of at-large election systems more susceptible to a legal challenge.

ENDNOTES
1 San Diego City Charter, art. XV, § 265, subd. (b)(1). 2 San Diego City Charter, art. XV, § 265, subd. (b)(2). 3 San Diego City Charter, art. XV, § 265, subds. (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(9) & (b)(10). 4 San Diego City Charter, art. XV, § 265, subd. (b)(12). 5 Fresno City Charter, § 400, subds. (b) & (c).
6 San Diego City Charter, art. XV, § 265, subd. (b)(5); Fresno City Charter, § 400, subd. (e). 7 San Diego City Charter, art. XV, § 265, subd. (b)(14); Fresno City Charter, § 400, subds. (d) & (f). 8 Gov. Code, § 36501. Prior to January 1, 2001, a general law city could only have 5 members. The law was changed in 2000 to provide for “at least five members.” The vast majority of general law cities were incorporated prior to 2000 and therefore have only five members. 9 Gov. Code, § 34871, subds. (a)-(d).
10 Gov. Code, § 36801.
11 Gov. Code, §§ 34900-34906.
12 Rees v. Layton (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 815.
13 Gov. Code, § 36502, subd. (b).
14 Cawdrey v. City of Redondo Beach (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1212 (term limits are a municipal affair). 15 Gov. Code, § 36502, subd. (b).
16 Gov. Code, § 36516.
17 Gov. Code, § 36516.
18 Ibid.
19 Gov. Code, § 36516.5
20 Gov. Code, § 36516.
21 Gov. Code, § 36506.
22 Gov. Code, § 54596, subd. (b).
23 Gov. Code, §§ 3511.1, 3511.2.
24 Government Code section 3511.1, subdivision (c) defines “local agency” to include “charter city.” However, as explained in Chapter 2, the courts, not the Legislature, make the final determination of whether this is a matter of statewide concern or a municipal affair. The analysis would begin with the clear statement found in article XI, section 5, subdivision (b) that a charter city has plenary authority over establishing compensation for its officers and employees. However, the courts give “great weight” to the intent of the Legislature that the statute applies to charter cities. 25 Gov. Code, § 34458.5.
26 Gov. Code, § 54952.3.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 229 CC Agenda 01-07-20

42 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 4: CHARTER CITY ORGANIZATION AND ELECTIONS
27 Elec. Code, § 321; Gov. Code, §§ 34882, 36502; 87 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 30 (2004). 28 Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5, subd. (b); 82 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 6, 8 (1999). 29 See, e.g., Riverside City Charter, §401; San Jose City Charter, § 404; Santa Barbara City Charter, § 501. 30 Elec. Code, § 10101.
31 Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5, subd. (b). Just as in other municipal affairs, a charter city’s enactments may not violate other provisions of the California or federal Constitution such as the First Amendment, or the equal protection clause. Note that in some cases the courts are reluctant to rely on the “plenary” authority granted for these “core” areas. For example, in Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, a case challenging the City of Los Angeles’ charter provisions regarding election campaign finance reform, the California Supreme Court relied on section 5, subdivision (a) to determine that how a city spends its tax dollars was a “municipal affair” rather than finding that election campaign finance reform was related to a “core” area under section 5, subdivision (b). 32 Elec. Code, § 10101.
33 Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5, subd. (b); Elec. Code § 10101 et seq. 34 Burbank City Charter, § 800 and Burbank Municipal Code, T. 2, Ch. 3. 35 Santa Barbara City Charter, § 1306.
36 Gov. Code, § 85300 (“No public officer shall expend and no candidate shall accept any public moneys for the purpose of seeking office.”)
37 Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389.
38 Elec. Code, §§ 14026, subd. (a), 14027.
39 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq.
40 Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660, 667. 41 “Racially polarized voting” is defined in the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) to mean voting in which there is a difference, as defined in case law under the federal Voting Rights Act (FVRA), in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices preferred by voters in a protected class, as compared to the rest of the electorate. The methodologies for estimating group voting behavior that may be used to prove that elections are characterized by racially polarized voting are those approved in federal cases enforcing the FVRA. Elec. Code, § 14026, subd. (e).
42 Id.; Rey v. Madera Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1228-29. “Protected class” is defined in the CVRA to mean a class of voters who are members of a race, color or language minority group, as referenced and defined in the FVRA. Elec. Code, § 14026, subd. (d). 43 Elec. Code, § 14026, subd. (c).
44 The court did not order a new election for the City’s directly elected mayor. 45 Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 781 (2014). 46 Id. at p. 798.
47 Elec. Code, § 14032.
48 Elec. Code, § 14029.
49 Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (c).
50 Elec. Code, § 14030.
51 Merl, Voting Rights Act leading California cities to Dump At-large Elections (September 14, 2013) L.A.

Times <http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-local-elections-20130915,0,295413.story> [as of Apr. 20, 2016].

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 230 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 43
Chapter 5

COMMON CONCERNS ABOUT CHARTER CITIES
Considering adopting a charter can become a charged and controversial proposal.

Proponents tout the potential for more local autonomy from the state and considerable budgetary savings. Opponents are concerned about the expense to adopt a charter, the risk of councilmembers running amok in paying themselves excessive salaries, employee unions taking control of the budget, higher taxes, and even bankruptcy. Additionally, some may argue that becoming a charter city does not really change a city’s status because of the growth of the statewide concern doctrine. This chapter discusses some of the most common concerns raised about becoming a charter city or being a charter city, to help frame the issues and the law.

A. Growth of Statewide Concerns
One often hears that there has been a loss of local control or home rule for California cities and that the state has taken more and more control over local government autonomy. There is an argument that this is true for both general law and charter cities.1 For example, the loss of fiscal
control by all cities in the state is well documented. It occurred through a series of actions and events that started with Proposition 13, later followed by Proposition 218, and most recently by Proposition 26 and the state’s dissolution of redevelopment agencies.2

Some argue that charter cities are more protected from a loss of local control.3 Others argue that,
at least for purposes of protecting local revenue or creating revenue, there is no real benefit to being a charter city.4
There are still a number of advantages to being a charter city, but there is no question that the Legislature will continue to enact legislation that purports to apply to charter cities and that the judicial response to these enactments will be difficult to predict.

1. What Does Growth of Statewide Concerns Mean?
As described in Chapter 2, the measure of a charter city’s autonomy from the state, and thus the real benefit to being a charter city is captured by the phrase municipal affairs.5 A charter
city’s authority over municipal affairs, free from conflicting state statutes and regulations, is the difference between a charter city and a general law city. However, a matter of statewide concern developed as the conceptual limitation on the scope of municipal affairs and thus the supremacy of charter city measures over conflicting state legislative enactments. The courts have not made an attempt to define municipal affairs but rather have endeavored to adopt a judicial procedure to follow in analyzing whether a challenged ordinance adopted as a municipal affair must defer to a matter of statewide concern.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 231 CC Agenda 01-07-20

44 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 5: COMMON CONCERNS ABOUT CHARTER CITIES
Therefore, when growth in statewide concerns is discussed, it means more cases in which the courts have struck down a charter city’s local enactment because the matter was of statewide concern. Examples are included in the chart below:
1948 Regulation of Trades Court ruled that licensing of a trade or profession was a matter of statewide concern. Court overturned a San Francisco
ordinance requiring every contractor to obtain a business certificate or license and also included additional regulation as to the quality and character of installations. Court found local ordinance conflicted with State Contractor’s Laws (Bus. & Prof.

Code, § 7000 et seq.) and was not a municipal affair.6
1957 Eminent Domain Court held that power of eminent domain was not a municipal affair but a matter of statewide concern and charter cities only had the power if given by the Legislature.7
1959 Regulation of Telephone
Systems
Court ruled that regulation of telephone system was a matter of statewide concern.8
1961 Telephone Franchises Court held that regulation of telephone communication was a matter of statewide concern, and a city cannot require a telephone company to obtain a franchise from the city.9 1963 Labor Court held that the organizational rights of firefighters are a statewide concern.
1976 Labor Court held that charter cities are subject to the Meyers-MiliasBrown Act.10 Court found that even though the general rule is that the fixing of compensation for city employees is a municipal legislative function, local legislation may not conflict with statutes such as the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, which are intended to regulate the entire field of labor relations of affected public employees throughout the state.
1982 Labor Court found that Public Safety Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights applies to charter cities.11
1991 Taxing of Financial
Institutions
Court ruled that charter city’s tax on savings and loan institutions was not a municipal affair.12
1995 Public Contracting Court found that, although a public works contract was a municipal affair, a provision in a bid specification did enter into an area of statewide concern related to minority and women’s outreach programs.
1998 Utility Liens Court ruled that an ordinance allowing the city to create and record a super-priority lien on property for unpaid utility charges was not a municipal affair.13
Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 232 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 45

2. A New Try with an Old Tactic
There has always been a tug-of-war between the state and charter cities over local control. The Legislature often attempts to stake out its authority in an area by stating a matter is of statewide concern, and as such, controlling on charter cities.14 The California Supreme Court has stated that the Legislature does not have the power to transform a municipal affair into a statewide concern,15 by its own declaration. However, historically the courts give great weight to the Legislature’s stated intent.16 The Legislature usually prefers that a particular policy to be followed uniformly throughout the state. Usually this is accomplished by enacting a law that the Legislature asserts applies to charter cities because it is a matter of statewide concern. A lesser-used technique is for the Legislature to tie the receipt of state funds to charter city’s compliance with a state law that otherwise intrudes into an area that has been determined to be a municipal affair.

In 1978, the Legislature bailed-out cities and counties with state surplus funds to make up for the significant decrease in property taxes caused by Proposition 13. However the distribution of state surplus funds was prohibited to any local public agency granting to its employees a cost-ofliving wage or salary increase for the 1978–79 fiscal year that exceeded the cost-of-living increase provided for state employees. Long Beach and Santa Clara challenged the statute as interfering with their autonomy as charter cities. The court recognized that a charter city’s right to determine how much to pay its employees was a core municipal affair over which a charter city has plenary authority. The court rejected the state’s argument that compensation of city employees was a matter of statewide concern because of the fiscal emergency occasioned by Proposition 13.17 A more recent example of this tactic can be found in the area of prevailing wage law. Charter cities are not required to pay prevailing wages on public works projects that are not funded by state or federal funds and that serve the municipality rather than a regional project.18 What this means in practical effect is that the charter city and its city council and voters have the ability to determine if and when to pay prevailing wage on local public works contracts. Charter cities have taken a variety of approaches on this issue and based the decision on what they believe best meets the needs of their community. Some charter cities have express provisions in their charter opting out of prevailing wage rate law and others have a local ordinance, resolution, or other policy expressly opting out of prevailing wage rate law. However, it is not necessary for a charter city to have a charter provision or local ordinance to not be subject to prevailing wage rate law; it is an inherent part of home rule granted by the state constitution.19 Consequently, a charter city can elect to not be subject to prevailing wage rate law by not requiring it in its public works contracts, so long as the project does not use state or federal funds20 and only serves local versus regional interests.21 In 2012, the California State Supreme Court held that payment of prevailing wages by a charter city is a municipal affair, regardless of the language in the statute.22 In 2013, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 7 (SB 7) adding section 1782 to Labor Code to:
ƒ Prohibit a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for a construction project if the city has a charter provision or an ordinance that authorizes a contractor to not comply with state prevailing wage rate law. ƒ Prohibit a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for a construction project if the city has awarded within the prior two calendar years a public works contract without requiring the contractor to comply with the State prevailing wage rate law.23
Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 233 CC Agenda 01-07-20

46 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 5: COMMON CONCERNS ABOUT CHARTER CITIES
ƒ Allow a charter city to receive or use state funding or financial assistance for a construction project if the charter city has adopted an ordinance that includes requirements that in all respects are equal to or greater than state prevailing wage rate law.

The legality and constitutionality of SB 7 was challenged in court by a group of cities (El Centro, Carlsbad, El Cajon, Fresno, and Vista). The Court of Appeal concluded that SB 7 was constitutional, finding that SB 7 “does not conflict with these charter city laws as it does not mandate or require that charter cities do anything, such as paying prevailing wages for its public works projects.

Rather, [SB 7] provides the Cities with a choice, to meet the requirements set forth in [SB 7] to obtain state funding or financial assistance on its public works projects, or forgo eligibility for those funds.”24

3. Uncertainty and Ambiguity
Charter cities and general law cities considering becoming charter cities live with the reality of the Legislature continuing to apply new laws to charter cities based upon legislative declarations and findings that the matter is of statewide concern. Some of these laws do not get challenged in court. A charter city must then make a decision about whether to follow the state law or adopt a local ordinance in conflict with the state law based upon its city attorney’s legal opinion that a court would ultimately determine that the area was a municipal affair that did not require deference to the legislative enactment.

For example, state law has extensive regulatory schemes limiting cities’ ability to adopt regulations for the retrieval of shopping carts.25 It requires a city that retrieves a shopping cart to hold it for the owner for 30 days. The city cannot collect its costs or fine the owner as long as the owner retrieves the cart. The state statute expressly provides that “The Legislature hereby finds that the retrieval by local government agencies of shopping carts … is in need of statewide regulation and constitutes a matter of statewide concern.”26
It seems arguable that the Legislature could demonstrate the retrieval of a shopping cart “under the historical circumstances” indicates “the state has a more substantial interest in the subject than a charter city.” 27 The legislative analysis for the bill identified the rationale for making it applicable to charter cities:

Cart owners are concerned that a multiplicity of local cart retrieval regulations, along with expensive fees, are bad for business and fail to acknowledge their diligent retrieval efforts. Grocers want state law to limit local officials’ cart retrieval regulations.28 There are no published cases where a court has determined that shopping cart retrieval is a matter of statewide concern on the basis that local regulations may be bad for business. Therefore, a charter city must weigh the legal risks, benefits, and consequences of adopting an ordinance in conflict with this state law and act accordingly.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 234 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 47

4. It Is About More than the Growth of Statewide Concerns As hopefully has been made clear by now, being a charter city does not mean complete autonomy from the Legislature nor does it mean that areas that are now considered municipal affairs will be considered municipal affairs forever. Being a charter city is not only about how much autonomy the city has from state control. Being a charter city also means providing the city’s voters with a vehicle and forum for proposing their vision for how the city should provide services and regulate conduct. It is an opportunity for the voters to clearly identify what is most important to the community, the types of issues that make the community different from its neighbors, and how they would like to see the city governed.

B. Compensation of Elected Officials
The California Constitution gives plenary authority for charter cities to establish the salaries of its officials and employees. By contrast, the salaries of general law cities’ officials and employees are controlled by the provisions of the Government Code. For a more in-depth discussion, see the Compensation section of Chapter 3.

1. Concerns about Excessive Compensation
The scandal in the City of Bell raised the issue of compensation of city officials in charter cities.29 The small City of Bell, where part-time council members paid themselves salaries of $100,000 per year and their city manager was paid at least $800,000 per year, has made many ask if part of the issue was the city being a charter city.30 Some have used what happened in the City of Bell to help defeat proposals for charter adoptions.

In 2012, the voters of the City of Auburn rejected a ballot measure to make the city a charter city. The second most often cited reason for opposing the charter amendment in the voter guide was that council members could pay themselves thousands of dollars in extra compensation.31 Opponents of the measure argued the charter would open the door to corruption and even possibly bankruptcy.32
The Legislature responded to concerns about council members in charter cities paying themselves excessive compensation by adopting a state law that requires a proposal to amend or adopt a charter to include whether the city council will, pursuant to the adopted charter, have the power to raise its own compensation and the compensation of other city officials without voter approval.33 Of course, salaries only tell part of the story and often not the largest part of the city’s outlay.

Benefit packages can create the larger liability for a city. The Los Angeles Times in 2011 looked at reported salary and benefit information for the councils of charter cities and general law cities and found that, if the salary and benefits were combined, almost 50 percent of charter cities were paying over the salary cap set by state law. In contrast, less than a third of the general law cities were paying, combined in salary and benefits, over what the state law caps for salaries.34 As noted above, the state law does not include benefits in the compensation caps.35 The Los Angeles Times also found that generally most cities, including charter cities, paid under the state cap set in the Government Code. But charter cities tended to pay their council members higher salaries than general law cities and were more likely to exceed the state law cap.36 Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 235 CC Agenda 01-07-20

48 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 5: COMMON CONCERNS ABOUT CHARTER CITIES
In response to the Bell scandal, the State Controller in 2010 required all cities, including charter cities, to disclose all salary information in their financial reports to the state and posted the results on the state’s website.37 The program referred to as the Government Compensation in California Program is intended to capture the salary, compensation, and benefit information for every compensated employee in any city, county, or independent special district who receives a W-2. The website is:
http://publicpay.ca.gov.

2. Inadequate Salaries
As charters may only be amended by a vote of the electors, some cities’ compensation for elected officers can be locked in at amounts that might limit who can afford to serve. For example, the City of Needles provides in their charter that council salaries are limited to $1 per month.38 In less affluent communities where city council compensation is nominal, the expenses associated with service, as well as the potential loss of income from the council member’s regular business and occupation, may skew the composition of the council toward those citizens that can afford it.

C. Bankruptcy
Declaring bankruptcy for a city comes at a heavy cost. The initial transaction costs, which can run into the millions, are only the start. Filing can bring a stigma to the city.40 A city’s credit rating will likely be suspended or downgraded. Borrowing costs can increase for years to come. Businesses will be dissuaded from locating in the community, resulting in fewer jobs and a decline in the real estate market.41 In the last thirty years, only fortynine cities or counties in the nation declared bankruptcy.42 Since 2008, three of those have been California cities: Vallejo (2008), Stockton (2012) and San Bernardino (2012). All three cities are charter cities.43 Some have asked if this were more than a coincidence.44 The answer suggests that while being a charter city was not the sole or principal reason these cities went bankrupt, provisions in each of the cities’ charters played a role in placing the city on a fiscally unsustainable path.

More specifically, the problematic charter provisions (1) acted to limit the authority of the city councils to reduce police and fire salaries and benefits, and (2) placed restrictions on city council authority that could not have been placed on a general law city.

San Bernardino has a charter provision that ties public safety employees’ salaries to an average of similar employees’ salaries paid by 10 other, mostly, more affluent cities. In 2014 the voters rejected a ballot proposal to amend the charter to remove this provision.45 Additionally, San Bernardino had an unusual government structure that diffused executive authority between the council, the mayor, and the city manager and arguably made it difficult to change the status quo even when the status quo could lead to financial ruin. When the city filed for bankruptcy, the budget for public safety salaries alone was $10 million more than the city’s expected revenues. Police and fire employee salaries made up 72 percent of the budget.46

TIPS FOR CHARTER CITIES ABOUT

CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION
When drafting a charter proposal, consideration might be given to the following regarding city council compensation:
• Review the state law schedule for council compensation to gauge whether city council compensation will be in
line with general law cities of the same size.
• Review the limitation in state law on the amount of
compensation the city council can receive for service
on other city boards, commissions, and authorities
and determine whether a limitation on this amount is
appropriate.
• Consider whether adjustments to city council salary
should require voter approval; should be made
automatically through an annual cost of living
adjustment; or may be adopted by city council
ordinance.39
• Consider whether council compensation should be
established by another method or point of comparison.

For example, section 407 of the San Jose City Charter
provides for council salary setting by the Council Salary Setting Commission. Section 24 of the San Bernardino
City Charter provides that the mayor’s salary shall be 50 percent of the salary of a Superior Court Judge in San
Bernardino County.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 236 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 49
Stockton’s charter, until recently, allowed for binding arbitration for fire fighters’ compensation. This tied the city’s hands when the city and employees’ associations could not come to an agreement on reductions. Public Safety employee salaries and benefits made up 76 percent of the city’s budget.47 In November 2010, this charter provision was repealed by the voters. 48
Vallejo’s charter mandated binding arbitration for all of its unions.49 Employee salaries made up 85 percent of the city’s budget, with the largest share going towards police and fire employees. Between 2006 and 2008 (the year Vallejo declared bankruptcy), salaries of public safety employees had scheduled increases of over 21 percent, while all other employees had scheduled increases of approximately 10 percent.50 On June 8, 2010 voters repealed this charter provision. 51
Only three of the 121 California charter cities have declared bankruptcy. Being a charter city does not necessarily mean a city will be fiscally unsustainable and being a general law city does not necessarily save a city from potential bankruptcy.52
Additionally, some argue that being a charter city can help a city maintain a stronger financial footing.53 Historically, some charter cities have saved money by not paying prevailing wages54 and by contracting out for municipal services.55 On the other hand, some cities’ charters restrict such authority.

Employment costs can get out of control in general law cities as well as charter cities. However, if provisions of a charter affect the financial stability of a city, then voter approval is required to amend or repeal them. Changing identical provisions in a general law city may simply require a vote by the majority of the city council, or a renegotiation of an MOU under the Meyers-MiliasBrown Act.

D. Labor Relations
A common concern about becoming a charter city centers on the effect on labor relations.

However, in many ways, charter cities are subject to the same or similar requirements as general law cities in the area of labor relations. For example, the major public sector labor relations statute applicable to local government, i.e., the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)56 applies to charter cities.57 In addition, the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (POBR)58 has been found to apply to charter cities.59 Similarly, the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights (FFBOR)60 also applies to charter cities.61

1. Wages and Benefits
A concern about becoming a charter city is that the charter itself can circumvent the collective bargaining process. This can include items like binding arbitration as well as limiting wages and benefits based on a survey of comparable cities.62 These items are usually the subject of negotiations under the MMBA, but can be added to city charters by either a city councilsponsored initiative or by a petitioned initiative. However, this same process can work both ways.

For example, the City and County of San Francisco successfully defended its charter provision requiring increases or decreases in employee benefits to be approved by the voters. The court found in favor of San Francisco by determining that nothing in the MMBA prohibited the San Francisco Board of Supervisors from executing an agreement changing employee benefits and making final approval subject to approval by the voters as required by the charter.63

TIPS FOR AVOIDING

BANKRUPTCY FOR CHARTER
CITIES
Those drafting a charter may want
to consider whether the following
provisions/language should or
should not be included in your
charter:
• Salary formulas. If salary
formulas are included,
consider provisions that
allow the city council
flexibility to adjust during
times of financial crisis.
• Requiring a balanced budget.
• Requiring a two-year budget.
• Requiring a reserve
percentage of the
general fund budget as a
minimum unless there is
a super majority vote of
the city council.
• Reserving the authority to
contract out for general
services.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 237 CC Agenda 01-07-20

50 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 5: COMMON CONCERNS ABOUT CHARTER CITIES
City charters can also be used as vehicles to set salaries of some (like public safety) or all city employees based upon those salaries provided to employees of similarly-sized cities (or any other criteria). Such charter provisions take the salary-setting authority from the city council and place it into a formula that may or may not consider the overall financial condition of the city in the short or long term. Charter provisions might constrain the financial flexibility of the city council.64 The City of Fresno was able to amend its charter to delete a provision requiring a survey of specified cities as the basis of the city’s opening bargaining position. This was accomplished during the window between when all collectively bargaining units had a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and before the time the city and the bargaining units opened collective bargaining for subsequent MOU’s. This allowed the city to avoid violating the MMBA’s meet and confer requirements because the provision merely set the city’s initial bargaining position and not wages.65
Another city provided an additional management benefit (3 percent of salary) to a group of management employees electing not to be in an employee association, but denied this benefit to those in the same job classifications electing to be in the employee association. The court determined this management benefit discriminated against employees electing to exercise their rights to collectively bargain with the city and being a charter city did not prevent this outcome.

The court directed the city to take one of two actions to remedy the situation — either extend the additional management benefit to those employees who otherwise qualify but who are in the employee association or discontinue the management benefit for those declining to join the employee association.66
City charters can also be utilized to adopt agreements with employee associations that conflict with provisions of the Labor Code. For example, the County of Los Angeles adopted a MOU with its probation officers’ association that provided a different method to compensate employees for meal periods and working through meal periods than provided under the Labor Code. The Court denied the probation officer’s legal challenge, indicating that the charter county’s status coupled with an MOU provision covering the same issue was sufficient for the county to prevail.67

2. Pension Benefits
A number of charter cities have been exploring the ability to alter the pension benefits offered to their employees, including both those vested in the system and new hires. Notably both San Diego (Initiative Proposition B passed in June 2012 with 65 percent approval) and San Jose (Council Submitted Measure B passed in June 2012 with 69 percent approval) have had initiatives designed to change the pension benefit allocation between the employer and employee and to reduce the benefits long-term.68 Legal challenges have been made to both efforts, including by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) for failure to collectively bargain the changes. San Diego won its pre- and post-election court challenges by PERB,69 but it faced additional charges of unfair labor practices in connection with the measure by PERB. In proceedings against San Jose, PERB also found the city failed to bargain in good faith under the MMBA before putting the measure on the ballot. Those proceedings are still pending. In a separate lawsuit by employee unions challenging Measure B, a superior court judge held that invalidated the parts of the measure that required higher contributions from current employees but upheld other parts of the measure.70 The city has appealed the ruling.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 238 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 51
Similarly, in the City of Bakersfield, the police officer association was also given authority by the California Attorney General to sue in the name of the People of the State of California to challenge a charter amendment and implementing ordinances. The amendment and ordinances resulted in a different pension benefit formula and contribution level for new police department hires, as well as providing that the new formula and contribution level could only be changed by the voters. The legal challenge alleges that this charter amendment violates the meet-and-confer obligations of the MMBA.71

3. Binding Arbitration
The Legislature cannot require binding arbitration for charter or general law cities.72 This limitation applies even when the legislation allows the general law city, charter city, county, or city and county to bypass the arbitrator’s decision by a unanimous vote of the governing body.73 General law cities and charter cities have the authority to agree to binding arbitration as part of a MOU with labor organizations. The voters in a charter city have the authority to adopt binding arbitration as a part of a city charter. As reported earlier, some cities’ voters are repealing such provisions under threat of bankruptcy (cities of Vallejo and Stockton.74) and others are doing this as a proactive measure to ensure city council control over labor relations.75 E. Cost to Become a Charter City
In addition to weighing the policy costs and benefits of becoming a charter city, there are a significant number of transactional costs associated with becoming a charter city that cities are advised to factor in as well. Although the amount of those costs will vary depending on the particular situation, general law cities considering becoming charter cities should expect to incur the following transactional costs:

1. Becoming a Charter City
The process to become a charter city is typically a multi-year process with significant resources expended. There are costs associated with all of the following activities:
ƒ Legal, administrative and staffing costs to draft the charter. » Costs can vary depending upon the charter process used. For example, the use of a formal charter commission with direct authority to place something on the ballot can be higher based on the complexity and time such a process can take. » If subjects impacting wages, hours or other terms and conditions of employment are included in the proposed charter, there may be a cost to meet and confer with employee associations under the MMBA.
» Costs may also be necessary under the California Environmental Quality Act. ƒ Public education outreach.
ƒ Holding an election.
» The cost can vary greatly depending on whether the city holds a stand-alone election or consolidates with another election, such as a statewide election, which may be required in light of new legislation.76 Consolidating with another election can save a substantial amount of money.
» Election cost estimates by cities have ranged from $5,000 and higher.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 239 CC Agenda 01-07-20

52 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 5: COMMON CONCERNS ABOUT CHARTER CITIES
» Associated costs can include hiring election consultants, purchasing election supplies, labor costs for election workers, and paying the county registrar or election official to hold the election.

2. After Becoming a Charter City
There are also many costs that will be incurred above those a general law city would incur after charter adoption. These include costs associated with the following:
ƒ Training staff on new processes and procedures and what it means to be a charter city. ƒ Implementing required procedural changes, including adopting ordinances and amending the municipal code to take advantage of new charter authority. If the charter is drafted with flexibility in mind, these changes can be made over a number of years to spread the cost of the changes and staff retraining, so that it is manageable given other city priorities. » If public contracting is addressed in the charter and new bid thresholds are established, contract documents and bid packets will also need to be updated. » Any financial or accountability procedures included in the charter will require implementing procedures by the city finance department, including a review to ensure that proper internal and external controls are in place. » Any personnel, civil service, or labor relations changes will require changes to existing processes, procedures, and rules and may require a meet and confer process with recognized employee associations.
ƒ Lawsuits arising from exercising charter powers.
» Gray areas in the law invite lawsuits. As charters can be different and may vary in their provisions, there is no case law on how to interpret specific charter provisions.

However, a charter city is typically aware of these gray areas and can legislate based upon an analysis of risks and benefits.
ƒ All charter amendments and repeal, including those mandated by changes in the law, require an election. Often, consolidation with regularly-scheduled elections will reduce the cost.

ENDNOTES
1 For a discussion of the loss of home rule for general law cities, see Albuquerque, California and Dillon:

The Times They Are A-Changing (1998) 25 Hastings Const. L.Q. 187, 191. 2 See, e.g., Strauss & Coleman, Waiting for the State to Get Its House in Order: The Origin of Cities’ Fiscal Relationship with the State (1998) <http://www.californiacityfinance.com/HouseWC9811.pdf> [as of Apr. 20, 2016]; see also Hogen-Esch, Fragmentation, Fiscal Federalism, and the Ghost of Dillon’s Rule:

Municipal Incorporation in Southern California, 1950-2010 (2011) Vol. 3, No. 1 Cal. Journal of Pol. & Policy; Coleman & Colantuono, The Origin & Devolution of Local Revenue Authority (June 2003) Western City, at page 22; Saxton, Hoene, & Erie, Fiscal Constraints and the Loss of Home Rule: The Long-Term Impacts of California’s Post-Proposition 13 Fiscal Regime (2002) Vol. 32, No. 4 Am. Rev. of Pub. Admin. 423-454.
3 Albuquerque, supra note 1, at p. 190 (arguing that recent cases have given new life and vibrancy to the constitutional powers of charter cities).
4 Miadich & Daniels, The Illusion of Autonomy: Why Charter City Status Does Not Protect Local Revenue (June 18, 2013) <http://www.smartcitiesprevail.org/resources/Illusion_of_Autonomy_full_report. pdf> [as of Apr. 20, 2016].
5 Grodin et al., The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide (1993) p. 188.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 240 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 53
6 City and County of San Francisco v. Boss (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d 445. 7 Wilson v. Beville (1957) 47 Cal.2d 852, 856.
8 Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1955) 44 Cal.2d 272, 280. 9 Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 133, 148. 10 San Leandro Police Officers Assoc. v. City of San Leandro (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 553. 11 Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 140 (“There must always be doubt whether a matter which is of concern to both municipalities and the state is of sufficient statewide concern to justify a new legislative intrusion into an area traditionally regarded as ‘strictly a municipal affair.’ Such doubt, however, ‘must be resolved in favor of the legislative authority of the state.’”) 12 Cal. Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1. 13 Isaac v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 586, 600. 14 Grodin, supra note 5, at p. 190.
15 Bishop v. City of San Jose (1969) 1 Cal.3d 56, 64.
16 Grodin, supra note 5; Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128. 17 Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of Sonoma (1979) 23 Cal.3d 296. 18 State Building and Construction Trades Council of California v. City of Vista (2012) 54 Cal.4th 547. 19 Minor v. City of Sacramento (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 863, 867-868; City and County of San Francisco v.

Callanan (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 643, 647-648.
20 Young v. Superior Court of Kern County (1932) 216 Cal. 512; Southern California Roads Company v.

McGuire (1934) 2 Cal.2d 115.
21 Wilson v. City of San Bernardino (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 603; Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company v. City and County of San Francisco (1959) 51 Cal.2d 766. On November 1, 2013, the Department of Industrial Relations determined that a charter city’s use of state gasoline sales tax revenues, in whole or in part for a project, subjects the entire project to the payment of prevailing wages. 22 City of Pasadena v. Charleville (1932) 215 Cal. 384, 389; State Building and Construction Trades Council of California v. City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 557. Note that the basis of the City of Vista decision — that a charter city should be able to determine the best use of its tax dollars — is very similar to the basis used in the decision upholding the Los Angeles City Charter provision allowing City of Los Angeles funds to be contributed to local election campaigns. 23 This prohibition does not apply to contracts awarded or advertised for bids prior to January 1, 2015.

Lab. Code, § 1782, subd. (f).
24 City of El Centro v. Lanier (March 29, 2106, D066755) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2016 WL 1221948]. 25 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22435 et seq.
26 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22435.7.
27 C.f., Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 51 Cal.2d at p. 771. 28 Sen. Local Gov. Com., Bill Analysis on Assem. Bill No. 317 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.) (June 26, 1996) <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_0301-0350/ab_317_cfa_960624_173000_sen_ comm.html> [as of Apr. 20, 2016].
29 St. John, California Cities Shift to Charters, Raising Questions About Officials’ Salaries. (August 6, 2010) KPBS <http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/aug/06/officials-salaries-charter-cities/> [as of Apr. 20, 2016]. 30 See, e.g., Gang & Begley, Inland Charter Cities Offer Similar Pay to Managers, Council (August 1, 2010) The Press Enterprise <http://www.pe.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20100802-inland-chartercities-offer-similar-pay-to-managers-council.ece> [as of Apr. 20, 2016]. 31 Placer County Ballot Guide, Special Elec. (June 5, 2012) analysis of Measure A by county counsel <http://www.placerelections.com/uploads/documents/06052012/06052012_Measure_A-City.pdf> [as of Apr. 20, 2016].
32 Ibid.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 241 CC Agenda 01-07-20

54 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 5: COMMON CONCERNS ABOUT CHARTER CITIES
33 Gov. Code, § 34458.5.
34 California City Council Compensation Scorecard (Aug. 1, 2011) LA Times <http://spreadsheets.latimes. com/city-council-salaries/> [as of Apr. 20, 2016].
35 Gov. Code, § 36516, subd. (d).
36 California City Council Compensation Scorecard, supra note 34; Henry, Berkeley City Council Paid More Than State Guideline. (Aug. 3, 2011) Berkeley Patch <http://berkeley.patch.com/groups/politics-andelections/p/berkeley-city-council-paid-more-than-state-guideline> [as of Apr. 20, 2016]. 37 Cal. State Controller’s Office, Press Release, Controller Requires Cities, Counties to Report Salaries of Government Officials (Aug. 2010) <http://www.sco.ca.gov/eo_pressrel_controller_requires_salary_ reporting.html> [as of Apr. 20, 2016].
38 Gang, supra note 30.
39 For example, section 402 of the Newport Beach City Charter provides for an annual cost of living adjustment for council compensation.
40 Watkins, Note: In Defense of Chapter 9 Option: Exploring the Promise of Municipal Bankruptcy as Mechanism for Structural Political Reform (2012-2013) 39 J. of Legis. 89, 94. 41 Ibid.; see also Knox & Levinson, Municipal Bankruptcy: Avoiding and Using Chapter 9 in Times of Fiscal Stress (2009)
<http://www.orrick.com/Events-and-Publications/Documents/1736.pdf> [as of Apr. 20, 2016]. 42 Watkins, supra note 40.
43 A fourth California city, Mammoth Lakes, also filed for bankruptcy during this period of time.

However, the Mammoth Lakes case was somewhat unusual, as the small town with a budget of $19 million filed bankruptcy seeking protection from a developer lawsuit seeking $43 million in damages.

The city won a dismissal of the bankruptcy case after it settled the lawsuit. Church, Mammoth Lakes Bankruptcy Case Ends After Accord in Suit (November 19, 2012) Bloomberg <http://www.bloomberg. com/news/2012-11-19/mammoth-lakes-bankruptcy-case-ends-after-accord-in-suit.html> [as of Apr. 20, 2016].
44 Audi, White & Traves, California’s ‘Charter’ Cities Are Under the Microscope (July 18, 2012) Wall Street Journal <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303612804577531181167707276.html> [as of Apr. 20, 2016]; see also Rozansky, The Problem and Promise of Charter Cities (August 22, 2012) City Journal <http://www.city-journal.org/2012/cjc0817jr.html> [as of Apr. 20, 2016]. 45 Ballotpedia, City of San Bernardino Public Safety Employees Salary Charter Amendment, Measure Q (Nov. 2014) <http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Bernardino_Public_Safety_Employees_Salary_ Charter_Amendment,_Measure_Q_(November_2014)> [as of Apr. 20, 2016]. 46 George Mason University, State and Local Government Leadership Center, San Bernardino Full Case Study (2012) <http://psc.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/GMU_San_Bernardino_9.13.pdf> [as of Apr. 20, 2016].
47 Evans, Kosenko & Polyakov, How Stockton Went Bust: A California City’s Decade of Policies and the Financial Crisis that Follows (May 24, 2012) <http://uscommonsense.org/research/how-stocktonwent-bust-a-california-citys-decade-of-policies-and-the-financial-crisis-that-followed/> [as of Apr. 20, 2016].
48 Ballotpedia, City of San Bernardino Public Safety Employees Salary Charter Amendment, Measure Q (Nov. 2014) <http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Stockton_Binding_Arbitration_for_Fire_Department_ Employees,_Measure_H_(November_2010)> [as of Apr. 20, 2016]. 49 George Mason University, San Bernardino Full Case Study supra note 46. 50 Evans, Kosenko & Polyakov, supra note 47.
51 Ballotpedia, City of Vallejo Repeal of Binding Arbitration, Measure A (June 2010) <http://ballotpedia. org/City_of_Vallejo_Repeal_of_Binding_Arbitration,_Measure_A_(June_2010)> [as of Apr. 20, 2016].

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 242 CC Agenda 01-07-20

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT 55
52 Compare Welch, These California Cities Could Be Next in Bankruptcy (May 15, 2013) USA Today <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/15/ten-california-cities-in-distress/2076217/> [as of Apr. 20, 2016] (naming five general law cities in California that may be facing bankruptcy); with Moore, 20 Cities That May Face Bankruptcy After Detroit (August 8, 2013) Newsmax <http://www. newsmax.com/Newsfront/cities-bankruptcy-after-detroit/2013/08/06/id/519081> [as of Apr. 20, 2016] (citing to three California cities that may be facing bankruptcy, all of them charter cities). 53 Vo, Costa Mesa Charter Issue to be Decided by Voters (Aug. 1, 2012) Orange County Register. 54 This may change with the enactment of SB 7 in 2013.
55 Vo, supra note 53.
56 Gov. Code, § 3500 et seq.
57 International Association of Firefighters, Local 230 v. City of San Jose (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1187; People ex. Re. Seal Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Seal Beach (1984) 36 Cal.3d 591, 597. 58 Gov. Code, §§ 3300-3311.
59 Baggett, supra note 11.
60 Gov. Code, §§ 3250-3262.
61 International Association of Firefighters, Local 230 v. City of San Jose (2011) 195 Cal. App.4th 1179, 1206.
62 City of Auburn, Report to City Council, Pros and Cons of Adopting a City Charter (June 28, 2010) at page 3.
63 United Public Employees, Local 390/400, SEIU, AFL-CIO v. City and County of San Francisco (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 419, 426.
64 Audi, White & Traves, supra note 44.
65 76 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen Gen. 169 (1993); City of Fresno v. the People ex. rel. Fresno Firefighters, IAFF Local 753 (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 82.
66 San Leandro Police Officers Association v. City of San Leandro (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 553. 67 Dimon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1283. 68 See San Jose City Charter, § 1501-A; San Diego City Charter, art. IX, §§ 140-151. 69 Clingen, Pension Reform: San Jose and San Diego Voters Weigh In (Oct. 15, 2013) Ballotpedia <http:// ballotpedia.org/Pension_reform:_San_Jose_and_San_Diego_voters_weigh_in> [as of Apr. 20, 2016]. 70 Mendel, San Jose Pension Reforms Ruled Violation of Rights (Dec. 30, 2013) Calpensions <http:// calpensions.com/2013/12/30/san-jose-pension-reforms-ruled-violation-of-rights/> [as of Apr. 20, 2016].
71 95 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 31 (2012); see also 95 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 50 (2012) (regarding challenge to City and County of San Francisco).
72 County of Riverside v. Superior Court (Riverside County Sheriff’s Association, R.P.I.) (2003) 30 Cal.4th 278.
73 County of Sonoma v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 322. 74 Audi, supra note 44.
75 In 2011, San Luis Obispo and Palo Alto voters removed binding arbitration from their charters. 76 Stats. 2013, ch 184 (SB 311).

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 243 CC Agenda 01-07-20

56 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: CHARTER CITY TOOL KIT
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Chapter 6:

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Each city has its unique culture and set of issues. This makes it difficult to generalize about whether any particular general law city should or should not become a charter city. With this in mind, the following is offered for your consideration:

1. Each city’s unique culture and set of issues. A review of a variety of charter provisions reiterates the variety of issues facing cities statewide and the unique culture of each city. Charters include provisions varying from height limits to offshore drilling to red-light camera enforcement to pension reform. A charter is a forum for expressing the voters’ wishes on issues they wish to reserve for themselves (by limiting city council discretion).

2. Times change. The extent of a charter city’s authority is directly related to whether or not an area that otherwise is a municipal affair is deemed a matter of statewide concern.

The courts determine whether an area is a matter of statewide concern. As times change, matters of statewide concern change. To be a charter city means to be a city that lives with change.

3. More or less? As discussed in Chapter 2, the provisions of a charter are a limitation on the authority of a charter city, not a grant of authority. This has led some cities to adopt a “short-form” charter that includes very few limitations. Other cities have decided to adopt more comprehensive charters that provide detailed provisions with respect to the city’s exercise of its municipal affairs. Ultimately, the decision of how much limitation to include in a charter is a policy question that will be answered based on the input and recommendations received during the public drafting and review process.

4. Words don’t mean what they say. Section 5, subdivision (a) of article XI of the Constitution grants a charter city authority over municipal affairs. Section 5, subdivision (b) grants plenary authority over four specific municipal affairs sometimes called core municipal affairs. The courts’ decisions do not necessarily seem to be influenced by whether a charter city is relying upon section 5, subdivision (a) or section 5, subdivision (b) and have not been influenced, historically, by whether charter city was acting with plenary authority under section 5, subdivision (b).

5. Some things seem pretty certain. A few areas seem to consistently withstand a challenge:
» Municipal organization: The form of government and sub-government; » Spending local funds: How a charter city decides to use its own tax dollars; » Elections: Timing, qualifications, balloting, etc.;
» Salary and benefits (including retirement): City council, other officers and employees.

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 244 CC Agenda 01-07-20

Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 245 CC Agenda 01-07-20

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 658-8200 | Fax: (916) 658-8240
www.cacities.org | www.cacities.org/events | www.westerncity.com Agenda Item 12 CC Agenda 01-07-20 Attachment 1 Agenda Item 12 Page No. 246 CC Agenda 01-07-20

4 EXHIBIT A
Characteristic General Law City Charter City
Ability to Govern
Municipal Affairs
Bound by the state’s general law, regardless
of whether the subject concerns a municipal
affair.

Has supreme authority over “municipal
affairs.” Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).

Form of Government State law describes the city’s form of government For example, Government
Code section 36501 authorizes general law
cities be governed by a city council of five
members, a city clerk, a city treasurer, a
police chief, a fire chief and any subordinate
officers or employees as required by law.

City electors may adopt ordinance which
provides for a different number of council
members. Cal. Gov’t section 34871. The
Government Code also authorizes the “city
manager” form of government. Cal. Gov’t
Code § 34851.

Charter can provide for any form of
government including the “strong mayor,”
and “city manager” forms. See Cal. Const.
art. XI, § 5(b); Cal. Gov’t Code § 34450 et
seq.

Elections Generally Municipal elections conducted in accordance with the California Elections Code. Cal. Elec.

Code §§ 10101 et seq..

Not bound by the California Elections Code.

May establish own election dates, rules, and
procedures. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b);
Cal. Elec. Code §§ 10101 et seq..

Methods of Elections Generally holds at-large elections whereby voters vote for any candidate on the ballot.

Cities may also choose to elect the city
council “by” or “from” districts, so long as the
election system has been established by
ordinance and approved by the voters. Cal.

Gov’t Code § 34871. Mayor may be elected
by the city council or by vote of the people.

Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 34902.

May establish procedures for selecting
officers. May hold at-large or district
elections. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).

City Council Member
Qualifications
Minimum qualifications are:

1. United States citizen

2. At least 18 years old

3. Registered voter

4. Resident of the city at least 15 days
prior to the election and throughout
his or her term

5. If elected by or from a district, be a
resident of the geographical area
comprising the district from which he
or she is elected.

Cal. Elec. Code § 321; Cal. Gov’t Code §§
34882, 36502; 87 Cal. Op. Att’y Gen. 30
(2004).

Can establish own criteria for city office
provided it does not violate the U.S.

Constitution. Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b), 82
Cal. Op. Att’y Gen. 6, 8 (1999).

5 Characteristic General Law City Charter City
Public Funds for Candidate
in Municipal Elections
No public officer shall expend and no
candidate shall accept public money for the
purpose of seeking elected office. Cal. Gov’t
Code § 85300.

Public financing of election campaigns is
lawful. Johnson v. Bradley, 4 Cal. 4th 389
(1992).

Term Limits May provide for term limits. Cal. Gov’t Code § 36502(b).

May provide for term limits. Cal. Const. art.

XI, § 5(b); Cal Gov’t Code Section 36502 (b).

Vacancies and Termination
of Office
An office becomes vacant in several
instances including death, resignation,
removal for failure to perform official duties,
electorate irregularities, absence from
meetings without permission, and upon nonresidency. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 1770, 36502, 36513.

May establish criteria for vacating and
terminating city offices so long as it does not
violate the state and federal constitutions.

Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).

Council Member
Compensation and
Expense Reimbursement
Salary-ceiling is set by city population and
salary increases set by state law except for
compensation established by city electors.

See Cal. Gov’t Code § 36516. If a city
provides any type of compensation or
payment of expenses to council members,
then all council members are required to
have two hours of ethics training. See Cal.

Gov’t Code §§ 53234 - 53235.

May establish council members’ salaries.

See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b). If a city
provides any type of compensation or
payment of expenses to council members,
then all council members are required to
have two hours of ethics training. See Cal.

Gov’t Code §§ 53234 - 53235.

Legislative Authority Ordinances may not be passed within five days of introduction unless they are urgency
ordinances. Cal. Gov’t Code § 36934.

Ordinances may only be passed at a regular
meeting, and must be read in full at time of
introduction and passage except when, after
reading the title, further reading is waived.

Cal. Gov't Code § 36934.

May establish procedures for enacting local
ordinances. Brougher v. Bd. of Public Works,
205 Cal. 426 (1928).

Resolutions May establish rules regarding the
procedures for adopting, amending or
repealing resolutions.

May establish procedures for adopting,
amending or repealing resolutions. Brougher
v. Bd. of Public Works, 205 Cal. 426 (1928).

Quorum and Voting
Requirements
A majority of the city council constitutes a
quorum for transaction of business. Cal.

Gov’t Code § 36810.

All ordinances, resolutions, and orders for
the payment of money require a recorded
majority vote of the total membership of the
city council. Cal. Gov't Code § 36936.

Specific legislation requires supermajority
votes for certain actions.

May establish own procedures and quorum
requirements. However, certain legislation
requiring supermajority votes is applicable to
charter cities. For example, see California
Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.240
requiring a vote of two-thirds of all the
members of the governing body unless a
greater vote is required by charter.

6 Characteristic General Law City Charter City
Rules Governing
Procedure and Decorum
Ralph Brown Act is applicable. Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 54951, 54953(a).

Conflict of interest laws are applicable. See
Cal. Gov’t Code § 87300 et seq..

Ralph Brown Act is applicable. Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 54951, 54953(a).

Conflict of interest laws are applicable. See
Cal. Gov’t Code § 87300 et seq..

May provide provisions related to ethics,
conflicts, campaign financing and
incompatibility of office.

Personnel Matters May establish standards, requirements and procedures for hiring personnel consistent
with Government Code requirements.

May have “civil service” system, which
includes comprehensive procedures for
recruitment, hiring, testing and promotion.

See Cal. Gov't Code § 45000 et seq.

Meyers-Milias-Brown Act applies. Cal. Gov't
Code § 3500.

Cannot require employees be residents of
the city, but can require them to reside within
a reasonable and specific distance of their
place of employment. Cal. Const. art. XI, §
10(b).

May establish standards, requirements, and
procedures, including compensation, terms
and conditions of employment for personnel.

See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).

Procedures set forth in Meyers-Milias-Brown
Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 3500) apply, but note,
“[T]here is a clear distinction between the
substance of a public employee labor issue
and the procedure by which it is resolved.

Thus there is no question that 'salaries of
local employees of a charter city constitute
municipal affairs and are not subject to
general laws.'” Voters for Responsible
Retirement v. Board of Supervisors, 8
Cal.4th 765, 781 (1994).

Cannot require employees be residents of
the city, but can require them to reside within
a reasonable and specific distance of their
place of employment. Cal. Const. art. XI,
section 10(b).

Contracting Services Authority to enter into contracts to carry out necessary functions, including those
expressly granted and those implied by
necessity. See Cal. Gov't Code § 37103;
Carruth v. City of Madera, 233 Cal. App. 2d
688 (1965).

Full authority to contract consistent with
charter.

May transfer some of its functions to the
county including tax collection, assessment
collection and sale of property for nonpayment of taxes and assessments. Cal.

Gov't Code §§ 51330, 51334, 51335.

7 Characteristic General Law City Charter City
Public Contracts Competitive bidding required for public works contracts over $5,000. Cal. Pub. Cont. Code
§ 20162. Such contracts must be awarded to
the lowest responsible bidder. Pub. Cont.

Code § 20162. If city elects subject itself to
uniform construction accounting procedures,
less formal procedures may be available for
contracts less than $100,000. See Cal. Pub.

Cont. Code §§ 22000, 22032.

Contracts for professional services such as
private architectural, landscape architectural,
engineering, environmental, land surveying,
or construction management firms need not
be competitively bid, but must be awarded
on basis of demonstrated competence and
professional qualifications necessary for the
satisfactory performance of services. Cal.

Gov't Code § 4526.

Not required to comply with bidding statutes
provided the city charter or a city ordinance
exempts the city from such statutes, and the
subject matter of the bid constitutes a
municipal affair. Pub. Cont. Code § 1100.7;
see R & A Vending Services, Inc. v. City of
Los Angeles, 172 Cal. App. 3d 1188 (1985);
Howard Contracting, Inc. v. G.A. MacDonald
Constr. Co., 71 Cal. App. 4th 38 (1998).

Payment of Prevailing
Wages
In general, prevailing wages must be paid on
public works projects over $1,000. Cal. Lab.

Code § 1771. Higher thresholds apply
($15,000 or $25,000) if the public entity has
adopted a special labor compliance program.

See Cal. Labor Code § 1771.5(a)-(c).

Historically, charter cities have not been
bound by state law prevailing-wage
requirements so long as the project is a
municipal affair, and not one funded by state
or federal grants. Vial v. City of San Diego,
122 Cal. App. 3d 346, 348 (1981). However,
there is a growing trend on the part of the
courts and the Legislature to expand the
applicability of prevailing wages to charter
cities under an analysis that argues that the
payment of prevailing wages is a matter of
statewide concern. State currently prohibits
construction funding (SB 7) if prevailing
wage not used.

8 Characteristic General Law City Charter City
Finance and Taxing Power May impose the same kinds of taxes and assessment as charter cities. See Cal. Gov't
Code § 37100.5.

Imposition of taxes and assessments subject
to Proposition 218. Cal. Const. art.XIIIC.

Examples of common forms used in
assessment district financing include:
 Improvement Act of 1911. Cal. Sts.
& High. Code § 22500 et seq..
 Municipal Improvement Act of 1913.

See Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§
10000 et seq..
 Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Cal.

Sts. & High. Code §§ 8500 et seq..
 Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972. Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§
22500 et seq..
 Benefit Assessment Act of 1982.

Cal. Gov't Code §§ 54703 et seq..

May impose business license taxes for
regulatory purposes, revenue purposes, or
both. See Cal. Gov't Code § 37101.

May not impose real property transfer tax.

See Cal. Const. art. XIIIA, § 4; Cal. Gov't
Code § 53725; but see authority to impose
documentary transfer taxes under certain
circumstances. Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §
11911(a), (c).

Have the power to tax.

Have broader assessment powers than a
general law city, as well as taxation power as
determined on a case-by case basis.

Imposition of taxes and assessments subject
to Proposition 218, Cal. Const. art. XIIIC, §
2, and own charter limitations
May proceed under a general assessment
law, or enact local assessment laws and
then elect to proceed under the local law.

See J.W. Jones Companies v. City of San
Diego, 157 Cal. App. 3d 745 (1984).

May impose business license taxes for any
purpose unless limited by state or federal
constitutions, or city charter. See Cal. Const.
art. XI, § 5.

May impose real property transfer tax; does
not violate either Cal. Const art. XIIIA or
California Government Code section 53725.

See Cohn v. City of Oakland, 223 Cal. App.
3d 261 (1990); Fielder v. City of Los
Angeles, 14 Cal. App. 4th 137 (1993).

Streets & Sidewalks State has preempted entire field of traffic control. Cal. Veh. Code § 21.

State has preempted entire field of traffic
control. Cal. Veh. Code § 21.

Penalties & Cost Recovery May impose fines, penalties and forfeitures, with a fine not exceeding $1,000. Cal. Gov’t
Code § 36901.

May enact ordinances providing for various
penalties so long as such penalties do not
exceed any maximum limits set by the
charter. County of Los Angeles v. City of Los
Angeles, 219 Cal. App. 2d 838, 844 (1963).

9 Characteristic General Law City Charter City
Public Utilities/Franchises May establish, purchase, and operate public works to furnish its inhabitants with electric
power. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 9(a); Cal.

Gov't Code § 39732; Cal. Pub. Util. Code §
10002.

May grant franchises to persons or
corporations seeking to furnish light, water,
power, heat, transportation or
communication services in the city to allow
use of city streets for such purposes. The
grant of franchises can be done through a
bidding process, under the Broughton Act,
Cal. Pub. Util. Code §§ 6001-6092, or
without a bidding process under the
Franchise Act of 1937, Cal. Pub. Util. Code
§§ 6201-6302.

May establish, purchase, and operate public
works to furnish its inhabitants with electric
power. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 9(a); Cal.

Apartment Ass’n v. City of Stockton, 80 Cal.

App. 4th 699 (2000).

May establish conditions and regulations on
the granting of franchises to use city streets
to persons or corporations seeking to furnish
light, water, power, heat, transportation or
communication services in the city.

Franchise Act of 1937 is not applicable if
charter provides. Cal. Pub. Util. Code §
6205.

Zoning Zoning ordinances must be consistent with
general plan. Cal. Gov't Code § 65860.

Zoning ordinances are not required to be
consistent with general plan unless the city
has adopted a consistency requirement by
charter or ordinance. Cal. Gov’t. Code §
65803.

Codes Display Text 5/7/24, 10:31 AM
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=4.&part=1.&chapter=2.&article= Page 1 of 3 Code: Select Code Section: 1 or 2 or 1001 Search
34450.
34451.
34452.
34453.
34454.

Up^ Add To My Favorites

GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV
TITLE 4. GOVERNMENT OF CITIES [34000 - 45345] ( Title 4 added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 79. ) DIVISION 2. ORGANIZATION AND BOUNDARIES [34400 - 34906] ( Division 2 added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 79. ) PART 1. ORGANIZATION [34400 - 34906] ( Part 1 added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 79. ) CHAPTER 2. City or City and County Charters [34450 - 34462] ( Chapter 2 repealed and added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 357, Sec. 10. )
Any city or city and county may enact, amend, or repeal a charter for its own government according to this article or Article 3 (commencing with Section 9255) of Chapter 3 of Division 9 of the Elections Code. (Amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 923, Sec. 63. Effective January 1, 1995.) The charter may be proposed by a charter commission chosen by the voters of the city or city and county, at any general or special election, but no person shall be eligible as a candidate for the commission unless he or she is a registered voter of the city or city and county. (Repealed and added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 357, Sec. 10.)
(a) An election for choosing charter commissioners may be called by a majority vote of the governing body of a city or city and county, or on presentation of a petition signed by not less than 15 percent of the registered voters of the city or city and county. The petition shall be verified by the authority having charge of the registration records of the city or city and county and the expenses of the verification shall be provided by the governing body thereof. The governing body shall call an election pursuant to Sections 1000 and 10403 of the Elections Code. (b) If any vacancy arises in a charter commission established for a city or city and county pursuant to this chapter, the vacancy shall be filled by an appointment by the mayor of the city or city and county. (Amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 923, Sec. 64. Effective January 1, 1995.) At an election the voters shall vote first on the question “Shall a charter commission be elected to propose a new charter?” and, secondly, for the candidates of the office of charter commissioner. If the first question receives a majority of the votes of the qualified voters voting thereon at the election, the 15 candidates for the office of charter commissioner receiving the highest number of votes shall forthwith organize as a charter commission.

However, if the first question receives less than a majority of the votes of the qualified voters voting thereon at the election no charter commission shall be deemed to have been elected. (Repealed and added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 357, Sec. 10.)
Candidates for the office of charter commissioner shall be nominated either in the same manner provided for the nomination of officers of the municipal or city and county government, or by petition substantially in the same manner provided by general laws for the nomination by petition of candidates for public offices to be voted for at general elections.
(Repealed and added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 357, Sec. 10.)
Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites

Codes Display Text 5/7/24, 10:31 AM
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=4.&part=1.&chapter=2.&article= Page 2 of 3 34455.
34456.
34457.
34458.
34458.5.
34459.
34460.

The charter commissioners shall propose a charter and may propose amendments to a charter, for the government of the city or city and county. The charter so prepared shall be signed by a majority of the charter commissioners and shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the governing body of the city or city and county. (Repealed and added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 357, Sec. 10.)
In any city or city and county, the governing body shall cause copies of the charter to be printed in type of not less than 10-point. If the governing body causes copies of the proposed charter to be mailed to the voters, the text of the proposed charter may show the difference from existing provisions of law by the use of distinguishing type styles.
(Repealed and added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 357, Sec. 10.)
After the charter prepared by the charter commission has been filed in the office of the clerk of the governing body of the city or city and county pursuant to Section 34455, the proposed charter shall be submitted to the voters of the city or city and county at the next established statewide general election pursuant to Section 1200 of the Elections Code, provided there are at least 95 days before the election. (Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 184, Sec. 4. (SB 311) Effective January 1, 2014.) (a) As an alternative to the procedure provided for in Sections 34450 to 34457, inclusive, the governing body of a city or city and county, on its own motion may propose or cause to be proposed, amend or cause to be amended, or repeal or cause to be repealed, a charter, and may submit the proposal for the adoption, amendment, or repeal thereof, to the voters at the next established statewide general election pursuant to Section 1200 of the Elections Code, provided there are at least 88 days before the election, or, for a proposal described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 1415 of the Elections Code, at an election specified in that paragraph. (b) Prior to approving the submission to the voters of a proposal to adopt a charter, the governing body shall hold at least two public hearings on the matter of the proposal of a charter and the content of the proposed charter.

Notice of the public hearings shall be given by publication pursuant to Section 6066, in a newspaper designated by the governing body and circulated throughout the city, and by posting the notice in three public places within the jurisdiction at least 21 calendar days prior to the date of each public hearing. The second public hearing shall be held at least 30 days after the first public hearing. At least one of the public hearings shall be held outside of normal business hours to facilitate public participation. The governing body shall not conduct a vote on whether to approve the submission to the voters of the proposal to adopt a charter until 21 days after the second public hearing.
(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 184, Sec. 5. (SB 311) Effective January 1, 2014.) A proposal to adopt or amend a charter, whether submitted to the voters pursuant to Section 34457 or 34458, shall include in the ballot description an enumeration of new city powers as a result of the adoption of the charter, including, but not limited to, whether the city council will, pursuant to an adopted charter, have the power to raise its own compensation and the compensation of other city officials without voter approval. (Added by Stats. 2011, Ch. 692, Sec. 6. (AB 1344) Effective January 1, 2012.) If the voters vote in favor of the charter proposal, amendment, or repeal, it shall be deemed to be ratified, but shall not take effect until accepted and filed by the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 34460. (Repealed and added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 357, Sec. 10.)
Three copies of the complete text of a charter proposal or of any amended or repealed section ratified by the voters of a city or city and county shall be certified and authenticated by the chairperson and the clerk of the governing body and attested by the city clerk, setting forth the submission of the charter to the voters of the city, and its ratification by them. One copy shall be recorded with the recorder of the county in which the city is located, and one filed in the archives of the city. In the case of a city and county, one copy shall be recorded with the recorder thereof, and one filed in the archives of the city and county. The third copy shall be filed with the Secretary

Codes Display Text 5/7/24, 10:31 AM
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=2.&title=4.&part=1.&chapter=2.&article= Page 3 of 3 34461.
34462.
of State. Each copy recorded with the recorder of the county or city and county and filed in the archives of the city or city and county shall be filed with the following:
(a) Certified copies of all publications and notices required of the city by this chapter or by the laws of this state in connection with the calling of an election to propose, amend, or repeal a city charter. (b) Certified copies of any arguments for or against the charter proposal, amendment, or repeal that were mailed to voters pursuant to Sections 9281 and 13303 of the Elections Code. (c) A certified abstract of the vote at the election at which the charter proposal, amendment, or repeal was approved by the voters.
(Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 330, Sec. 5. (SB 1090) Effective January 1, 2013.) A charter proposal, amendment, or repeal by the voters of a city or city and county and submitted to the Secretary of State in compliance with this chapter shall be accepted and filed by the Secretary of State. The charter proposal, amendment, or repeal shall be published in the statutes in a charter chapter series under the designation “Statutes of ____ (year), Charter Chapter ____. ” Under the chapter number, the date of the ratification election and the date of filing with the Secretary of State shall be indicated.

After a charter proposal, amendment, or repeal is accepted and filed by the Secretary of State, the courts shall take judicial notice thereof.
(Repealed and added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 357, Sec. 10.)
(a) A charter commission established for a city and county pursuant to this chapter shall complete a proposed or amended charter and submit the charter to the voters of the city and county within two years of the date of the election of the charter commissioners, and at the expiration of that period is abolished. (b) A charter commission may submit portions of the proposed or amended charter to the voters periodically. (Repealed and added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 357, Sec. 10.)

SAMPLE CHARTER

TOWN OF ATHERTON

PREAMBLE
The Town of Atherton was incorporated as a general law city in 1923 by residents seeking the right to manage local affairs. The authority of general law cities has diminished as a result of increasing State mandates and involvement in local matters. In order to reclaim the local autonomy sought through incorporation and to preserve the right of the people to present grievances to the most responsive level of government, we, the citizens of the Town of Atherton, enact this Charter.

ARTICLE 1
Acceptance of Home Rule
Except as restricted by this Charter, the Town shall have all powers allowable under the Constitution of the State of California to adopt ordinances, establish rules, grant franchises, structure Town government, and in every way to govern the municipal affairs of the Town.

Municipal affairs encompass all matters of local concern as determined by the City Council consistent with the meaning of "municipal affairs" under the constitutional, statutory, and judicially defined law of the State of California.

Nothing in this Charter is intended to restrict the Town in exercising any right, power or authority granted under the general laws of the State of California. However, the provisions of this Charter shall prevail in the event of any conflict with general law.

ARTICLE II
Structure of City Government
The Town shall continue to be governed by a council of five members, four Councilmembers and a Mayor, elected at large. The City Council shall appoint a City Manager and a City Attorney. The City Manager, as the chief administrative officer of the Town, shall appoint all department heads other than the City Attorney. Involvement in administrative matters by the Council or by any individual Councilmember shall occur only by direction of the City Manager.

ARTICLE III
Selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor
The Mayor and Vice Mayor shall be elected from among the Councilmembers by a majority vote of the members of the Council. They serve for a one-year period and at the pleasure of the Council.

The City Council shall adopt and regularly affirm all policies applicable to the role of members of the City Council.

ARTICLE IV
Public Contracting
The City Council, by ordinance, shall establish the procedures, including any competitive bidding requirements, to be followed by the Town in awarding public contracts of any nature, including those for construction of public works.

ARTICLE V
Continuation of Existing Law
All ordinances, resolutions, rules, policies and regulations of the Town in effect as of the effective date of this Charter shall continue in effect until repealed or amended.

ARTICLE VI
Interpretation
The provisions of this Charter shall be interpreted broadly to favor the exercise of home rule. If any provision is found by a court to be invalid, the remaining provisions of the Charter shall remain in full force and effect.

DRAFT CHARTER – TOWN OF ATHERTON

PREAMBLE
We the people of the Town of Atherton declare our intent to restore to our community the historic principles of self-governance inherent in the doctrine of home-rule. Sincerely committed to the belief that local government has the closest affinity to the people governed, and firm in the conviction that the economic and fiscal independence of our local government will promote the health, safety and welfare of all the citizens of this City, we do hereby exercise the express right granted by the Constitution of the State of California to enact and adopt this Charter for the Town of Atherton.

Article I - MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS: GENERALLY
Section 100. Municipal Affairs. The Town shall have full power and authority to adopt, make, exercise, and enforce all legislation, laws, and regulations and to take all actions relating to municipal affairs, without limitation, which may be lawfully adopted, made, exercised, taken or enforced under the Constitution of the State of California. Without limiting in any manner the foregoing power and authority, each of the powers, rights, and responsibilities set forth and described in this Charter, and as established by the Constitutional, statutory, and judicially defined law of the State of California, is hereby declared to be a municipal affair or concern, the performance of which is unique to the benefit and welfare of the citizens of the Town of Atherton. Additionally, an intent of this Charter is to allow the City Council and the voters to exercise the maximum degree of local control over land use matters within the Town.

Section 101. Interpretation. The language contained in this Charter is intended to be construed broadly in favor of the exercise by the Town of its power to govern with respect to any matter which is a municipal affair.

Section 102. Residential Character of Town. The provisions of this Charter shall recognize and require preservation of the Town’s character as a scenic, rural, thickly wooded predominantly residential community with abundant open space.

Article II – FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Section 200. Council-Mananger. The municipal government established by this Charter shall be in the form of a “Council-Manager” form of government. The City Council shall establish the policies of the City and the City Manager shall carry out such policies.

Section 201. City Council. The Council shall be comprised of five (5) Councilmembers and shall be the legislative body of the Town. Councilmembers shall serve without compensation, except that they be reimbursed for expenses arising from Town business, such as attendance at approved out-of-town meetings or conferences. No former Councilmember may hold any compensated appointed Town position or regular Town employment until at least one (1) year after the being out of the office of Councilmember.

Section 202. Mayor, Vice Mayor. The City Council shall, at its first regular meeting in December succeeding its election, elect from its members a Mayor to preside at meetings of the Council and to be recognized as head of the Town government for all ceremonial purposes, and a Vice Mayor to act as Mayor in the absence of or disability of the Mayor. Other than administrative duties set forth in the Municipal Code, the Mayor and Vice Mayor shall have no additional powers or authority different from other members of the City Council.

Section 203. Legislation. In addition to other acts required by law to be done by ordinance, acts which provide for the following shall be done by ordinance:
(a) Provide for a criminal or civil penalty, or adopt any rule or regulation violation of which results in a criminal or civil penalty.
(b) Levy any tax.
(c) Regulate the use of property or regulate conduct of persons.

No ordinance shall be passed without receiving the affirmative vote of at least three (3) Councilmembers.

Ordinances and resolutions need not be read either in whole or part prior to their adoption unless otherwise required by law.

Section 204. City Manager. There shall be a City Manager who shall be the chief administrative officer of the Town. The Council shall choose the City Manager without regard to political consideration and with reference solely to qualifications for the office. The procedure for appointment and removal of the City Manager, and the scope of authority and the job duties and responsibilities shall be as set forth by Ordinance in the Atherton Municipal Code.

Section 205. Interference with City Manager. Neither the Mayor nor any Councilmember shall interfere with the execution of the powers and duties of the City Manager, and the City Manager shall take his or her direction from the City Council as a whole and based on policy created in a public meeting. Except for purposes of inquiry, the Mayor and Councilmembers shall deal with the Town employees, contractors, and staff solely through the City Manager, and neither the Mayor nor any Councilmember shall give any order or instruction to any subordinate of the City Manager.

Section 206. City Attorney. There shall be a City Attorney appointed by the City Council. The City Attorney shall have been licensed to practice law in California for at least 5 years next preceding appointment and shall have been in actual practice in the field of public agency law, preferably municipal law, for at least the last 3 years. The City Attorney shall be the legal advisor to the City Council, all other Town officials, boards and commissions Article III – REVENUE AND FINANCE

Section 301. Public Financing. The Town shall have the power to establish standards, procedures, rules or regulations related to financing of public improvements and services.

Section 302. Utility Franchises. The Town shall have the power to adopt any ordinance providing for the acquisition, development, or operation by the Town of any public utility, or any ordinance providing for the granting of a franchise to any public utility not owned by the Town which proposes to use or is using Town streets, highways or other rights-of-way.

Section 303. Enterprises. The Town shall have the power to engage in any enterprise deemed necessary to produce revenues for the general fund or any other fund established by the City Council to promote a public purpose.

Section 304. Contracts. The City Council shall have the power to establish standards, procedures, and rules or regulations pertaining to all aspects of the award and performance of contracts, including contracts for the construction of public works and public improvements, including, but not limited to, compensation paid for performance of such works. The provisions of the Public Contract Code shall not automatically apply to Town contracts unless specified by ordinance or unless called for in bid specifications or request for proposals. The Town shall have the power to establish standards, procedures, rules or regulations to regulate all aspects of the bidding, award and performance of any public works contract, including, but not limited to, the compensation rates to be paid for the performance of such work.

Section 305. Reductions Prohibited. Any revenue raised or collected by the City Council shall not be subject to subtraction, retention, attachment, withdrawal or any other form of involuntary reduction by any other level of government.

Section 306. Mandates Limited. No person, whether elected or appointed, acting on behalf of the Town shall be required to perform any function which is mandated by any other level of government unless and until funds sufficient for the performance of such function are provided by the mandating authority.

Section 307. Financial Resources. It shall be the duty, obligation, and responsibility of the City Council to develop plans and programs, provide adequate financial resources for, and to implement fully such plans and programs as are necessary to accomplish the duties and obligations set forth in this Charter and in State and Federal laws.

Section 308. Prevailing Wages. Unless required by law, the Town retains the right to not require payment of prevailing wages on public works projects when the City Council finds it is in the best interests of the Town and the project in question constitutes a municipal affair and is not funded by state or federal grants.

Article IV - General Laws
Section 400. General Law Powers. In addition to the power and authority granted by the terms of this Charter and the constitution of the State of California, the City shall have the power and authority to adopt, make, exercise and enforce all legislation, laws and regulations and to take all

actions and to exercise any and all rights, powers, and privileges heretofore or hereafter established, granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California or by any other lawful authority. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Charter and the provisions of the general laws of the State of California, the provisions of this Charter shall control.

Article V - Interpretation
Section 500. Construction and Interpretation. The language contained in this Charter is intended to be permissive rather than exclusive or limiting and shall be liberally and broadly construed in favor of the exercise by the City of its power to govern with respect to any matter which is a municipal affair.

Section 501. Severability. If any provision of this Charter should be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

Item No. 6
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – REGULAR AGENDA
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROBERT OVADIA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2024
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE COUNTYWIDE AND TOWN OF ATHERTON

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND DESIGNATION OF

SAFETY CORRIDORS

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council Adopt a resolution “Adopting the Countywide and Town of Atherton Local Roadway Safety Plan and accompanying Vision Zero Goal”, and designating “Safety Corridors” in the Town of Atherton.

BACKGROUND
A Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies and systematically analyzes roadway safety needs and develops a prioritized list of safety countermeasures. An LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates an agency’s responsiveness to safety challenges through local agency partnerships and collaboration. The completion and adoption of the countywide LRSP allows jurisdictions in the County to be eligible for grant funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) OBAG 3 County & Local Program, and future funding for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement Program and US Department of Transportation Safe Streets for All (SS4A).

C/CAG has recommended, upon their adoption on June 13, that local jurisdictions adopt the attached local resolution cosigning the Countywide LRSP, noting agreement with the vision/goals, countywide High Injury Network, prioritization method, and relevant proposed actions that pertain to local agencies. This serves as an interim measure to meet grant requirements.

The California Vehicle Code outlines the requirements for setting speed limits on local roadways. If jurisdictions wish to enforce using radar, an Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) must be conducted and updated regularly (see CVC § 627 and CVC § 40802). Most roadways in California require an E&TS to justify radar enforcement. If no valid E&TS exists and radar enforcement is pursued, this is considered a “speed trap” (which is not legal in California).

However, some roadway types do not require an E&TS for radar enforcement - these roadways

Local Roadway Safety Plan and Speed Limits
NOVEMBER 20, 2024

are therefore exempt from this requirement of the speed trap provisions.

For local roads and in certain prima facie zones (i.e., railroad crossings with an obstructed view, uncontrolled intersections with an obstructed view, and alleys), the prima facie speed limits apply even in the absence of actual speed limit signage.

In other prima facie zones (i.e., business districts and school, senior, and playground zones), prima facie speed limits apply only when speed limit signage is present Recent legislation allows jurisdictions to consider reduction of speed limits set via an E&TS on certain streets. Specifically, jurisdictions can consider reductions of 5 miles per hour in dense (as defined) residential districts, Business and Business Activity Districts, Senior Zones, and Safety Corridors. Legislation also allows for the establishment of 15 mile per hour limits in School Zones (within 500 feet of a school, when children are present), and 25 miles per hour up to 1,000 feet from school grounds.

ANALYSIS
Local Roadway Safety Plan
The Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Committee received a presentation regarding the development of the San Mateo County City/County Association of Governments’ (C/CAG) Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), as well as the Town’s draft LRSP at its April 23, 2024, meeting, as part of the public outreach phase for the development of the documents. The Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Committee reviewed the draft Town of Atherton Local Roadway Safety Plan (Plan) at their September 24, 2024, meeting and recommended that the Plan be forwarded to the City Council for adoption.

The draft Town of Atherton Local Roadway Safety Plan was developed concurrently with the Countywide LRSP and refers to the Countywide LRSP for some discussion items. The LRSP has been developed as a living document that is flexible and responsive to evolving community needs.

It is recommended that the LRSP be revisited at least every five years.

The Town of Atherton has a 2023 population of 6,678 per California Department of Finance and has a total of 51 centerline miles of roadways per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 121 reported crashes on surface streets in the Town and 4 fatal/severe injury crashes. Pedestrians were involved in 10 percent of all reported crashes and 50 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. Bicyclists were involved in 21 percent of all reported crashes and no fatal/severe injury crashes. Of reported at-grade crashes, 36 (30 percent) occurred on or along state highways. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Atherton’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.

As outlined in the draft LRSP, the Town of Atherton’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2050

Local Roadway Safety Plan and Speed Limits
NOVEMBER 20, 2024

• Promote a culture of roadway safety in Atherton’s departments, educational institutions, and residents
To support this vision, the following goals are included in the draft LRSP:

1. Regularly review crash history and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages and abilities.

2. Implement safety countermeasures systemically and as part of all projects to target emphasis areas and underserved communities.

3. Promote plan recommendations with identified safety partners to incorporate roadway safety through safety projects and educational campaigns in Atherton.

4. Provide opportunities for community engagement to identify issues and inform safety solutions across the community.

5. Embrace the Safe System approach to promote engineering and non-engineering strategies in the community.

6. Identify opportunities to incorporate social equity into safety improvements.

7. Monitor implementation of the Atherton LRSP to track progress towards goals.

The majority of these goals are currently part of ongoing Town activities and processes.

Together, C/CAG, its 21 local jurisdictions, and partner agencies will work to:
• Identify safety improvements, strategies, and programs using the Safe System Approach to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries on local roads. • Enhance the existing roadway network in a cost-effective manner that promotes traffic safety and social equity, meets the needs of the community, and enriches the lives of residents.
• Promote a culture across agencies and communities that puts roadway safety first in all actions.

C/CAG will lead, coordinate, and support each of its 21 local jurisdictions in achieving their respective vision and goals to reduce or eliminate fatalities and severe injury crashes across all public roadways.

Safety Corridors
The draft LRSP identifies a combined High Injury Network (HIN) for pedestrians, cyclists, and motor vehicles, as well as priority segments and intersections. Identified locations include certain local streets and intersections that are within Town control, locations under shared jurisdictional control, as well as along state highways that traverse the Town. Identification of these street segments and intersections assists the Town in prioritizing potential safety countermeasures, improvements and in applying for funding. The Town is already in the process of either studying, designing, and constructing improvements along some of these routes, including:
• El Camino Real – via the ongoing Complete Streets Gap Closure Study

Local Roadway Safety Plan and Speed Limits
NOVEMBER 20, 2024

• Alameda de las Pulgas - via the Alameda de las Pulgas Traffic and Safety Improvements project currently under design
• Valparaiso Avenue Slurry Seal – cooperative project with Meno Park which is currently under construction and includes the installation of bike lane buffers from El Camino Real to Elena Avenue
Proposed Safety Corridors are consistent with the High Injury Network and priority locations identified in the Local Roadway Safety Plan and include the following streets:

Street Limits
Alameda de las Pulgas Stockbridge Ave to Camino al Lago Marsh Road Middlefield Road to Town Limit
Middlefield Road Encinal Ave to Ringwood Ave
Oak Grove Avenue Town Limit to Edge Road
Valparaiso Avenue El Camino Real to Town Limit
The Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Committee reviewed the list of streets proposed for “Safety Corridor” designation, with the exception of Marsh Road which was inadvertently omitted from the list at their September 24, 2024, meeting and recommended that the City Council designate the streets as “Safety Corridors.”
Speed Limits
As noted above, the Town may reduce speeds by up to 5 miles per hour along designated Safety Corridors. The HIN can be considered as starting point in such designations. Legislation limits the number of streets that can be considered as Safety Corridors to 5% of the local roadways.

With the pending completion of the Valparaiso Slurry Seal project, Menlo Park would like to reduce the speed limit along Valparaiso Avenue from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour.

Menlo Park has already designated Valparaiso Avenue as a Safety Corridor. The Town would need to do so as well to maintain a consistent speed limit of 25 miles per hour on both sides of the street.

The current speed limit and potential speed limits for the proposed “Safety Corridors” are as follows:

Street Limits Posted
Speed Limit
Potential
Speed Limit
Alameda de las
Pulgas
Stockbridge Ave to Camino al
Lago
30 mph 25 mph
Marsh Road Middlefield Road to Town Limit 30 mph 25 mph Middlefield Road Encinal Ave to Ringwood Ave 30 mph 25 mph Oak Grove Avenue* Town Limit to Edge Road 25 mph 20 mph Valparaiso Avenue* El Camino Real to Town Limit 30 mph 25 mph As noted above, the Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Committee reviewed the above

Local Roadway Safety Plan and Speed Limits
NOVEMBER 20, 2024

list of streets proposed for “Safety Corridor” designation, with the exception of Marsh Road, and discussed the potential of reducing speed limits along the corridors. They elected not to make a recommendation to reduce the speed limits at this time. It is noted that designation of Safety Corridors does not require revision of speed limits and provides flexibility to either revise in the future or allow for retention of existing limits should speed limit adjustment be required by a future ET&S. It is noted that Valparaiso Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue are partially within the City of Menlo Park’s jurisdiction and speed limit adjustments, depending on limits, would require coordination with the City of Menlo Park.

The Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Committee also discussed the potential of reducing speed limits in school zones to 15 mph and deferred any recommendations to a future meeting to allow for additional consideration. School Zones under consideration include:

Street School Posted Speed Limit
Camino al Lago* Las Lomitas Elementary 25 mph
Edge Road Laurel Elementary 25 mph
Encinal Avenue Encinal Elementary 25 mph
Oak Grove Avenue Menlo-Atherton High School 25 mph
Ringwood Avenue* Menlo-Atherton High School and Laurel
Elementary
25 mph
Selby Lane Adelante-Selby School 30 mph
It is noted that Camino al Lago is partially within the unincorporated area of San Mateo County and would require coordination with San Mateo County to adjust the speed limit. Similarly, the Town’s jurisdiction along Ringwood Avenue is limited and coordination with both San Mateo County and the City of Menlo Park would be required to make desired speed limit adjustments.

Additional streets that can be considered include but are not limited to:

Street School Posted Speed Limit
Emilie Avenue Sacred Heart / St. Joseph 25 mph
Park Road Sacred Heart/ St. Joseph 25 mph
Elena Avenue Sacred Heart 25 mph
With the exception of direction regarding Valparaiso in coordination with Menlo Park, it is not recommended that the Council act on any specific speed limit reduction at this time. The Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee is expected to provide a recommendation to the Council at a future meeting. However, the Council is welcome to provide feedback to staff that can be provided to the Committee at their future meeting with respect to speed limit adjustments along Safety Corridors and in School Zones, if any.

FISCAL IMPACT
None at this time.

Local Roadway Safety Plan and Speed Limits
NOVEMBER 20, 2024

GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal Area B – Preserve Small Town Character and Quality of Life • Goal Area D – Manage Circulation and Improve Safety

POLICY FOCUS
The Council’s focus would be on the intent to adopt a Local Roadway Safety Plan/Vision Zero Plan, maintain eligibility for various roadway safety grant programs, and the desire to maintain or reduce speeds along designated Safety Corridors and in School Zones.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately 1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders –to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE FEEDBACK/REFERRAL
Transportation Committee (meets every other month)

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Atherton Local Roadway Safety Plan

2. C/CAG Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan

3. Draft Resolution adopting the Town of Atherton Local Roadway Safety Plan and designating “Safety Corridors”

Town of
Atherton

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
DRAFT
MARCH 2024

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ 2 List of Tables.......................................................................................................................... 2 Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. 3 C/CAG Project Management Team........................................................................................................3 Advisory Group Members................................................................................................................................3 Local Jurisdiction Representatives.......................................................................................................3 Partner Agency Representatives ...........................................................................................................3 Consultant Team...................................................................................................................................................1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc...........................................................................................................................1 Safe Streets Research & Consulting.....................................................................................................1 Circlepoint..............................................................................................................................................................1 Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................................1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 Contents .....................................................................................................................................................................2 Vision & Goals....................................................................................................................... 3 Plan Development ............................................................................................................... 3 Existing Safety Efforts..........................................................................................................................................3 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................4 Community Engagement and Input........................................................................................................5 Engagement Timeline and Events........................................................................................................5 Online Map Survey...........................................................................................................................................6 Phase 2 Community Engagement Feedback...............................................................................6 Crash Data & Trends ............................................................................................................7 Emphasis Areas .....................................................................................................................................................7 Countywide High Injury Network.................................................................................................................11 Project Identification & Prioritization .............................................................................13 Methodology.......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Social Equity ...........................................................................................................................................................15 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................15 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs .......................................................19 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox.................................................................................................19

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2
Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations......................................... 22 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ........................................................................................................... 22 Implementation & Monitoring......................................................................................... 25

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A Phase 2 pop-up event held at the Atherton Public Library.......................................................................................................4 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 3. Countywide HIN within the Town of Atherton.......................................................................................................................................12 Figure 4. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)........................................................................13 Figure 5. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) ............................................................................... 14 Figure 6. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................ 14 Figure 7: Atherton Priority Locations ............................................................................................................................................................................... 18

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Town of Atherton Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs...............................................................3 Table 2. C/CAG Public Engagement Events................................................................................................................................................................5 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Atherton ......................................................................................................................................................11 Table 4. Priority Locations...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 5. Town of Atherton Policy and Program Recommendations ........................................................................................................22 Table 6. Town of Atherton Goals and Measures of Success......................................................................................................................... 25

APPENDICES
Appendix A Webmap Comments
Appendix B Phase 2 Engagement Comments
Appendix C Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis
Appendix D Prioritization Results

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C/CAG Project
Management Team
Jeff Lacap
Eva Gaye
Advisory Group Members

LOCAL JURISDICTION

REPRESENTATIVES
Robert Ovadia, Town of Atherton
Matt Hoang, City of Belmont
Tracy Scramaglia, City of Belmont
Karen Kinser, City of Brisbane
Tomas Santoyo, City of Brisbane
Andrew Wong, City of Burlingame
Abdulkader Hashem, Town of Colma
Richard Chiu, Jr.; City of Daly City
Irene Chiu, City of East Palo Alto
Humza Javed, City of East Palo Alto
Anwar Mirza, City of East Palo Alto
Justin Lai, City of Foster City
Francine Magno, City of Foster City
Amy Zhou, City of Foster City
Maz Bozorginia, City of Half Moon Bay
Jonathan Woo, City of Half Moon Bay
Paul Willis, Town of Hillsborough
Matthew Hui, City of Menlo Park
Sam Bautista, City of Millbrae
Lisa Peterson, City of Pacifica
Howard Young, Town of Portola Valley
Malahat Owrang, City of Redwood City
Hae Won, City of San Bruno
Harry Yip, City of San Bruno
Hanieh Houshmandi, City of San Carlos
Steven Machida, City of San Carlos
Bethany Lopez, City of San Mateo
Azalea Mitch, City of San Mateo
Jeff Chou, City of South San Francisco
Matthew Ruble, City of South San Francisco
Yazdan Emrani, Town of Woodside
Sindhi Mekala, Town of Woodside
Diana Shu, County of San Mateo

PARTNER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Office of
Sustainability
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jess Manzi, SamTrans
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1
Consultant Team
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mike Alston
Matt Braughton
Laurence Lewis
Grace Carsky
Michael Ruiz-Leon
Doreen Gui

SAFE STREETS RESEARCH &

CONSULTING
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale

CIRCLEPOINT
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Countermeasures are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions.

Emphasis Areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions with safety issues identified based on local trends that merit special focus in the Town’s approach to reducing fatal and severe injury collisions.

Local Roadway Safety Plans, or LRSPs, are documents that provide local-level assessments of roadway safety and identify locations and strategies to improve safety on local roadways.

Crash Severity is defined by the guidelines established by the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC, Fifth Edition) and is a functional measure of the injury severity for any person involved in the crash. ▪ Fatal Collision [K] is death because of an injury sustained in a collision or an injury resulting in death within 30 days of the collision.
▪ Severe Injury [A] is an injury other than a fatal injury which results in broken bones, dislocated or distorted limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision scene. It does not include minor laceration.
▪ Other Visible Injury [B] includes bruises (discolored or swollen); places where the body has received a blow (black eyes and bloody noses); and abrasions (areas of the skin where the surface is roughened or blotchy by scratching or rubbing which includes skinned shins, knuckles, knees, and elbows). ▪ Complaint of Pain [C] classification could contain authentic internal or other non-visible injuries and fraudulent claims of injury. This includes: 1. Persons who seem dazed, confused, or incoherent (unless such behavior can be attributed to intoxication, extreme age, illness, or mental infirmities). 2. Persons who are limping but do not have visible injuries; 3. Any person who is known to have been unconscious because of the collision, although it appears he/she has recovered; 4. People who say they want to be listed as injured do not appear to be so.
▪ Property Damage Only [O] Collision is a noninjury motor vehicle traffic collision which results in property damage.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the nation’s core federal-aid programs. Caltrans administers HSIP funds in the state of California and splits the state share of HSIP funds between State HSIP (for state highways) and local HSIP (for local roads). The latter is administered through a call for projects biennially.

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1
Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision. Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation.

Safe Streets for All (SS4A) is a federal discretionary grant program created by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law with $5 billion in appropriated funds for 2022 through 2026.

Safe System Approach is a layered method for roadway safety promoted by the FHWA. This approach uses redundancies to anticipate mistakes and minimize injury. For more, visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.

Safety Partners are agencies, government bodies, businesses, and community groups that the Town can work with to plan, promote, and implement safety projects.

Strategies are non-engineering tools that can help address road user behavior, improve emergency services, and build a culture of safety.

Systemic safety defines an analysis and improvement approach based on roadway and environmental factors correlated with crash risk (rather than targeting locations solely on documented crash history). The approach takes a broad view to evaluate risk across an entire roadway system.

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2

INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the Town of Atherton. It was developed concurrently with the Countywide LRSP; therefore, some discussion will refer back to the Countywide LRSP to avoid redundancy.

However, because every community has unique safety challenges, this LRSP includes individually tailored emphasis areas, crash trends, prioritized project lists, project scope recommendations, Safe System-aligned recommendations, and implementation/monitoring recommendations. A living document, this LRSP is designed to be flexible and responsive to evolving community needs. The Town will revisit and update this LRSP at least every five years.

The Town of Atherton has a 2023 population of 6,678 per California Department of Finance. The town has 51 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 121 reported crashes on surface streets in the Town and 4 fatal/severe injury crashes. Pedestrians were involved in 10 percent of all reported crashes and 50 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. Bicyclists were involved in 21 percent of all reported crashes and no fatal/severe injury crashes. Of reported at-grade crashes, 36 (30 percent) occurred on or along state highways. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Atherton’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.

This LRSP was informed by technical analysis as well as from input from key stakeholders and the general public. The following sections describe the plan development and recommendations.

Contents
This LRSP provides the following:

Upon Council adoption and affirmation of the plan’s vision and goals in 2024, this plan will be posted online by the Town for public viewing.

A vision and associated goals
Crash data and trends
Engagement and coordination activities
Policies, plans, guidelines and standards
Safe System – aligned recommendations
Implementation and tracking
Prioritized projects and social
equity considerations

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

VISION & GOALS
The Town of Atherton’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2050. • Promote a culture of roadway safety in Atherton’s departments, educational institutions, and residents.

To support this vision, the Town has established the following goals:

1. Regularly review crash history and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages and abilities.

2. Implement safety countermeasures systemically and as part of all projects to target emphasis areas and underserved communities.

3. Promote plan recommendations with identified safety partners to incorporate roadway safety through safety projects and educational campaigns in Atherton.

4. Provide opportunities for community engagement to identify issues and inform safety solutions across the community.

5. Embrace the Safe System approach to promote engineering and non-engineering strategies in the community.

6. Identify opportunities to incorporate social equity into safety improvements.

7. Monitor implementation of the Atherton LRSP to track progress towards goals.

PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Existing Safety Efforts
This LRSP relies on the Town of Atherton’s solid foundation of plans, policies, and programs that support safe, equitable mobility in the city. For a list of Atherton’s existing initiatives and ongoing efforts to build a Safe System, see Table 1:

Table 1. Town of Atherton Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
San Mateo C/CAG
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
Program Guide
The SR2S program works to make it easier and safer for students to walk and bike to school. C/CAG partners with the County Office of Education to increase biking and walking and safe travel to school. Annual reports summarize schools’ participation.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road
Users
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master
Plan
The Town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan outlines identified needs and active transportation routes.

Safe Roads
Safe Road
Users
Neighborhood
Traffic Management
Plan
The Town’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan outlines neighborhood traffic calming measures and programs to reduce travel speeds and cut-through traffic with an intent to improve safety for all modes of travel.

Safe Roads
Safe Road
Users

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
Alameda de las
Pulgas Traffic and
Safety
Improvements
The Town is currently preparing project plans for Alameda de las Pulgas Drive, which project will include a traffic signal and reconfiguration at Atherton Avenue, signalization at Cam al Lago, pedestrian crossing improvements at Stockbridge, and relocation of a midblock pedestrian signal between Cam al Lago and Mills Avenue.

Safe Roads
El Camino Real
Complete Streets
Gap Closure
Planning Study
The Town is currently working with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority on a planning study for El Camino Real to identify active transportation improvements on the roadway between Selby and Valparaiso.

Safe Roads
Safety Partners
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their Figure 1. A Phase 2 pop-up event held at the Atherton Public Library

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
support of the Town of Atherton’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
• City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG)
• County Public Health
• Office of Sustainability
• San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE)
• San Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA)
• California Highway Patrol
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
• Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC)
• Caltrans
• Atherton Police Department
Community Engagement and Input
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.

ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE AND EVENTS
The project team hosted a series of public engagement events countywide to support the concurrent development of the Countywide LRSP and of the Town’s plan. These events focus on jurisdiction-specific issues and on countywide concerns. The table below lists the events, organized by themed engagement phases, and is followed by the community input themes we heard.

Table 2. C/CAG Public Engagement Events
Date Event Location
August 10, 2023 Countywide Virtual Kickoff meeting – Sharing the purpose and timing of the plan
Virtual meeting (recorded and
posted to plan website)
August 16, 2023 Phase 1 Pop-up/Tabling Event Shared crash data analysis; received input on locations and safety
concerns
East Palo Alto
August 19, 2023 Half Moon Bay Farmers Market
August 20, 2023 Foster City Summer Days
August 27, 2023 San Carlos Block Party
December 17, 2023 Phase 2 Pop-up/Tabling Event
Shared draft prioritized locations and types of
engineering recommendations; received
comments on locations and votes/input on types
of treatments and desired locations
Belmont Farmers’ Market
December 20, 2023 Woodside Public Library
January 9, 2024 Colma BART Station
January 16, 2024 Atherton Library
January 18, 2024 Brisbane Farmers’ Market
February 7, 2024 Portola Valley Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Traffic Safety
Committee Meeting

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6

ONLINE MAP SURVEY
The project team made an online countywide webmap tool and survey available during August and September 2023 for the public to provide comments and respond to questions to guide the plan’s development (see Figure

2. Online Map Survey Tool). Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.

Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. There were two comments made within the Town of Atherton. The comments included the following:
• Request to provide modal filters: to allow only bicycles and pedestrians on certain streets. • Noted locations include Selby Lane at Stockbridge Avenue, and Barry Lane.

The comments received are provided in Appendix A. The project team also identified common themes in the responses made countywide which may be relevant to the Town. Those are presented in the Community Engagement section of the Countywide LRSP.

PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
The project team held an event at the Atherton Library in January as part of Phase 2, which provided the project team with input on specific location concerns, general traffic safety/behavioral concerns, and opinions on specific engineering treatments or strategies. Comments received are provided in Appendix B. The following themes were identified:

Pedestrian Comments
• Desire for pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals, to make walking safer and more comfortable, especially along El Camino Real and in the neighborhood east of Middlefield Road
• Desire for better pedestrian crossings over the Caltrain rail tracks Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7
• Concern that drivers are running through stop signs and red signals, specifically along Isabella Avenue and at El Camino Real / Fair Oaks Lane and Maple Avenue / Dinkelspiel Station Lane Bicycle Comments
• Concerns that there is not enough separation between bicyclists and drivers along El Camino Real. [There are no bike lanes on El Camino Real.]
• Concerns of poor visibility—due to curved roads, inadequate lighting, and parked cars at corners—that makes biking unsafe
Motor Vehicle Comments
• Desire for lighting to improve visibility along roadways • Concerns over traffic and congestion in Atherton
• Concerns over blind corners and site line issues, especially along El Camino Real and at the Fair Oaks Lane / Dinkelspiel Station Lane intersection.

Countermeasures Comments
• Desire for lane or road narrowing, specifically along Atherton Avenue and El Camino Real and side, and a desire to do more to improve safety
• Concerns that bike lane improvements are dangerous to drivers

CRASH DATA & TRENDS
This section provides an overview of the five years of crash data used for this analysis. The data were downloaded from the Transportation Injury Mapping System25F 1 (TIMS) Crash database representing the full years
2018 through 2022. TIMS is a commonly used data source for safety plans. This analysis includes only crashes for which some level of injury is reported and excludes property damage only (PDO) crashes. We removed crashes along grade-separated freeways from the dataset, but we retained crashes that occur along at-grade State Highway facilities and those that occurred within the influence area of freeway ramp terminal intersections.

The crash records used provide the best available data for analysis but do not account for crashes that go unreported or for near-miss events. This plan includes recommendations that would improve jurisdictions’ ability to capture one or both of those elements and enhance future crash analyses.

The discussion that follows provides a high-level overview of crash trends that informed the plan recommendations. For a more complete description of trends and findings, refer to Appendix C.

Emphasis Areas
The project team analyzed crash data in Atherton and compared countywide trends to establish emphasis areas. Emphasis areas are crash dynamic, behavioral, or road user characteristics that the Town can focus on to maximize fatal and severe injury reduction on local roads.

A review of crash data and input led to the development of the following emphasis areas for the Town of Atherton:

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of all injury crashes but 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, showing a disproportionate involvement in the most severe outcomes. Similarly, bicyclists were involved in 13 percent of all injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. In Atherton, pedestrians were involved in 50 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (10 percent). Bicyclists were involved in 21 1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
percent of all reported injury crashes. None of the bicyclist-involved crashes resulted in fatality or severe injury.

2. Nighttime/low light safety. Countywide, crashes occurring in dark conditions—especially in dark, unlit conditions--are more severe than those that occur in daylight. Motor vehicle crashes in dark, unlit conditions have about double the average severity when they occur compared to crashes in daylight. In Atherton, one of the four fatal/severe injury crashes occurred in dark conditions.

3. Unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors. Countywide, crashes for all modes most frequently occurred at the intersection of higher order and lower order roadways – most commonly along arterial and collector roadways. Pedestrian and bicyclist crashes most frequently occur at unsignalized intersections.

4. Vulnerable age groups (youth and aging). Countywide across all modes, crash victims between the 15 to 34 years old are more likely to be injured including F/SI as a result of traffic safety than other groups.

Victims between the ages 50 – 69 and 75 to 84 are also more likely to be severely injured than other groups. In Atherton, 9 crashes or 7 percent of all reported injury crashes involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.

5. Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes. Countywide, motor vehicle crashes were more severe along roadway segments than at any other location type; unsafe speed was the most commonly cited the primary crash factor (27 percent of all injury crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes). In Atherton, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among reported injury crashes (37 percent).

6. High speed roadways (35+mph). Countywide, crashes on roadways with posted speeds 40mph or higher had an average crash severity per mile 13 times higher than along roadways with posted speeds of 25 mph or less.

The next pages present summary findings from a crash data review that compares the Town of Atherton to countywide trends in these emphasis areas. It includes summary statistics related to the above-cited emphasis areas but also shows:
• The share of local crashes that occurred on or at a State Highway facility compared to Countywide levels. • The most frequently reported local crash types compared to Countywide levels. • The share of bicyclist and motor vehicle crashes among all injury crashes and among F/SI crashes.

Countywide and locally, bicyclist crashes account for a higher share of F/SI crashes than among all injury levels.
• The share of local and Countywide crashes occurring in dark conditions for crashes of all injury levels and for F/SI crashes (organized by mode).
• Reported pedestrian and bicyclist crashes summarized by the most common preceding movements countywide, with a comparison of those movements’ share of local crashes to Countywide shares. • The local and Countywide share of crashes involving drugs or alcohol and involving drivers under age 30.

18%
(1,164)
Atherton—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
46%
(39)
2%
(2)
16%
(13) 29%
(24)
7%
(6)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Atherton compares:

Atherton Countywide
Compared to the countywide total, where
5% (472) of reported collisions involved
young drivers2
Compared to the countywide total,
where 8% (625) of reported collisions
involved drugs or alcohol
2% 7%
of reported collisions
in Atherton involved
drugs or alcohol
of reported collisions
in Atherton involved
young drivers1
8%
(625)
5%
(472)
(2) (9)
29%
(1,858)
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (12)
Atherton
Atherton
Atherton
Bicycle Crashes (25)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (84)
0% (0)
50% (2)
10% (12) 50% (2)
21% (25)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
69% (84)
Local
70% (85)
State Highway
30% (36)
Total Crashes
Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
In Atherton, 121 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Atherton Countywide
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object

1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.

2. Young driver crashes are crashes that involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.

Atherton—Crash History
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (12)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (25)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
24%
(256)
Countywide
Countywide
Agency
Agency
8%
(1)
8%
(1)
15%
(163)
17%
(2)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
Motorist proceeding
straight
Motorist Making
left turn
16%
(4)
21%
(186)
32%
(8)
12%
(106)
20%
(5)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
36%
(9)
35%
(372)
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
Atherton
Atherton
Atherton
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (2)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (2)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (11)
All Injury Crashes (84)
All Injury Crashes (25)
All Injury Crashes (12)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (2)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (0)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (2)
50% (1)
0% (0)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)
13% (11) 0% (0)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe— especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Atherton compares to Countywide crashes:
17% (2)
8% (2)

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 11
Countywide High Injury Network
In addition to the systemic analysis findings, the analysis included countywide spatial analysis to identify a countywide high injury network for each travel mode (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles). The countywide HIN results were folded into the subsequent regional and local prioritization (described in the next section). Additionally, the characteristics of the HIN and crashes along them were identified as risk factors and incorporated into emphasis areas and into a systemic portion of the prioritization process. Table 3 and Figure 4 show the HIN segments identified within the Town.

Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Atherton
Roadway name
All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Oak Grove Ave Atherton, Menlo Park 1.2 X X
Ravenswood
Ave
Atherton, Menlo Park 0.6 X X X
Middlefield Rd Atherton, Menlo Park, Redwood
City, Unincorporated 3.8 X X X
Marsh Rd
Atherton, Menlo Park,
Unincorporated 1.3 X
El Camino Real
San Carlos, Atherton, Menlo Park,
Redwood City, Millbrae, San Bruno,
Belmont, San Mateo, Burlingame,
South San Francisco, Colma,
Unincorporated

23.5 X X X
Alameda de las
Pulgas
San Carlos, Atherton, Redwood
City, Belmont, San Mateo,
Unincorporated

6.7 X X X

Sequoia
Tract
Stanford
Lands
Atherton
Flood Park
ß/101
¦§¨280
Toyon Rd
Lassen
Dr
Catalpa Dr
Oakdell Dr
Vine St
Branner Dr
Olive St
Fletcher
Dr
Trinity
Dr
Park Ln
Sharon Park Dr
Valley Ct
Alma St
Watkins Ave
Atherton
Ave
Arbor Rd
Crane St
Walsh Rd
Greenoaks Dr
Pine St
Palmer Ln
Cotton St
14th Ave
9th Ave
Sierra St
Almendral Ave
Fair
Oaks
Ln
Gordon St
Wallea Dr
6th Ave
E
el a
nor
Dr
3rd St
Isa
b
ella
Ave
Stern Ln
Elena Ave
Mills St
N Lemon Ave
7th Ave
Shearer
Dr
Nueva St
Marsh Rd
8th Ave
Roble Ave
Bonita Ave
Euclid Ave
Patricia Dr
Lawler Ranch Rd
Service Road
Fairview Ave
Burns Ave
Linda Vista Ave
Hobart St
Monte Vista Ave
Heather Dr
Adam Way
Tuscaloosa Ave
aS
ndHillCir
El Camino Real
Sand Hill Rd
Atherton Ave
Woodside Rd H:\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 3/12/2024 Pedestrian + Bicyclist + Motor Vehicle
Combined High Injury Network (HIN)
Town of Atherton, CA
Figure 4
0 0.5Miles [
! Schools
BART Station
Caltrain Station
Unincorporated
Places
Parks
Local HIN
Motor Vehicle
Bicycle
Pedestrian
C/CAG Equity
Focus Aeas
Highway HIN
Motor Vehicle
Bicycle
Pedestrian

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 13
Ped Crash Severity
Score, 16.7%
Ped HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤250 ft
from
transit stop, 5.6%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 6.7%
Arterial or Collector,

7.2%
Posted speed
35mph+, 7.0%
Unsignalized
intersection, 6.8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
& PRIORITIZATION
Methodology
Using the results of the crash data analysis and adding a focus on social equity, the project team identified priority locations for the Town to target for future safety improvements. The prioritization used three equally weighted factors to prioritize locations for safety projects:
• Crash history – used to identify the locations with the highest reported five-year crash frequency and severity.
• Social equity – used to identify locations where projects would benefit disadvantaged populations and align with future grant funding opportunities that emphasize social equity. • Systemic factors – used to identify locations that have roadway and land use characteristics associated with crash frequency and severity. Using systemic factors emphasizes a proactive rather than purely reactive approach. Each factor was weighted relative to the other factors based on the average severity of relevant crashes (for example, if pedestrian crashes on arterials/collectors were overall twice as severe as pedestrian crashes at unsignalized intersections overall, then the former would be weighted twice the latter).

Each factor is comprised of multiple criteria and overlaid on jurisdictions’ roadway data to identify locations for future safety projects. The prioritization process was conducted three times, one for each travel mode. The weighting scheme for each mode is presented in the three figures below (Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6). The resulting scores are sorted per jurisdiction, so that Atherton’s prioritized locations are compared to themselves rather than to other County jurisdictions.

Figure 4. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 14
Figure 5. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 6. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) MV Crash Severity
Score, 16.7%
MV HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
Arterial or Collector,

8.1%
Posted speed
35mph+, 16.0%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors
Bike Crash Severity
Score, 16.7%
Bike HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 8.0%
Arterial or Collector,

8.6%
Posted speed
35mph+, 6.8%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
Social Equity
Social equity is a critical consideration for project prioritization, and emphasizing social equity within a project prioritization process helps to promote infrastructure spending and improvements in disadvantaged and/or disinvested neighborhoods. We considered and included multiple local, regional, and national datasets for social equity prioritization to reflect different measures available and because available funding opportunities use different indicators. Ultimately the prioritization included measures accounting for all of the following indicators:
• C/CAG Active Transportation Equity Focus Areas
• MTC Equity Priority Communities
• USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
Layering in these four indicators allows the prioritization to identify more locations that may meet the criteria for just one of these indicators while still elevating locations that show up in multiple or all indicators. The raw scoring data also equips the Town to understand which locations meet which measures.

Results
The prioritization resulted in the following top locations. For more details (including the scores of each location), consult Appendix D. Figure 7 also shows the locations.

Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 El Camino Real and
Columbia Ave*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
2 Loyola Ave and El Camino
Real*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
3 El Camino Real and 5th
Ave*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
4 Amherst Ave and El
Camino Real*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
5 El Camino Real and
Berkshire Ave*,**
Intersection Yes X X
6 El Camino Real and
Stockbridge Ave
Intersection Yes X X X
7 Selby Ln and El Camino
Real*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
8 Wilburn Ave and El
Camino Real
Intersection Yes X X
9 El Camino Real and
Almendral Ave
Intersection Yes X
10 Alameda de las Pulgas
and Stockbridge Ave*
Intersection No X X

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
11 Robert S Dr and
Valparaiso Ave***
Intersection No X
12 Glenwood Ave and Laurel
St***
Intersection No X X X
13 Valparaiso Ave and Lee
Dr
Intersection No X X
14 Elder Ave and Atherton
Oaks Ln
Intersection No X
15 Park Ln and Valparaiso
Ave***
Intersection No X
16 Middlefield Rd and
Ravenswood Ave***
Intersection No X X
17 Middlefield Rd and
Ringwood Ave***
Intersection No X X
18 Middlefield Rd and Encina
Ave*
Intersection No X X
19 El Camino Real and
Spruce Ave***
Intersection Yes X
20 Middlefield Rd and Palmer
Ln
Intersection No X
21 Middlefield Rd and
Watkins Ave
Intersection No X
22 Middlefield Rd and Oak
Grove Ave
Intersection No X
23 Oak Grove Ave and Oak
Grove Ave
Intersection No X X
24 Alameda de las Pulgas
and Walsh Rd
Intersection No X X
25 Lane Pl and Middlefield Rd Intersection No X
26 De Bell Dr and Middlefield
Rd
Intersection No X
27 Middlefield Rd and San
Benito Dr
Intersection No X
28 Callado Way and
Alameda de las Pulgas
Intersection No X
29 Fletcher Dr And Alameda
De Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
30 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Atherton Ave
Intersection No X
31 El Camino Real and
Isabella Ave
Intersection Yes X

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
32 El Camino Real and
Ashfield Rd
Intersection Yes X
33 Maple Ave and El Camino
Real
Intersection Yes X
34 El Camino Real and
Walnut Ave
Intersection Yes X
35 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Polhemus Ave
Intersection No X
36 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Karen Way
Intersection No X
37 El Camino Real and
Tuscaloosa Ave
Intersection Yes X
38 El Camino Real and
Redwood Way
Intersection Yes X
39 El Camino Real and
Lloyden Dr
Intersection Yes X
40 Oak Grove Ave and de
Bell Dr
Intersection No X
41 El Camino Real, Berkshire
Ave to Spruce Ave (E to W
town limits)****
Corridor Yes X X X
42 Alameda de las Pulgas,
Stockbridge Ave to Cam
Al Lago (E to W town
limits)****
Corridor No X X X
43 Valparaiso Ave, Camino
por los Arboles to Victoria
Dr*
Corridor No X X
44 Middlefield Rd, Encina
Ave to Ringwood Ave
Corridor No X X
*
Intersection is shared jurisdictionally with Unincorporated San Mateo County. **Roadway is Caltrans jurisdiction.
***
Intersection is shared jurisdictionally with Menlo Park. ****The Town is currently preparing a study on this corridor (see Table 1).

!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@
@
@
@
@ @
@ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Menlo
Oaks
North
Fair
Oaks
Sequoia
Tract
Stanford
Lands
Atherton
Flood Park
ß/101
∙þ84
¦§¨280
Pierce Rd
Page St
Maple St
Edge Rd
Melanie Ln
Toyon Rd
Nimitz Ave
Charter St
Sherman Ave
Madison Ave
Lassen
Dr
Catalpa Dr
Elder Ave
Oakdell Dr
Linfield Dr
Redwood Ave
Polhemus Ave Roble Ave
Vine St
Cerrito Ave
1st Ave
Oxford St
Edison Way
W Selby Ln University Dr
Branner Dr
Santa Clara Ave
Coleman Ave
Middle Ave
Menlo Ave
Olive St
Felton
Dr
Regent St
10th
Ave
College Ave
Placitas Ave James
Ave
17th Ave
Burgess
Dr
Sharon
Rd
M
Laurel St
assachusetts Ave
F
el tcher Dr
2nd Ave
Creek Dr
Harvard Ave
Monte Rosa Dr
Cloud Ave
Trinity Dr
Austin Ave
Avy Ave
Arbor Dr
Vera Ave
Park Ln
Glenwood Ave
Camino A Los Cerros
Jefferson Dr
Maddux
Dr
San Mateo Dr
Kentu
cky
St
Flynn
Av
Heller St
e
Sharon Park Dr
Lane Pl
Valley Ct
Lorelei Ln
Orange Ave
Fremont St
Shasta St
Alma St
Watkins Ave
Linden St
Oak Ave
Lathrop St
Connecticut Dr
Johnson St
Windsor Dr
Moore Rd
Ebener St
Linden
Ave
Leland Ave
El Camino Real
Faxon Rd
Harrison Ave
Altschul Ave
3rd Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
Park Rd
Reservoir Rd
Spring St
Valota Rd
Park St
William Ave
Middlefield Rd
Tioga Dr
Northgate Dr
Center St
Willow Rd
Virginia Ave
Lemon St
Market Pl
Arbor Rd
Haven Ave
Continental Dr
Delaware Ave Crane St
Hess Rd
15th Ave
Bay
Laurel Dr
Scott Ave
St Francis St
Walsh Rd
Greenoaks Dr
Clinton St
Magnolia Dr
Fulton St
Douglas Ave
Ravenswood Ave
Carolina Ave
Chilco St
Ridgeview Dr
Irving
Ave
Rosew
ood
Dr
Alley
Poplar Ave
Waverley St
Ruby St
Iris St
Jackson Ave
Santa Monica Ave
Kentfield Ave
Hurlingame
Ave
4th Ave
Lincoln Ave 12th Ave
Grand St
Spruce St
Roosevelt Ave
Berkeley
Ave
Leahy St
Camino De Los Robles
Menlo
Oaks
Dr
Merrill St
Encinal Ave Oak Grove Ave Pine St
Palmer Ln
Ringwood Ave
S
a
n
Benito
Ave
Live Oak Ave
Rutherford Ave
Alexander Ave
Cotton St
18th Ave
Camino
Al
Lago
Mills Ave
Warrington Ave
14th Ave
16th Ave
O
h
oi Ave
Palm Ave
E
Cre
e
k
Dr
Sta
nford Ave
Maple Ave
9th Ave 5th Ave
Barron
Ave
Princeton Dr
Sierra St
Union Ave
Almendral Ave
Central Ave
Hampton Ave
Encina Ave
Sterling Ave
Oakley Ave Gordon Ave Ashton Ave
King St
Fernside St
Cambridge Ave
Adams St
Fay St
Selby Ln
Gordon St
Wallea Dr
Valley Rd
Scott Dr
Seminary Dr
6th Ave
Oak Knoll Ln
Eleanor Dr
3rd St
Isabella
Ave
Stern Ln
Elena Ave
Lloyden Dr
Hudson St
Orchard Ave
W 4th St
Arlington Way
Siskiyou Dr
Mills St
N Lemon Ave
Doris Dr
Crest Ln
Emilie Ave
7th Ave
Shearer
Dr
Bohannon Dr
Nueva St
Marsh Rd
Hillview Dr
8th Ave
Arden Rd
De Bell Dr
Alejandra Ave
Hedge Rd
Bonita Ave
Euclid Ave
Patricia Dr
Hawthorne Dr
Service Road
Politzer Dr
Partridge Ave
Burns Ave
Linda Vista Ave
Hobart St
Hermosa Way
Monte Vista Ave
Heather Dr
Lawler Ranch Rd
Adam Way
Tuscaloosa Ave
Sand Hill Cir
Bay Rd
Sa
nta
Cruz
Ave
El Camino Real
Selby Ln
Fair Oaks
Ln
Sand Hill Rd
Marsh
Rd
Jefferson Ave
Valparaiso Ave
Middlefield Rd
Main St
Alpine
Rd
Woodside Rd
Willow Rd
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Stockbridge AveAtherton Ave
H:\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 3/12/2024 Priority Intersections
and Segments
Town of Atherton, CA
0 0.25 0.5Miles
! Schools [
C/CAG Equity
Focus Aeas
Highway Priority Locations
! Pedestrian Intersections
@ Bicycle Intersections
@ Motor Vehicle Intersections
Highway Priority Segments
Local Priority Locations
! Pedestrian Intersections
@ Bicycle Intersections
@ Motor Vehicle Intersections
Non-Highway Priority Segments
Figure 8

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

POLICY & PROGRAMS
This section presents Safe System-aligned recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the Town of Atherton. First is a table of engineering countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes. The countermeasures align to the crash types as listed in the table. Complementing those countermeasures is a holistic set of policy and programmatic recommendations that will help align Town departments and partners in pursuit of the plan’s vision and goals.

Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
Table 5. Town of Atherton Countermeasure Toolbox
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Lighting along high speed
corridors*
All Nighttime 0.4 $$ Medium
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.15 $ Very High
Install raised pavement
markers and striping*
SI Wet, night, all 0.1 $ High

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
No Right Turn on Red (RTOR) SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ Medium
Install pedestrian crossing* SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $-$$ High
Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk (bicycle
box)*
SI Bicycle
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.15 $ High
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.6 $ High
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from stop or
yield control on minor road)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
Covert intersection to miniroundabout*UI All crashes 0.3 $$ Low Install pedestrian crossings
(signs and markings only)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

0.25 $-$$$ High
Install pedestrian crossings
(with enhanced safety
features like Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacons)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

0.35 $-$$$ Medium
Install/upgrade larger or
additional STOP signs or
other intersection warning or
regulatory signs*
UI Turning
crashes
related to
lack of driver
awareness

0.15 $ High

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings*
UI Turning
crashes
related to
lack of driver
awareness

0.25 $ High
Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid beacon*
UI Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.3 $$$ High
Install buffered or separated
bike lanes*
R Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.45 $-$$ High
Install raised pedestrian
crossing*
UI Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.35 $ Medium
Install delineators, reflectors,
and/or object marker*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install/upgrade signs with
new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs*
R Driver
behavior

0.3 $ High
Extend pedestrian crossing
time
SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Pedestrian phase recall SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Bicycle crossing (solid green
paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Curb extensions UI All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
ADA-compliant directional
curb ramps and audible
push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low
Curb radius reduction SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Low
*Indicates countermeasure is eligible for California HSIP funding as of the most recent funding cycle 1: UI = Unsignalized Intersection; SI = Signalized Intersection; R = Roadway segments; All = All of the above 2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines
Recommendations
In addition to the engineering countermeasures and projects recommended above, the Town aims to promote policies, programs, and standards that foster a culture of safety. The table below defines several policy and program recommendations organized into thematic categories. Implemented in cooperation with partners, these recommendations will deepen the dedication to safety shared throughout the community and round out the Town’s Safe System Approach.

Table 5. Town of Atherton Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
LCS1: Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee Participation
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
LCS3: Communication Protocol
Local Enforcement
Coordination (LEC)
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Local Funding (LF) LF1: Dedicated Funding LF2: Equitable Investment LF3: Prioritize Investments
Local Education /
Outreach (LEO)
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
LEO5: Safe City Fleet
LEO6: Conspicuity Enhancements and Education
Local Planning/
Evaluation (LPE)
LPE1: Annual Review
LPE2: Plan Update
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan

NEAR-TERM ACTIONS
LCS1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee Participation Actively participate in the newly-formed County Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). Bring agenda items as relevant, including but not limited to:
• Safety project updates with every step along the project development process (studies initiated / under way /complete, funding identified, design phases initiated / under way / complete) • Annual updates to the TSAC regarding implementation progress that may be relevant for C/CAG annual monitoring reporting (e.g., projects on identified priority locations and/or the regional High Injury Network, community engagement efforts and summaries, safety funding applied for / received)

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
• Opportunities for cross-jurisdiction coordination (e.g., roadways or intersections shared with adjacent jurisdictions or Caltrans)
• Requests for trainings / best practices that could be provided through the TSAC Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LF1: Dedicated Funding
Propose ongoing, dedicated funding and staffing for implementation and monitoring of the safety plan, including presiding over the TSAC. This role may be fulfilled by a partial FTE or through staff augmentation.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works

LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS3: Communication Protocol
Adopt and develop safety-related communication protocols in coordination with the TSAC. The protocols will promote consistent public communication regarding language usage and statements related to transportation safety. Encourage language in line with Vision Zero and Safe System principles that acknowledges mistakes are inevitable but death and severe injury are preventable. For example, promote use of the word crash rather than accident.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Town of Atherton Public Works
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
More effectively target resources to pedestrian crash problems in a limited geographic area. Realizing these zones requires upfront analysis and planning, countermeasure development, and implementation.

Implementation can focus on addressing particular problems or on increasing general safety in specific areas during windows of peak pedestrian activity. (For example: Friday nights in commercial districts, Sundays on recreational routes/areas, etc.)
Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LF2: Equitable Investment
Prioritize townwide safety investments in disadvantaged communities. Use the presence of disadvantaged communities (as identified with C/CAG Equity Focus Areas, MTC Equity Priority Communities, USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities, and/or USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty) as a factor to elevate funding for certain projects or other safety-related programs.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LF3: Prioritize Investments
Use the priority locations identified in this plan to determine safety project opportunities to advance for further project development and to identify funding. Identify pathways for improvement for the locations on the list.

Continue to engage the community to refine the priorities within the list of identified sites.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
• Continue School Travel Fellowship Program to provide the following:
• Technical assistance to schools and planners to implement demonstration projects • ATP Project Specialist to work with educators to provide technical assistance (bike rodeos, parent engagement workshops and resources, walk and bike audits, and additional support for walk/bike to school encouragement events) to schools in EPCs

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 24
Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: County Public Health, Office of Sustainability, SVBC LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
Develop and distribute educational materials and/or videos demonstrating how to navigate and interact with newer active transportation facilities (e.g., bike boxes, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, separated bike lanes, etc.) Include information about the purpose and goals of this infrastructure.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LEO5: Safe City Fleets
Provide educational materials for Town staff who drive Town vehicles and integrate safety awareness training into contracting process with vendors who provide Town services. Other measures include installing safety features (such as pedestrian/obstacle detection and speed tracking) on Town vehicles and reporting on correction plans against unsafe driving.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LPE1: Annual Review
Provide an annual review of plan implementation progress. This review includes an update and presentation to Town Council as well as a written update to the TSAC so that C/CAG may compile county plan implementation status.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton
LPE2: Plan Update
Update the plan within five years of publication. The plan update will revise actions to reflect current crash trends and will integrate technological advancements and changes in best practices as needed.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
Continue to participate in school safety assessments at all public and private schools, develop implementation plans for improvements up to one quarter mile from the schools.

Develop a plan and timeline to include all schools in the Town.

Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: Town of Atherton Public Works
LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan
Per California Assembly Bill 43 (passed in 2021), identify business activity districts, safety corridors, and in areas with high ped/bike activities to implement reduced speeds. To the extent possible, complement the speed reduction with design treatments like those identified in this plan to effect reduced speeds by the desired amount.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 25

IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
A key part of achieving Atherton’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. Atherton will develop a process to regularly collect data and information around the performance measures that can be used to assess changes townwide and at the top priority locations.

Implementation actions are organized by plan goals and grouped by time: near-term actions, which Atherton can initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time.

This section identifies recommendations for Atherton and other county-level safety partners to implement the plan.

These are aligned with the Safe System Approach and include a framework to measure plan progress over time.

Table 6. Town of Atherton Goals and Measures of Success

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

1. Regularly review crash history and community
needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to
reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages
and abilities. Review proposed improvement
plans to ensure that roadway projects,
retrofits, and maintenance projects
incorporate complete streets that support
multiple modes of travel.
• Number of LRSP project locations advanced through
project development, reported at the agency level
• Annual and three-year total reported crashes,
fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and
crashes by emphasis areas identified

2. Implement safety countermeasures
systemically and as part of all projects to
target emphasis areas and underserved
communities.

3. Promote plan recommendations with
identified safety partners to incorporate
roadway safety through safety projects and
educational campaigns in Atherton.

4. Provide opportunities for community
engagement in roadway capital improvement
projects to identify safety solutions.

5. Identify opportunities to incorporate social
equity into safety improvements.
• Community engagement included as part of all
C/CAG-funded safety project development activities
• Number of engagement touchpoints and community
member interactions for safety plans or projects.
• Report-backs to the Town Council and TSAC
regarding community engagement, including
information about outreach to disadvantaged
communities where applicable
• Distribution at the jurisdiction level for safety projects within equity focus areas (C/CAG EFAs or MTC EPCs)
versus outside these areas
• Expansion of SRTS and Roadway Safety Education in
Schools programs to more schools within the Town

6. Embrace the Safe System Approach to
promote engineering and non-engineering
strategies in the community.
• Percent of school district participation in SRTS and
roadway safety education opportunities
• Number of trainings Town staff have participated in
regarding Safe System elements, available tools, or
practices
• Improved data availability or maintenance to
enhance safety analysis and practice

7. Monitor implementation of the Atherton LRSP
to track progress towards goals.
• See above in this table

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30
Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

San Mateo
C/CAG
Countywide
LRSP

FINAL DRAFT
JUNE 2024

Kittelson & Associates, Inc
This page intentionally left blank.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Executive
Summary

/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Safe Systems Approach ..................................................................................................... 3 Vision & Goals....................................................................................................................... 3 Public Engagement .............................................................................................................4 High Injury Network.............................................................................................................4 Emphasis Areas.................................................................................................................... 5 Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 5 Project Prioritization............................................................................................................ 6 Implementation & Monitoring........................................................................................... 6

/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2
The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) created this Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) with the following safety partners:

/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH
The recommendations and policies contained within this plan align with the principles of the Safe System Approach, which aims to eliminate fatal and severe injuries for all road users.

The Safe System Approach works by taking a holistic approach to roadway safety: by layering safe policy, design, and behavior initiatives atop one another, it maximally reduces the chance that a crash will occur and, if it does, that its outcome will be severe.

VISION & GOALS
C/CAG, its 21 local jurisdictions, and its partner agencies will work together to:

The goals of this plan include the following:

Regularly review crash history and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages and abilities.

Partner with other local agencies to incorporate roadway safety into all actions.

Implement context-appropriate safety countermeasures systemically and as part of all projects to target emphasis areas and underserved communities.

Support agencies in providing opportunities for citizen engagement to identify issues and inform Countywide safety solutions.

Embrace the Safe System Approach to promote engineering and non-engineering strategies in the community.

Work with agencies to monitor safety projects and implementation to track progress towards goals.

See the individualized jurisdiction LRSP chapters for each jurisdiction’s specific goals. 1 2
3 4
5 6
Identify safety improvements, strategies, and programs using the Safe System Approach to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries on local roads.

Enhance the existing roadway network in a cost-effective manner that promotes traffic safety and social equity, meets the needs of the community, and enriches the lives of residents.

Promote a culture across agencies and communities that puts roadway safety first in all actions.

/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
C/CAG hosted multiple events throughout the development of this plan to hear from residents throughout the County. The timeline below offers an overview of the breadth of event types and locations.

Countywide Virtual Kickoff Meeting
Sharing the purpose and timing of
the plan
Phase 1 Pop-up/Tabling Event
Shared crash data analysis;
received input on locations and
safety concerns
AUG 10
Virtual meeting (recorded
and posted to plan website)
AUG 16
East Palo Alto
AUG 19
Half Moon Bay Farmers Market
AUG 20
Foster City Summer Days
AUG 27
San Carlos Block Party

AUG - SEP
Online webmap (countywide input)
DEC 17
Belmont Farmers Market
DEC 20
Woodside Public Library
JAN 9
Colma BART Station
JAN 16
Atherton Library
Phase 1 Concurrent Online Input
JAN 18
Brisbane Farmers’ Market
FEB 7
Portola Valley Bicycle, Pedestrian,
& Traffic Safety Committee
Phase 2 Pop-up/Tabling Event
Shared draft prioritized locations
and types of engineering
recommendations; received
comments on locations and
votes/input on types of
treatments and desired locations

MAR - APR
Various
Phase 3 Draft Plan
Share the draft plan publicly on
the project website, through
electronic distribution channels,
and with presentations to C/CAG
Committees and the Board.

/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5

HIGH INJURY NETWORK
To create a comprehensive network of high injury segments for San Mateo County and its local jurisdictions, the plan identifies separate high injury networks (HINs) for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles. This comprehensive HIN is visualized in an interactive map online. Users can toggle the data by travel mode.

EMPHASIS AREAS
The project team analyzed crash data countywide to establish emphasis areas. Emphasis areas are crash dynamic, behavioral, or road user characteristics that agencies can focus on to maximize their reduction of fatalities and severe injuries on local roads. The Countywide emphasis areas are:

RECOMMENDATIONS
Because C/CAG doesn't own local roadways and instead provides support and coordination to County agencies, the plan identifies 18 plan and program recommendations organized into the following categories:

Organize (O)
Fund (F)
Educate (E)
Research (R) Plan (P)
Coordinate (C)
Pedestrian and bicyclist safety Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes
Nighttime/low light safety High-speed roadways
(35+ mph)
Unsignalized intersections on
arterials/collectors Alcohol involvement
Vulnerable age groups
(youth and aging)

/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
The spatial HIN analysis identified the highest crash locations by frequency and severity. Based on that work and the accompanying systemic analysis, the plan development team collaborated with partner jurisdictions to identify priority project locations. Prioritization used the following three factors:

Crash History
Used to identify the locations with
the highest reported five-year
crash frequency and severity.

Social Equity
Used to identify locations where
projects would benefit
disadvantaged populations and
align with future grant funding
opportunities that emphasize
social equity.

Systemic Factors
Used to identify locations that
have roadway and land use
characteristics associated with
crash frequency and severity.

Using systemic factors
emphasizes a proactive rather
than purely reactive approach.

IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
A key part of achieving C/CAG’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. The Plan includes monitoring strategies that will track the progress of this plan’s implementation.

/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc
This page intentionally left blank.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C/CAG Project
Management Team
Jeff Lacap
Eva Gaye
Advisory Group Members
Local Jurisdiction Representatives
Robert Ovadia, Town of Atherton
Matt Hoang, City of Belmont
Tracy Scramaglia, City of Belmont
Karen Kinser, City of Brisbane
Tomas Santoyo, City of Brisbane
Andrew Wong, City of Burlingame
Abdulkader Hashem, Town of Colma
Richard Chiu, Jr.; City of Daly City
Irene Chiu, City of East Palo Alto
Humza Javed, City of East Palo Alto
Anwar Mirza, City of East Palo Alto
Justin Lai, City of Foster City
Francine Magno, City of Foster City
Amy Zhou, City of Foster City
Maz Bozorginia, City of Half Moon Bay
Jonathan Woo, City of Half Moon Bay
Paul Willis, Town of Hillsborough
Matthew Hui, City of Menlo Park
Sam Bautista, City of Millbrae
Lisa Peterson, City of Pacifica
Howard Young, Town of Portola Valley
Malahat Owrang, City of Redwood City
Hae Won, City of San Bruno
Harry Yip, City of San Bruno
Hanieh Houshmandi, City of San Carlos
Steven Machida, City of San Carlos
Bethany Lopez, City of San Mateo
Azalea Mitch, City of San Mateo
Jeff Chou, City of South San Francisco
Matthew Ruble, City of South San Francisco
Yazdan Emrani, Town of Woodside
Sindhi Mekala, Town of Woodside
Diana Shu, County of San Mateo
Partner Agency Representatives
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Sustainability
Department
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jessica Manzi, San Mateo County Transportation
District
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 4
Consultant Team
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Mike Alston
Matt Braughton
Laurence Lewis
Grace Carsky
Michael Ruiz-Leon
Doreen Gui
Safe Streets Research & Consulting
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale
Circlepoint
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Countermeasures are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions.

Emphasis Areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions with safety issues identified based on local trends that merit special focus in the City’s approach to reducing fatal and severe injury collisions.

Local Roadway Safety Plans, or LRSPs, are documents that provide local-level assessments of roadway safety and identify locations and strategies to improve safety on local roadways.

Crash Severity is defined by the guidelines established by the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC, Fifth Edition) and is a functional measure of the injury severity for any person involved in the crash.  Fatal Collision [K] is death because of an injury sustained in a collision or an injury resulting in death within 30 days of the collision.
 Severe Injury [A] is an injury other than a fatal injury which results in broken bones, dislocated or distorted limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision scene. It does not include minor laceration.
 Other Visible Injury [B] includes bruises (discolored or swollen); places where the body has received a blow (black eyes and bloody noses); and abrasions (areas of the skin where the surface is roughened or blotchy by scratching or rubbing which includes skinned shins, knuckles, knees, and elbows).  Complaint of Pain [C] classification could contain authentic internal or other non-visible injuries and fraudulent claims of injury. This includes: 1. Persons who seem dazed, confused, or incoherent (unless such behavior can be attributed to intoxication, extreme age, illness, or mental infirmities). 2. Persons who are limping but do not have visible injuries; 3. Any person who is known to have been unconscious because of the collision, although it appears he/she has recovered; 4. People who say they want to be listed as injured do not appear to be so.
 Property Damage Only [O] Collision is a noninjury motor vehicle traffic collision which results in property damage.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 5
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the nation’s core federal-aid programs. Caltrans administers HSIP funds in the state of California and splits the state share of HSIP funds between State HSIP (for state highways) and local HSIP (for local roads). The latter is administered through a call for projects biennially.

Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision. Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation.

Safe Streets for All (SS4A) is a federal discretionary grant program created by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law with $5 billion in appropriated funds for 2022 through 2026.

Safe System Approach is a layered method for roadway safety promoted by the FHWA. This approach uses redundancies to anticipate mistakes and minimize injury. For more, visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.

Safety Partners are agencies, government bodies, businesses, and community groups that the City can work with to plan, promote, and implement safety projects.

Strategies are non-engineering tools that can help address road user behavior, improve emergency services, and build a culture of safety.

Systemic safety defines an analysis and improvement approach based on roadway and environmental factors correlated with crash risk (rather than targeting locations solely on documented crash history). The approach take a broad view to evaluate risk across an entire roadway system.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................................................3 Glossary of Terms ....................................................................................................................................................................4 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7 List of Tables..............................................................................................................................................................................8 Appendices ...............................................................................................................................................................................8 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................9 What is an LRSP?....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Safe System Approach.......................................................................................................................................................................................................10 Alignment with the SHSP.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Incorporating Vision Zero..................................................................................................................................................................................................13 What’s in the Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................14 Vision and Goals ....................................................................................................................................................................14 Vision...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14 Plan Goals....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 Plan Development ..................................................................................................................................................................17 Existing Safety Efforts............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Project Advisory Group........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Community Engagement and Input.....................................................................................................................................................................19 Countywide Data Analysis Findings ..................................................................................................................................26 Pre-Pandemic versus Pandemic Comparison..................................................................................................................................................27 Hot Spot analysis/ High Injury Network Identification ....................................................................................................................................31 Systemic Descriptive Findings................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 Emphasis Areas................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 Systemic Findings by Mode........................................................................................................................................................................................37 State Highways in San Mateo County............................................................................................................................... 45 Safety on At-Grade State Highways........................................................................................................................................................................ 46 Existing Plans and Directives to Improve Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 48 Caltrans Director’s Policy 36: Road Safety – establishes the VZ commitment....................................................................... 48 Caltrans Road Safety Action Plan 2023-24..................................................................................................................................................... 48 District 4 Bike Plan............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49 District 4 Pedestrian Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 49 Improvements to Date in the County...................................................................................................................................................................... 49

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 7
Caltrans Recommendations and Actions ........................................................................................................................................................... 50 Safe System-Aligned Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 51 Engineering.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................51 Policy and Program............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 56 Organize..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................57 Educate....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................57 Coordinate............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 58 Fund .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Research................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 60 Plan..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................61 Project Prioritization..............................................................................................................................................................63 SamTrans Bus Stop Prioritization................................................................................................................................................................................. 72 Implementation and Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................74

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. “Swiss Cheese” Model Demonstrating Layers of Redundancy..................................................................................................13 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool.......................................................................................................................................................................................21 Figure 3. Percentage of Total Respondents by City of Residence..............................................................................................................22 Figure 4. Percentage of Total Responses by Emphasis Areas Selected............................................................................................... 23 Figure 5. Countywide Pedestrian High Injury Network ...................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 6. Countywide Bicyclist High Injury Network............................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 7. Countywide Motor Vehicle High Injury Network................................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 8. Countywide Combined High Injury Network....................................................................................................................................... 35

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 8

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. C/CAG Constituent Jurisdictions and Partner Agencies ................................................................................................................17 Table 2. Calendar of C/CAG Public Engagement Events................................................................................................................................ 20 Table 3. Crash Data Overview, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022)........................................................................................................ 26 Table 4. Crashes by Year, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022)....................................................................................................................27 Table 5. Crashes by Year and Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022) ............................................................................ 29 Table 6: Crashes by Mode, Countywide (2018-2022)........................................................................................................................................ 36 Table 7. San Mateo County State Highways and Local Jurisdictions .....................................................................................................45 Table 8. Crashes by Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022) .................................................................................................. 47 Table 9. Caltrans SAP Actions Related to LRSP....................................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 10: Engineering Countermeasures ................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 11. Recommendations and Categories .........................................................................................................................................................56 Table 12: Policy/Program Recommendations and Partner Roles.............................................................................................................. 62 Table 13: Local HIN Segments by Mode, Jurisdiction, and Social Equity Neighborhoods...........................................................64 Table 14: State Highway HIN Segments by Mode, Jurisdiction, and Social Equity Neighborhoods.......................................71

APPENDICES
Appendix A Web Comments received by Agency
Appendix B Phase 2 Engagement Comments
Appendix C Crash Analysis Memo
Appendix D Project Priority Location Memo
Appendix E SamTrans Bus Stop Priority Analysis

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 9

INTRODUCTION
This countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) was initiated by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) with funding provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).

The plan development team was C/CAG with a consultant team of Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson), Safe Streets Research & Consulting (SSRC), and Circlepoint to provide a countywide vision for and assessment of transportation safety.

The plan is divided into two parts. The first part contains the Countywide LRSP, and the second part contains individual agency LRSPs for 10 participating agencies. C/CAG engaged its 21 constituent jurisdictions with the goal of providing an updated safety plan for those without one. The remaining 11 jurisdictions without a separate chapter in this plan already have or, at the time of this writing, are developing their own safety plans. Therefore, those agencies are not included individually in this plan. Links to their current safety plans are provided in a subsequent section. The jurisdictions with plans developed through this process include the following:
• Atherton
• Belmont
• Brisbane
• Colma
• East Palo Alto
• Foster City
• Half Moon Bay
• Hillsborough
• San Carlos
• Woodside
The completion of the LRSP will render jurisdictions in the County eligible for grant funding from the MTC OBAG 3 County & Local Program, future funding for Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program, and USDOT Safe Streets for All (SS4A) funding cycles.

What is an LRSP?
An LRSP is a systematic plan that assesses and identifies locations and strategies to improve local road safety.

LRSPs take an interdisciplinary approach to traffic safety and rely on interagency and community collaboration to implement recommendations.

A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proven safety countermeasure, LRSPs provide crosscutting efforts to prioritize investments.0F
1 FHWA provides more than $2 billion each year in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds for States to address road safety challenges on all public roads.

In California, to pursue HSIP grant funds (estimated at $210 million for Cycle 11 in 2022), a local agency must have an LRSP or equivalent planning document. This LRSP helps C/CAG and participating agencies qualify for HSIP funds and gets the city one step closer to eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries on its roads.

At the national level, USDOT requires a current LRSP that meets certain criteria in order for an agency to be eligible for implementation funding grant opportunities.1F 2 This plan has been structured to meet those criteria for C/CAG at the countywide level and for each of the 11 participating jurisdictions. 1 FHWA maintains a list of Proven safety countermeasures with documented effectiveness in reducing roadway fatalities and severe injuries (totaling 28 at present). More information is available online at https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures. 2 The most recently published eligibility information is available online at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-03/SS4A-Self-Certification-Eligibility-Worksheet-FY23.pdf.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 10
Safe System Approach
In January 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) released its National Roadway Safety Strategy
(NRSS). In addition to setting the vision for the USDOT, the NRSS adopts the Safe System Approach (SSA) to safety
planning, analyses, and project prioritization and
implementation.2F
3,
3F
4,
4F
5,
5F
6,
6F
7,
7F
8 The SSA aims to eliminate fatal and severe injuries for all road users.3 The SSA views crashes as systematic events that can be mitigated (or avoided completely) through a holistic approach to infrastructure, enforcement,
programs, and policies. A core assumption of this
approach is that roadway users make mistakes while
traveling and that the price of these mistakes should not be death or severe injury.

The SSA has five core elements3:
• Safe road users: This element reflects that the SSA prioritizes the safety of all road users traveling in the system. It also encompasses the human behavior and human factors issues that lead to crashes, injuries, and death.
• Safe vehicles: Vehicle regulations and vehicle design should be designed to mitigate the safety impacts of vehicle-involved crashes.
• Safe speeds: Because speed is the method of energy transfer to the human body, the SSA identifies it as a core element that should be considered in infrastructure design and policy-making. • Safe roads: Roadways are the context in which crashes occur. They should be designed to accommodate user error and mitigate the consequences when crashes occur. The SSA emphasizes that engineers and planners must rely on better design of roadways and speed management – rather than the traditional approach of relying on enforcement – to improve safety outcomes5,7 .
• Post-crash care: The final element acknowledges the importance of people receiving medical care after crashes occur, as well as post-crash analysis to understand contributing factors.

The large role speed plays in determining crash severity suggests the need to design a roadway safety strategy that slows speeds, thereby lessening the kinetic energy transferred to the human body in a crash.3 Recent Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance, which highlights key alignments between the SSA, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), and a State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), focuses on 3 Elissa Goughnour, Kara Peach, Michael Dunn, Meghan Mitman, and Dan Gelinne. Primer on Safe Systems Approach for Pedestrians and Bicyclists. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC, 2021. 4 The Safe System Approach. Washington, DC, 2022.
5 Federal Highway Administration. “Integrating Equity into the Safe System Approach” Presentation. Accessed Apr. 17, 2023:
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/zero-deaths/integrating-equity-safe-system-approach-presentation. 6 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Recommendations of the Safe System Consortium. 2022. 7 National Roadway Safety Strategy. Washington, DC, 2022. 8 Core Elements for Vision Zero Communities. Washington, DC, 2022.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 11
roadway speed—not just speeding behavior—as a general risk factor.8F 9 Similarly, international authorities focus
on a systemic approach—using risk factors to inform a rating system that helps to identify problematic roadways and prioritize projects for addressing safety concerns.9F 10,
10F
11 C/CAG and its 21 jurisdictions do not have full control over all Safe System elements. For example, the agencies cannot directly affect safe vehicle design and regulation. A Safe System would require State and Federal policy—like legislation to allow automated speed enforcement and continued regulation of vehicle safety standards—will be essential to build a system that is truly safe.

HOW DO AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES AFFECT A SAFE SYSTEM?
The presence of autonomous vehicles (AVs) is expanding in the Bay Area, including San Mateo County. Potential benefits of AVs could include improvements to safety, quality of life, access, and mobility for all citizens. 12 Ongoing research on AV technology helps clarify the potential benefits and risks to understand the impacts AVs have on safety of roadway users.

C/CAG and the 21 partnering agencies do not have the authority to regulate the presence of AVs on the roadways. Currently, USDOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) develops and regulates vehicle safety standards for automated vehicles, including issuing recalls for vehicles that do not meet them. In California, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) oversee and issue permits for AV pilots.

Local governments have a role in helping create safer roads and safer speeds for all travelers today. For example, local agencies can update design guidelines to include roadway and curbside signs and markings that consider new technologies like AVs.

C/CAG is partnered with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) to develop a Countywide Automated Vehicles Strategic Plan. SMCTA and C/CAG are currently working with stakeholders to develop a framework for AV pilot programs, projects, and activities that align with County policies, plans, and funding opportunities.

This issue is of keen local interest. The proposed Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (see O1:

Transportation Safety Advisory Committee on page 55) may include this topic in future meetings for discussion and local coordination.
9 Emily Finkel, Cullen McCormick, Meghan Mitman, Sarah Abel, Jackie Clark. 2020. Integrating the Safe System Approach with the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC. 10 PIARC Road Safety Manual. 2019. Accessed April 17, 2023: https://roadsafety.piarc.org/en 11 New Zealand Ministry of Transport. 2010. Safer Journeys - A National Strategy to Improve Road Safety. 12 National Science & Technology Council and USDOT. 2020. Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle Technology. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-02/EnsuringAmericanLeadershipAVTech4.pdf

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 12
Safety and Social Equity
We know that nationwide and statewide, safety impacts and fatal/severe injury crashes affect the population unevenly. The burdens of inequitable infrastructure investments result in more death and severe injury among marginalized populations.

The 2022 USDOT National Roadway Safety Strategy13 notes the following impacts:
• Nationally, the 40 percent of counties with the highest poverty rates in 2019 experienced a fatality rate 35 percent higher than the national average on a per population basis.14 • From 2019 to 2020, traffic-related fatalities among Black people increased by over three times higher than the overall nationwide increase of 7.2 percent.15
• People who are American Indian and Alaska Native have more than double the national fatality rate per population on a per population basis.

Within California, the American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black, and Hispanic population have per population fatality rates 16, 9, and 7 percent higher, respectively, than among the White population. Pedestrian fatality rates are 50, 65, and 37 percent higher, respectively.16
Within San Mateo County, Black and Hispanic travelers are victims in crashes at rates 2.2 and 1.2 times their share of the population, respectively.

Because of the continual disproportionate impact of crashes and the burden on disadvantaged communities, this plan incorporates social equity into the analysis, project prioritization, and plan recommendations. Social equity will be used to guide future investments and focus areas for non-engineering strategies that can improve safety in line with the Safe System approach.

Alignment with the SHSP
The 2020–2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) sets out California’s vision, goals, and objectives for reducing fatal and severe injury crashes on public roads (local roads and State Highways). To draw this roadmap, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) analyzed crash data and collaborated with traffic safety partners across the state. As a result, the SHSP identified 16 challenge areas, or areas with the most potential to improve roadway safety. Of the challenge areas, six were identified as high-priority areas, or areas with the greatest opportunity to reduce fatality and severe injury.

Whereas the SHSP has historically used the five “Es” (education, enforcement, engineering, emergency response, and emerging technologies) to organize its strategies, as of 2021 State transportation officials shifted 13 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf 14 1 FARS 2019 data publication, 1st release; Poverty rates and Population data by County, U.S. Census. The fatality rate for the top 40 percent of counties by poverty rate was 14.9 per 100,000 population versus 11.0 for the country. 15 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813118 16 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/shsp/combined-shsp-fact-sheets-april2022-a11y.pdf

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 13
focus toward principles that integrate social equity, take a Safe System Approach, and encourage proven countermeasures and emerging technologies. This plan is aligned with the SHSP’s updated guidance.

SHSP challenge areas include (with high-priority challenge areas presented in bold font):
• Aging Drivers (65 and older)
• Bicyclists
• Commercial Vehicles
• Distracted Driving
• Impaired Driving
• Intersections
• Lane Departures
• Motorcyclists
• Occupant Protection
• Pedestrians
• Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
• Work Zones
• Young Drivers (15–20 years old)
Incorporating Vision Zero
Vision Zero is a local, national, and international movement to eliminate all traffic-related deaths and severe injuries. The traditional approach to traffic safety views deaths and severe injuries as the cost of getting around; Vision Zero rejects this inevitability and instead understands that traffic fatalities and severe injuries are preventable.

By using the principles of the Safe System Approach, Vision Zero initiatives build layers of protection and redundancy into the transportation system to protect all roadway users—even when they make mistakes. The layers of overlapping redundancy are sometimes referred to as the “Swiss Cheese” Model (see Figure 1)— death and severe injury would only occur when all layers fail.

Figure 1. “Swiss Cheese” Model Demonstrating Layers of Redundancy Source: FHWA (https://cdn-wordpress.webspec.cloud/intrans.iastate.edu/uploads/sites/10/2021/11/SSA-IowaFHWA.pdf) This plan is aligned with a Vision Zero approach. Although C/CAG does not own local or State roads within San Mateo County, its vision for this plan represents an aggregate of all 21 communities’ visions and would result in significant near-term declines in fatal and severe injuries, with an eventual goal of zero.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 14
MTC passed a Vision Zero policy in 2020 that identified actions to support cities like those in San Mateo County to pursue a Vision Zero commitment. Such a commitment means building a safer transportation system and creating and sustaining a culture where residents, workers, and visitors prioritize traffic safety and minimize the lethality of traffic mistakes. This plan will be implemented through coordination with identified safety partners, including both city agencies and external parties.

What’s in the Plan
This LSRP includes the following:
• Vision and Goals: Countywide vision, accompanying local agency goals, and associated C/CAG goals • Plan Development: A summary of the collaborative process for developing the LRSP. • Countywide Data Analysis Findings: A description of major systemic and spatial findings from a countywide existing conditions analysis.
• State Highways in San Mateo County: A snapshot of the influence of Caltrans facilities on safety in the county and a commitment to work with Caltrans to improve safety on its network. • Safe System Aligned Recommendations: Engineering, policy, and program recommendations for C/CAG and member agencies to realize the plan’s vision and goals. • Projects: A summary of identified countywide locations to consider for implementing safety projects. • Implementation and Monitoring: Actions and performance measures to evaluate progress on plan goals.

VISION AND GOALS
Vision
This Countywide Plan vision establishes a desired future condition for San Mateo County, one which is achievable only with collaborative efforts from all relevant agencies.

As the lead agency in developing this plan, C/CAG envisions a County of diverse partners sharing resources and responsibility for maintaining a safe and equitable transportation system, with all actors consistently working together to eliminate death and severe injury on roads countywide.

Together, C/CAG, its 21 local jurisdictions, and partner agencies work to:
• Identify safety improvements, strategies, and programs using the Safe System Approach to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries on local roads.
• Enhance the existing roadway network in a cost-effective manner that promotes traffic safety and social equity, meets the needs of the community, and enriches the lives of residents. • Promote a culture across agencies and communities that puts roadway safety first in all actions.

C/CAG will lead, coordinate, and support its 21 local jurisdictions in achieving their vision to reduce or eliminate fatalities and severe injury crashes across all public roadways. The desired quantitative reductions from each jurisdiction’s plan is summarized below (with links to the current published plans):
• Atherton: Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2050. • Belmont: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2040.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 15
• Brisbane: Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2050; establish and promote a Safe System culture to build overlapping layers of safety.
• Burlingame: Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2050. • Colma: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2040. • Daly City (published 2020)17: Eliminate fatalities and serious injuries by 2035. • East Palo Alto: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal injury crashes by 50 percent by 2050.
• Foster City: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050 as part of a broader effort to promote roadway safety in Foster City’s departments, businesses, and residents.
• Half Moon Bay: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050. • Hillsborough: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050.
• Menlo Park (updated 2024)18: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2040. • Millbrae (adopted 2022)19: Systemically identify and analyze roadway safety problems and recommend improvements.
• Pacifica (adopted 2023)20: Residents and visitors to Pacifica are able to safety travel by car, foot, bicycle, transit, and other modes of transportation to access daily needs and recreational opportunities. • Portola Valley:21 To provide for safe and reasonably expeditious movement for local residents and minimize the disruptive influences of through traffic.
• Redwood City (adopted 2022)22: Eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries for all modes by 2030. • San Bruno (adopted 2023)23: Identify and analyze road safety issues from a systemic perspective and recommend improvements.
• San Carlos: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050. • San Mateo (ongoing): The City is committed to reaching its goal of eliminating all preventable traffic fatalities and severe injuries by 2050.
• South San Francisco (published 2022)24: Support the California vision of moving towards significantly reducing fatalities and serious injuries for all road users. • Unincorporated County (published 2021)25: Reduce the number of fatal crashes to zero by 2035. • Woodside: Achieve 50 percent reduction in fatal and severe injury crashes by 2050.

Plan Goals
This plan acts in the service of achieving several Countywide safety goals. These goals have guided the creation of this plan and serve as markers C/CAG can use to measure the plan’s success moving forward. 17 https://www.dalycity.org/DocumentCenter/View/3369/Vision-Zero-Action-Plan-2020-PDF 18 https://menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Public-Works/Capital-improvement-projects/Vision-Zero-Action-Plan 19 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=15854&repo=r-c2783ec8&searchid=81b66911-b352-477f-ab4f4a776cf7f808 20 https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/15778/638278612505239698 21 From the Town’s Circulation Element
22 https://www.redwoodcity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/25615/638016840641870000 23 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/436/Projects
24 https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/30166/638245818532000000 25 https://www.smcsustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/San-Mateo-County-LRSP3-1.pdf

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 16
The goals include the following:
• Regularly review crash history and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages and abilities.
• Partner with local agencies to incorporate roadway safety into all actions. • Implement context-appropriate safety countermeasures systemically and as part of all projects to target emphasis areas and underserved communities.
• Support agencies in providing opportunities for citizen engagement to identify issues and inform Countywide safety solutions.
• Embrace the Safe System Approach to promote engineering and non-engineering strategies in the community.
• Work with agencies to monitor safety projects and implementation to track progress towards goals.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 17

PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Existing Safety Efforts
This plan, in addition to outlining a countywide vision for roadway safety, concludes with 11 tailored safety plans for various towns and cities within San Mateo County. The remaining 10 jurisdictions within San Mateo County already have or are developing their own safety plans and therefore are not included individually in this plan (links provided where available):
 Burlingame (2023)
 Daly City (2020)
 Menlo Park (2024)
 Millbrae (2022)
 Pacifica (2023)
 Portola Valley (2019)
 Redwood City (2022)
 San Bruno (2023)
 San Mateo (ongoing)
 South San Francisco (2022)
 Unincorporated County (2021)
Project Advisory Group
The project team convened an advisory group to review and guide the plan’s progress. Throughout the plan’s development, the project team engaged the advisory group regularly and in different ways, including wholegroup meetings, specific break-out meetings, and one-on-one conversations.

The advisory group consisted of the following individuals and organizations:

Table 1. C/CAG Constituent Jurisdictions and Partner Agencies Agency Representative(s) Agency Representative(s)
Town of Atherton Robert Ovadia City of San Bruno Hae Won Harry Yip
City of Belmont Matt Hoang
Tracy Scramaglia
City of San Carlos Hanieh Houshmandi
Steven Machida
City of Brisbane Tomas Santoyo
Karen Kinser
City of San Mateo Bethany Lopez
Azalea Mitch
City of Burlingame Andrew Wong City of South San
Francisco
Jeff Chou
Matthew Ruble
Town of Colma Abdulkader Hashem Town of Woodside Yazdan Emrani Sindhi Mekala
Sean Rose

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 18
Agency Representative(s) Agency Representative(s)
City of Daly City Richard Chiu, Jr. County of San Mateo San Mateo County Fire Marshal; Diana Shu
City of East Palo Alto Irene Chiu
Humza Javed
Anwar Mirza
California Highway Patrol Mackenzie Crouch
City of Foster City Justin Lai
Francine Magno
Amy Zhou
Caltrans Greg Currey
Jake Freedman
Sergio Ruiz
City of Half Moon Bay Maz Bozorginia
Jonathan Woo
County of San Mateo
Sustainability
Department
Joel Slavit
Town of Hillsborough Paul Willis Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission
Bryan Redmond
City of Menlo Park Matthew Hui SamTrans Martin Reyes
City of Millbrae Sam Bautista San Mateo County Office
of Education
Theresa Vallez-Kelly
City of Pacifica Lisa Peterson San Mateo County
Health
Liz Sanchez
Town of Portola Valley Howard Young Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission
Anthony Montes
City of Redwood City Malahat Owrang
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support to create a culture of roadway safety. Additional partners may be identified in the future, but the advisory group shown above represents a group of invested parties that can be leveraged for plan implementation.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 19

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.

Pop-up Events Conducted as Part of Public Engagement at Woodside Public Library (top) and at Brisbane Farmers’ Market (bottom).

Events
The project team hosted a series of public engagement events countywide to support the concurrent development of the Countywide LRSP and each participating jurisdiction’s plan. These events focus on jurisdiction-specific issues and on countywide concerns. The table below lists the events, organized by themed engagement phases, and is followed by the community input themes we heard.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 20
Table 2. Calendar of C/CAG Public Engagement Events
Date Event Location
August 10, 2023 Countywide Virtual Kickoff
meeting – Sharing the purpose
and timing of the plan
Virtual meeting (recorded and
posted to plan website)
August 16, 2023 Phase 1 Pop-up/Tabling Event
Shared crash data analysis;
received input on locations and
safety concerns
East Palo Alto
August 19, 2023 Half Moon Bay Farmers Market
August 20, 2023 Foster City Summer Days
August 27, 2023 San Carlos Block Party
August – September, 2023 Phase 1 Concurrent Online
Input
Online webmap (countywide
input)
December 17, 2023 Phase 2 Pop-up/Tabling Event
Shared draft prioritized
locations and types of
engineering recommendations;
received comments on
locations and votes/input on
types of treatments and
desired locations
Belmont Farmers’ Market
December 20, 2023 Woodside Public Library
January 9, 2024 Colma BART Station
January 16, 2024 Atherton Library
January 18, 2024 Brisbane Farmers’ Market
February 7, 2024 Portola Valley Bicycle,
Pedestrian, & Traffic Safety
Committee
March – April 2024 Phase 3 Draft Plan
Share the draft plan publicly on
the project website, through
electronic distribution channels,
and with presentations to
C/CAG Committees and the
Board.

Various

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 21
Online Map Survey
The project team made an online countywide webmap tool and survey available during August and September 2023 for the public to provide comments and respond to questions to guide the plan’s development (see Figure 2). Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.

Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool
Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. Those comments are included in Appendix A, organized by local jurisdiction. Of the 352 respondents:
• 180 respondents mentioned their city of residence. Among the respondents who shared their city of residence, the top three were South San Francisco (19 percent), San Carlos (19 percent) and Half Moon Bay (17 percent). Figure 3 shows the percentage of total respondents by city of residence. (In many cases, respondents would leave a comment within a jurisdiction but not identify their city or town of residence. We have recorded those responses as “none stated.”) • 140 respondents identified their age group. Among the respondents who identified their age group, the top three categories were 35-39 years (26 percent), 30-34 years (24 percent), and 45-49 years (11 percent).
• 116 respondents identified their race/ethnicity. Among the respondents who identified their race/ethnicity, 83 percent were White, 7 percent were Asian, 6 percent were Hispanic, and 4 percent belonged to Other race/ethnicity groups.
• 106 respondents responded to whether they lived in a C/CAG Equity Focus Area. Of these respondents, 55 percent responded as “Yes”, and 45 percent responded as “No”.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 22
Figure 3. Percentage of Total Respondents by City of Residence Of the 528 responses, the following trends emerged:
• Respondents were asked to identify the travel mode for their comment and safety concern. The most frequent travel modes identified were biking (26 percent), driving (22 percent) and walking (20 percent). • Respondents were asked to pick their top three emphasis areas for the plan to focus on. The most frequently selected emphasis areas were pedestrian safety (71 percent of respondents), motor vehicle speed related roadway safety (49 percent), and unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors (24 percent). Figure 4 shows the percentage of total responses by emphasis areas selected. (Because respondents could select multiple, the responses sum to more than 100 percent).
49%
10%
10%
9%
6%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
None stated
San Carlos
South San Francisco
Half Moon Bay
San Bruno
Unincorporated
Brisbane
Redwood City
Daly City
San Mateo
Belmont
East Palo Alto
Burlingame
Foster City
Millbrae
Pacifica
Woodside
Percentage of Total Respondents

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 23
Figure 4. Percentage of Total Responses by Emphasis Areas Selected Respondents were also asked which Safe System elements were most important for the plan to focus on (Safer People, Safer Roads, Safer Vehicles, Safer Speeds, or Post-Crash Care). Of those who responded to the question, the top three safe system elements selected were safer roads (70 percent), safer people (46 percent), and safer speeds (34 percent). Some respondents selected more than one, so results sum to more than 100 percent.

Phase 1 Feedback
This section describes the general themes/concerns gathered from community feedback. Additionally, maps of comment locations are included in the local jurisdiction chapters.

Biking Concerns/Requests
• Provide a more connected bike network: continuous bike lanes (especially through intersections) and install bike lanes to transit connections (Caltrain) and biotechnology business parks in South San Francisco. • Upgrade or general maintenance concerns of existing bike infrastructure including widening and restriping bike lanes, installing raised barriers on overpasses, installing bike wayfinding signs, installing street lighting to increase visibility of bicyclists, removing speed humps, repairing potholes, and removing debris along bike lanes.
• Add new bike infrastructure such as protected bike lanes, separated bike lanes, road diets, bike tunnels, and bike bridges.
• Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, vehicle speeds, right of way issues, and turning conflicts at intersections. • Upgrade signal timing to provide a leading bicycle interval. • Remove on-street parking to make more way for bikes along the roadway. • Request to provide modal filters: to allow only bicycles and pedestrians on certain streets. 4%
7%
10%
17%
21%
24%
49%
71%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Driving Under the Influence
Aging Drivers/Pedestrians
Hit Object crashes
Broadside Motor Vehicle/Bike Crashes
at Unsignalized Intersections
Nighttime/Low Light Safety
Unsignalized Intersections on
Arterials/Collectors
Motor Vehicle Speed-Related
Roadway Segment Crashes
Pedestrian Safety
Percentage of Total Responses (Respondents selected up to 3, so results sum to >100%)

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 24
Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Add new pedestrian infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure such as building new sidewalks, widening existing sidewalks, providing midblock crossings, and high visibility crosswalks. • Requests for sidewalk maintenance and trimming low hanging trees. • Support for additional pedestrian infrastructure including Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, push buttons for WALK signs and pedestrian hybrid beacons (HAWK), increasing pedestrian walk times and modifying signals to include a leading pedestrian interval (especially at intersections near transit connections and schools).
• Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, speeding, and running STOP signs.
• Concerns related to sharing sidewalks with micromobility devices such as bicycles, electric scooters, skateboards, etc.
• Pedestrian visibility concerns: street lighting is absent or insufficient. • Concerns regarding curb ramps being insufficient for wheelchairs or other mobility challenged roadway users.

Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Multiple concerns regarding running STOP signs and red lights. • Concerns regarding speeding observed at multiple locations – requests for traffic calming. • Concerns regarding illegal on-street parking, double parking, parking on sidewalks and bike lanes and large vehicles parking on roadways or curves.

Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Primary concerns include traffic congestion, the number of lanes not being sufficient for the traffic volumes during peak hours and poor signal timing design (signals show red when there are no vehicles at an approach)
• Concerns regarding maintenance of roadway infrastructure including friction of the roadway surfaces, potholes, lack of proper roadway markings, wayfinding signage and improving visibility at intersections. • Requests to reduce vehicle conflict points at intersections through design. • Requests to install barriers to separate two-way traffic, lengthening passing lanes and adding high occupancy vehicle lanes.

Public Transit Concerns
• Improve biking and walking connections to transit stations. • Provide more public transportation options.
• Ensure reliable bus services and routes serving locations such as schools, parks and seniors.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 25
Phase 2 Feedback
Phase 2 outreach included more detailed discussion of the Countywide High Injury Network and draft priority locations within communities. Participants were also asked to weigh in on potential engineering solutions. The project team received over 200 comments on priority locations and proposed countermeasures. The locations and themes of Phase 2 comments are presented in the individual plan chapters included in this plan document.

Comments received, organized by event, are included in Appendix B. Themes from this feedback varied between communities but are summarized as follows:

General Comments
• Desire for better enforcement of motor vehicles speeding and stopping at stop signs.

Pedestrian Comments
• Concerns of pedestrian safety on major roadways and desire for pedestrian enhancements, such as sidewalks and pedestrian signals, to enhance safety,
Bicycle Comments
• Desire to improve bicycle facilities, specifically clearly marked and separated bike lanes. • Concerns of poor visibility for bicyclists, especially where bicyclists and drivers share the road.

Motor Vehicle Comments
• Desire for traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps, stop signs, and traffic lights. • Concerns of vehicles speeding, especially in areas with lots of pedestrians

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 26

COUNTYWIDE DATA ANALYSIS

FINDINGS
A systemic descriptive analysis was conducted to identify patterns, trends, and potential risk factors based on five-year County crash data. The descriptive analysis identifies environmental, design, and user characteristics most associated with fatal and severe injury (F/SI) outcomes. The data were downloaded from the Transportation Injury Mapping System19F
26 (TIMS) Crash database representing injury and fatal crashes for the full years 2018 through 2022.

The analysis was limited to roadways and crashes that occur on locally owned roadways and along at-grade State Highway facilities. The analysis excluded all Caltrans-owned grade-separated freeways and ramps, with the exception of crashes occurring within the influence area of ramp terminal intersections (which typically include Caltrans and locally owned roadways).

The subsequent State Highways in San Mateo County Section beginning on page 43 describes at-grade State Highway trends in the county and provides recommendations for working with Caltrans to improve safety on State Highway roads in the County.

Table 3 shows an overview of crashes and share of local/State Highway locations for the data analyzed.

Table 3. Injury/Fatal Crash Data Overview, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Year Total Count
Crashes on
NonFreeway
Roadways
Non-Freeway Injury/Fatal Crash Breakdown
State
Highway
Crashes
State
Highway
Share
(percent)
Local
Roadway
Crashes
Local
Roadway
Share
(percent)
2018-2022 12,526 8,468 2,712 43% 5,756 57%
Source: TIMS 2023
26 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 27
Pre-Pandemic versus Pandemic Comparison
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on travel patterns, behaviors, and traffic volumes. The analysis considered crashes that occurred before the pandemic (2017-2019) and during the pandemic years (2020-2022) to observe changes in safety due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Based on the findings as listed in Table 4, the total number of crashes has decreased, but the number of F/SI crashes before versus after is quite similar (52 compared to 48 percent of the six-year total). This is also evident in the average crash severity score per crash, which indicates that in the pandemic era the average crash severity has been about 20 percent higher compared to 2017-2019.27 Based on Caltrans Traffic Census data, traffic volumes decreased from 2017 to 2021 along State Highway routes Countywide by between 3 and 38 percent (See Table 9 in Appendix C). This means that overall crash frequency decreased alongside traffic volumes—an expected trend—but that the frequency for the most severe crashes remained relatively stable.

Table 4. Injury/Fatal Crashes by Year, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Year Count
percent of 6-
year Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
percent of
Total F/SI
Crashes
Average
Crash
Severity
Score
2017-
2019
6,109 58% 555 52% 22.8
2020-
2022
4,436 42% 518 48% 27.2
Total 10,545 100% 1,073 100% 24.7
Source: TIMS 2023
Table 5 shows the total number of crashes has decreased from pre-pandemic to pandemic era in most County jurisdictions with the exception of East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, and Woodside. The Cities of Atherton, Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, Woodside, and Unincorporated San Mateo County (64 percent of total jurisdictions) all recorded higher F/SI crashes in the pandemic era.
27 The crash severity score is a normalized measure that scores a crash based on its average societal cost and compares it to a typical reported crash resulting in property damage only (PDO). For example, a crash at a signalized intersection resulting in death or severe injury is weighted 120 times a PDO crash; a crash resulting in a minor injury is weighted 11 times a PDO; and crash resulting in a possible injury is weighted six times a PDO. A higher average crash severity score means that those crashes resulted in more severe outcomes more often.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 28

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 29
Table 5. Injury/Fatal Crashes by Year/Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Jurisdiction Year F/SI Other Crashes Total
Atherton 2017-2019 2 116 118
2020-2022 3 41 44
Belmont 2017-2019 5 164 169
2020-2022 5 130 135
Brisbane 2017-2019 8 53 61
2020-2022 8 23 31
Burlingame 2017-2019 3 212 215
2020-2022 11 116 127
Colma 2017-2019 22 9 31
2020-2022 0 1 1
Daly City 2017-2019 4 544 548
2020-2022 39 434 473
East Palo Alto 2017-2019 10 250 260
2020-2022 33 229 262
Foster City 2017-2019 4 106 110
2020-2022 10 74 84
Half Moon Bay 2017-2019 10 77 87
2020-2022 9 82 91
Hillsborough 2017-2019 4 30 34
2020-2022 2 13 15
Menlo Park 2017-2019 23 430 453
2020-2022 15 252 267
Millbrae 2017-2019 11 142 153

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 30
Jurisdiction Year F/SI Other Crashes Total
2020-2022 24 107 131
Pacifica 2017-2019 21 249 270
2020-2022 24 167 191
Portola Valley 2017-2019 2 25 27
2020-2022 10 11 21
Redwood City 2017-2019 41 783 824
2020-2022 50 546 596
San Bruno 2017-2019 56 266 322
2020-2022 23 187 210
San Carlos 2017-2019 15 155 170
2020-2022 19 139 158
San Mateo 2017-2019 58 715 773
2020-2022 23 326 349
South San Francisco 2017-2019 66 530 596
2020-2022 43 424 467
Unincorporated 2017-2019 113 625 738
2020-2022 137 529 666
Woodside 2017-2019 14 73 87
2020-2022 30 87 117
Source: TIMS 2023

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 31
Hot Spot analysis/ High Injury Network Identification
A hot spot analysis involves analyzing historic crash data for the County and within each local jurisdiction. Hot spot analysis is a valuable method to identify locations with disproportionate histories of crashes, but it is not intended to reveal roadway factors that contribute to high crash risk. To identify the modal High Injury Networks (HINs) for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles, a sliding window analysis was conducted as described in Appendix C
Dynamic maps of all local jurisdiction HINs, as well as of the combined Countywide HIN, can be viewed at this link. Static maps are contained in the body and as part of Appendix C of this plan. On these maps, routes labeled as “Non-Highway” are not part of the State’s highway network. • The pedestrian HIN is represented by 98 miles of the street network that had the highest concentration of weighted crashes on a per-mile basis. The minimum weighted crash threshold was substantially higher along State routes (i.e., Caltrans roadways) compared to local roads. This differential scoring was used to keep State routes from dominating the HIN and precluding insights about locally controlled roadways. The Pedestrian HIN covers just 3.4 percent of the street network for the County but accounts for half of all pedestrian crashes and 69 percent of fatal and severe injury pedestrian crashes from 2018 to 2022. Roughly 12 percent of the pedestrian HIN is along a State route, and 10 percent of the pedestrian HIN is along El Camino Real (SR 82).
• The bicyclist HIN was produced using the same approach as the pedestrian HIN (i.e., evaluating State routes separately from local streets and using the same relative scoring). The bicyclist HIN represents 96 miles of the street network and accounts for 3.3 percent of the street network. Twenty-seven percent of the network is along a State route, with El Camino Real comprising nearly 10 percent of the bicyclist HIN mileage. Most crashes along the bicyclist HIN involved both a bicyclist and a motorist (82 percent of total crashes; 67 percent of F/SI crashes), while the remaining crashes were solo bicyclist crashes. • The Motor Vehicle HIN was developed using the same per-mile weighted analysis as the pedestrian and bicyclist HIN but the crash thresholds for State highways and local roadways. The motor vehicle HIN represents 283 miles of the street network and accounts for about 10 percent of the street network, 63 percent of all injury motor vehicle crashes, and 44 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crashes. Forty-two (42) percent of the network is along a State route.

To consolidate a network of high injury segments for San Mateo County and its specific jurisdictions, motor vehicle HIN, pedestrian HIN and bicycle HIN were combined to identify, for every roadway segment in the County, whether it is part of zero, one, two, or all three of the modal HINs.