Belmont City Council
January 14, 2025

CITY OF BELMONT

CITY COUNCIL
www.belmont.gov

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, January 14, 2025
6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California
MEETING ATTENDANCE:

Council meetings, unless otherwise noted, are broadcast live to Belmont residents on

1. Comcast Cable Channel 27

2. Streamed live via the City’s website at Belmont.gov,

3. ZOOM https://belmont- gov.zoom.us/ Meeting ID: 95745673035

4. Public may attend the meeting in the Council Chambers, Belmont City Hall 2nd floor PUBLIC COMMENT:

Public in the Council Chamber present the Clerk a request to speak slip found at the table at the rear of the chamber.

If participating virtually use the Raise Hand feature to request to speak.

For dial- in comments, call *67 1-(669) 900-6833 (your phone number will appear on the live broadcast if *67 is not dialed prior to the phone number), enter Meeting ID: 95745673035, and press *9 to request to speak.

All public comments are subject to a 3-minute time limit unless otherwise determined by the Chair.

If you wish to submit written public comment, you may send an email to [email protected] before the council considers the item. Please indicate the agenda item topic or agenda item number you wish to comment on in your email’s subject line. Any public comment regarding agenda items that are received from the time of publication of the agenda and 3 hours before the start of the meeting will be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting and made part of the meeting record. Written public comments will not be read during the Council meeting.

The Mayor has the authority to rule any speaker out of order, including speakers during the Public Comment period; If the subject raised is not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council, during a public hearing or a general business item if the speaker is not presenting testimony or evidence relevant to the matter or if the speaker becomes disruptive to the proceedings and conduct of the meeting.

The Mayor also has the authority to order any person who willfully interrupts the meeting to be removed. All persons are expected to conduct themselves with civility and courtesy at all times. All 1 1. CALL TO ORDER [6:15 PM]

2. ROLL CALL

3. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Govt Code Section 54957.6) Agency designated representatives: Afshin Oskoui, City Manager Employee organization:

Mid-Management Confidential Employee Association (MMCEA) and Belmont Police Officers Association (BPOA)

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Rethink Waste Poster Contest Recognition
B. HIP Housing Calendar Contest Recognition
C. AYSO 10UB White Wolves Recognition

7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

8. COUNCILMEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

9. CONSENT BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes
B. San Juan Boulevard Sewer Capacity Improvements Project Notice of Completion persons giving comments shall speak directly to the Council and address issues, not individuals.

Personal attacks, cursing and outbursts from the audience in support or opposition to a speaker are not tolerated in order to foster an environment where everyone feels welcome to speak.

REGULAR MEETING ITEMS [7:00 PM]
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Body on any City matter not on the agenda. The period for public comment at this point in the agenda is limited to 15 minutes, with a maximum of 3 minutes per speaker. Speakers who requested but did not receive an opportunity to speak during this comment period will be given an opportunity to address the Body later in the meeting. State law prohibits the Body from acting on non-agenda items.

Consent business items are considered to be routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a member or staf request specific items to be removed for separate action.

The City Attorney will read the title of ordinances to be adopted.

Attachment(s):

December 10, 2024 Meeting Minutes
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution accepting the construction work and authorizing the issuance of Notice of Completion for the San Juan Boulevard Sewer Capacity Improvements Project, City Contract Number, 2024-631, recording of the Notice of Completion with the 2 C. Install a Two-Way Stop on Malcolm Avenue at Anita Avenue and a Bike Box on Ralston Avenue at South Road
D. Field Groomer Purchase

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS [None]

11. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Business License Regulation Clean-Up, Solicitor Regulation Amendment, and Adjustment to the Category 4 Business License Tax Rate
B. Adoption of the San Mateo Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan and Vision Zero Goal
County of San Mateo Recorder’s Office, and release of retention 35 day after recordation of the Notice of Completion
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution installing a two-way stop on Malcolm Avenue at Anita Avenue, and a bike box and related improvements on Ralston Avenue at South Road Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Anita Ave and Malcolm Ave mockup
Ralston Ave at South Rd mockup
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution appropriating $40,476.36 for the purchase of a Toro Field Pro 6040 Field Groomer from Turf Star
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Quote from Turf Star
General Business items are considered separately, typically in the order listed. The chair will call for public comment on each item when the body considers the item.

Recommendation: 1. Introduce an ordinance repealing provisions in the Belmont City Code Chapter 12 and 19 pertaining to business licenses superseded by Measure DD and amending solicitor regulations contained therein

2. Adopt a resolution adjusting the Category 4 Business License Tax rate for cannabis-related businesses
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Resolution
Ordinance
Recommendation: Adopt by resolution the San Mateo Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan and accompanying Vision Zero Goal
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
3 C. Council Intergovernmental Assignments for Calendar Year 2025

12. BRIEF VERBAL REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF

13. MATTERS OF INTEREST/CLARIFICATION

14. ADJOURNMENT
Resolution
CCAG Countywide LRSP_Belmont Chapter with Edits
CCAG Presentation Slides
Recommendation: Consider changes to and motion to approve the City Council Intergovernmental Assignments for calendar year 2025
Attachment(s):

Staff Report
Current Assignment List
A. Verbal report from Councilmembers on Intergovernmental (IGR) and Subcommittee Assignments
B. Verbal report from City Manager
Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staf only. However, Council/Board may take final action on an item if there is no need for additional staf analysis.

If you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 595-7413. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Meeting information can also be accessed via the internet at:www.belmont.gov. All staf reports will be posted to the web in advance of the meeting, and any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council/District Board or Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Of ice, One Twin Pines Lane, during normal business hours and at the Council Chambers at City Hall, Second Floor, during the meeting.

AGENDA POSTING: I declare a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, and the City's website www.belmont.gov on ,by . /s/
4 City Council Meeting Minutes
December 10, 2024

CITY OF BELMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
City Council Chambers, City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California Tuesday, December 10, 2024
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Pang-Maganaris, Hurt, McCune, Latimerlo, Mates Councilmembers Absent: None

CLOSED SESSION
None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Scout Troop 301

REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
None

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Beautiful Belmont Awards
The Council recognized the awardees for Residential properties at 1503 Williams Ave, and 3301 Haskins Drive. And commercial properties 390 El Camino- Belmont Plaza, a Culligan Property, Spoon and Fork, 1325 Old County Road Artisan Crossing Residential Apartment Development, and The Hayden Residential Apartment Development 815 Old County Road.

Presentation of Community Service Award
The Council recognized Carolyn Hoskins Adar Emken and Susan Rendina for their service to the Belmont Community.

Proclamations Honoring:

Congresswoman Ana Eshoo, San Mateo County Supervisor David Pine, San Mateo County Supervisor Warren Slocum, Assembly Member Phil Ting
Mayor Mate recognized the public service of the local and regional representatives.

Karen Hass-Foletta - Founder and Director of Footsteps Childcare Mayor Mates read the proclamation and Council congratulated Ms. Hass-Foletta on the 30 year service to the Belmont Community.

Sally Umali - Retiring Belmont Community Learning Center Teacher Mayor Mates read the proclamation and Council congratulated Ms. Umali on her service to the Belmont Community and wished her well on her retirement. 5 City Council Meeting Minutes
December 10, 2024

Recognition of Carlmont Students for contributions to the success of the Belmont Water Dog Race
The Council recognized the efforts of Carlmont students in the success of the Belmont Water Dog Race.

Police Department Personnel Oath of Office
Police Chief Stenquist introduced four newly appointed police officers Mohammad Silmi, Elian Delacruz, Luis Herrera, Filipe Gomes. City Clerk Plut administered the oath of office to the officers and family members honored the officers with a badge pinning.

Year in Review
Mayor Mates provided highlights of the Council’s and strategic initiatives and program milestones of 2024.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Councilmembers provided information on upcoming holiday events.

COUNCILMEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS
None

CONSENT BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes of November 26, 2024
Motion authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute Amendment No. 6 to the Service Agreement with 4 Leaf, Inc. to provide building inspection services for $150,000, for a total notto-exceed amount of $599,865 ACTION: On a motion Councilmember Hurt and seconded by Councilmember Pang-Maganaris the consent business items were unanimously approved by a roll call (vote 5-0).

PUBLIC HEARINGS
None

GENERAL BUSINESS
November 5, 2024 Election Results
City Clerk Plut explained the resolution before the Council declares the results of the November 5, 2024 election as follows:

Mayor: Julia Mates was unopposed and received the highest votes.

District 2: Cathy Jordan received the highest votes for Councilmember.

District 4: Tom McCune received the highest votes for Councilmember.

Measure DD: Received 82.41% of the vote, surpassing the majority required for passage.

No members of the public came forward to speak.
6 City Council Meeting Minutes
December 10, 2024

ACTION: On a motion made by Councilmember Latimerlo and seconded by Councilmember Pan-Maganaris Resolution 2024-82 declaring the results of the Election held on November 5, 2024 for Belmont Mayor-at-Large and Councilmembers in District 2 and 4 and Measure DD was approved by a roll call vote (5-0).

Council Reorganization including Oath of Office for Newly Elected Members And Council Remarks
Mayor Mates honored the distinguished 10 year public services provided Councilmember Davina Hurt to the Belmont Community and surrounding region.

Public comment honoring Councilmember Hurt provided by representatives of Congressman Mullin, Senator Becker, and Assemblymember Papan, Supervisor Corzo. Belmont residents Alexis Lewis, Cathy Jordan and Charles Stone.

Councilmembers provided comments in honor of Councilmember Hurt.

City Manager provided comments in honor of Councilmember Hurt and presented her with a token of appreciation.

Councilmember Hurt provided comments on her service to the Belmont Community and stepped off the dais.

Recess: 7:40 pm
Reconvene: 7:42 pm
Council Reorganization
Diana Candee administered the oath of office to Councilmember McCune.

Kevin Jordan administered the oath of office to Councilmember Jordan.

Mayor Mates’ siblings Jonathan, Jacqueline, Joshua and Justin administered the Mayor’s oath of office.

The newly elected members of the council were seated at the dais and provided comments of gratitude to the community.

Selection of Vice Mayor for Calendar Year 2025
City Clerk Plut briefly outlined the process of selecting a Vice Mayor.

No public comment provided.

ACTION: On a motion made by Mayor Mates and seconded by Councilmember Latimerlo Resolution 2024-083 appointing Councilmember Pang-Maganaris Vice Mayor for calendar year 2025 was unanimously approved by a roll call vote. (5-0). 7 City Council Meeting Minutes
December 10, 2024

BRIEF VERBAL REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF
Verbal report from Councilmembers on Intergovernmental (IGR) and Subcommittee Assignments
None
Verbal report from City Manager
None

MATTERS OF INTEREST/CLARIFICATION
None
Adjournment at this time being 8:00 p.m.

Submitted by,
Jozi Plut
City Clerk
8

San Juan Boulevard Sewer Capacity Improvements Project Notice of Completion - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 14, 2025
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Nisha Patel, Public Works, (650)595-7459, [email protected] Agenda Title: San Juan Boulevard Sewer Capacity Improvements Project Notice of Completion Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution accepting the construction work and authorizing the issuance of Notice of Completion for the San Juan Boulevard Sewer Capacity Improvements Project, City Contract Number, 2024-631, recording of the Notice of Completion with the County of San Mateo Recorder’s Office, and release of retention 35 day after recordation of the Notice of Completion.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
The San Juan Boulevard Sewer Capacity Improvements Project involves the construction of approximately a half mile of sanitary sewer pipe network along San Juan Boulevard and East Laurel Creek Road, upsizing the existing pipe, as well as reconnection of the sewer service laterals, and rehabilitation of the manholes. This project was required to be constructed prior to the San Juan Boulevard Pump Station Project construction, which started design in late December.

The project was advertised on May 14, 2024, and received 11 bids on June 12, 2024. The low bid was in the amount of $1,348,744 from C2R Engineering, Inc. Construction of the project commenced on August 5, 2024.

Analysis
The project began construction in May and was completed by mid-June, with three change orders issued during construction. The first two change orders were issued due to the unforeseen work for removal, and disposal of concrete encasement in separate locations. The third change order was for the removal of the concrete embedment around an existing force main, tunneling under identified steel pipe, rehabilitation work at the manholes, and associated additional asphalt pavement replacement. The final cost of the construction including the change orders is $1,370,547.83.

C2R Engineering Inc. has completed the project in accordance with the contract plans and specifications including the modification made by change orders. A final project inspection has been deemed complete per the contract requirements, and the project is recommended for acceptance by the City Council and a Notice of Completion be filed with the County Recorder’s Office. 9

San Juan Boulevard Sewer Capacity Improvements Project Notice of Completion - Staff Report Alternatives

1. Take no action

2. Refer back to staff for more information
Attachments
A. Resolution
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

Funding in the amount of $1,370,547.83 came from the Sewer Collection Fund under San Juan Sewer Main Capacity Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project Account #399-3-730-
7086-9030.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 10

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

ACCEPTING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION, AND RELEASE OF RETENTION 35 DAYS AFTER

RECORDATION OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE SAN JUAN

BOULEVARD SEWER CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CITY CONTRACT NUMBER 2024-631
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2024, City Council approved advertisement for sealed bids and authorized the City Manager to award the San Juan Boulevard Sewer Capacity Improvement Project, City Contract Number 2024-631, to the lowest responsible bidder for an amount not to exceed $2,310,000; and,
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2024, the City conducted a bid opening, and the low bid came in at $1,384,744 from, C2R Engineering, Inc.; and,
WHEREAS, the final cost of construction including changer orders is $1,370,547.83.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. Accepts the construction work for the San Juan Boulevard Sewer Capacity Improvement Project as complete.

SECTION 2. Authorizes the City Clerk to issue the Notice of Completion to C2R Engineering, Inc.

SECTION 3. Authorizes the City Clerk to file Notice of Completion with the San Mateo County Clerk-Recorder’s office for the San Juan Boulevard Sewer Capacity Improvement Project, City Contract Number 2024-631.
* * *
ADOPTED January 14, 2025 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
11

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
12

Parking and Traffic Safety Committee - Multiple Actions - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 14, 2025
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Daniel Matthews, Assistant Engineer, 650-637-2985, [email protected] Agenda Title: Install a Two-Way Stop on Malcolm Avenue at Anita Avenue and a Bike Box on Ralston Avenue at South Road
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution installing a two-way stop on Malcolm Avenue at Anita Avenue, and a bike box and related improvements on Ralston Avenue at South Road
Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
The Parking and Traffic Safety Committee (PTSC), composed of representatives from Public Works, Belmont Police Department, and San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, reviews resident requests for traffic safety improvements. City staff received requests for traffic safety improvements from residents near Anita Avenue and Malcolm Avenue and bicyclists traveling on Ralston Avenue. Staff performed an investigation at both locations to understand current conditions and the need for improvements.

Analysis
Following discussion and public feedback at a November 2nd meeting, the Parking and Traffic Safety Committee recommends the installation of:
• A two-way stop on Malcolm Avenue at Anita Avenue
• A bike box and related improvements on Ralston Avenue at South Road Malcolm Avenue at Anita Avenue
Visibility concerns at the intersection of Malcolm Avenue and Anita Avenue stem from limited sightlines caused by roadway geometry. The current use of two yield signs is inconsistent with standard traffic control practices in Belmont. Transitioning to a two-way stop will improve safety by reducing ambiguity and ensuring vehicles on Malcolm Avenue come to a complete stop, where they are visible to traffic approaching on Anita Ave, before proceeding. The proposed traffic markings will further enhance visibility and awareness for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

Ralston Avenue at South Road
Eastbound bicyclists on Ralston Avenue benefit from an existing Class II Bike Lane but face challenges at the intersection with South Road, where the Class II Bike Lane ends. Cyclists can either continue through on Ralston Avenue in a Class III Shared Bike Route or through Twin Pines Park on a Class I Bike 13

Parking and Traffic Safety Committee - Multiple Actions - Staff Report Path, both are designated paths in Belmont’s Transportation Master Plan. A bike box, a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection, will provide a safe queuing area for cyclists continuing on Ralston Avenue, making them more visible to drivers and reducing conflicts during green lights. Revised signage will clarify bicycle routes and increase driver awareness of shared road usage.

Alternatives

1. Take no action

2. Refer back to staff for further information
Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Attachment A – Proposed Two-Way Stop on Malcolm Avenue at Anita Avenue C. Attachment B – Proposed Bicycle Safety Improvements along Ralston Avenue near South Road Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

Expenditures have been incorporated in current fiscal year’s operating budget in the Street Maintenance Fund for the PTSC recommended improvements.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Citizen Initiated Discretionary Action Other*
*A Parking and Traffic Safety Committee meeting was hosted on November 2nd with nearby properties (500 ft radius from intersections) invited to discuss improvements and gain feedback on proposals. 14

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

APPROVING TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT MALCOLM AVE AND

ANITA AVE, AND RALSTON AVE AND SOUTH RD
WHEREAS, the Parking and Traffic Safety Committee (PTSC) received complaints regarding unsafe traffic conditions from the residents near Malcolm Ave and Anita Ave ; and, WHEREAS, PTSC additionally received complaints regarding unsafe conditions for bicycle traffic near Ralston Ave and South Rd: and,
WHEREAS, the following measures for traffic safety improvements were discussed at the PTSC meeting and are recommended for implementation:
• Installation of a two-way stop at Malcolm Ave and Anita Ave to address sightline concerns for vehicles approaching the intersection;
• Installation of a bike box and revised signage at Ralston Ave and South Rd to provide a safe queuing area for cyclists and reduce conflicts during green lights NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. Adopt a resolution approving traffic safety improvements at Malcolm Ave and Anita Ave, and at Ralston Ave and South Rd
* * *
ADOPTED January 14, 2025 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
15

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
16 17
18

Appropriation of General Funds for Field Groomer Purchase - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 14, 2025
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Nisha Patel, Public Works, (650)595-7459, [email protected] Agenda Title: Field Groomer Purchase
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution appropriating $40,476.36 for the purchase of a Toro Field Pro 6040 Field Groomer from Turf Star.

Strategic Focus Area
Quality of Life
Background
The Parks and Recreation Department is currently using a 26-year-old Workman for grooming at various sports fields in the City. This Workman is a specialized utility vehicle designed to maintain baseball and softball fields. It performs tasks such as:

1. Leveling and Smoothing Infields: Equipped with attachments like drag mats or rakes, it smooths the dirt and clay surfaces, ensuring a consistent and safe playing surface.

2. Aerating and Loosening Soil: Some attachments can break up compacted soil, improving drainage and reducing the risk of injuries.

3. Applying Field Materials: It can distribute topdressing materials, such as infield mix or conditioner, evenly across the surface.

4. Edge Maintenance: With the proper tools, it helps keep grass edges neat and prevents overgrowth onto the infield.

5. General Maintenance: The vehicle can tow equipment, haul supplies, or carry tools needed for field upkeep.

Overall, it ensures fields are properly groomed, aesthetically pleasing, and safe for play.

Analysis
The Workman is currently past its useful life. Replacement parts can no longer be found or need to be custom made. Replacement of the Workman is $37,172. Based on Fleet Division’s research the replacement would be a lesser version than what the City uses now because it would not have a hydraulic float and box scraper. These are useful features as they are needed to grade the ball field infields. The Workman currently grooms eight (8) park infields in the City, and it is used for grooming multiple times a week except in the winter. A completely comparable product to the Workman is not available. The Workman or its lesser replacement are the only products that can connect to the synthetic turf attachments that the City needs to be able to maintain the Belmont Sports Complex North Field. Given the age and 19

Appropriation of General Funds for Field Groomer Purchase - Staff Report condition of the Workman a complimentary equipment is needed to provide continued maintenance of the City’s sports fields for uninterrupted use.

In conjunction with the Fleet Division the Parks and Recreation department have researched a suitable field groomer (Toro Field Pro 6040 Field Groomer) at a cost of $40,476.36 from Turf Star using Sourcewell. Sourcewell is a government agency that provides cooperative purchasing solutions to public sector entities such as cities, counties, schools, and nonprofits. It streamlines the procurement process by offering competitively solicited contracts for a wide range of goods and services, including vehicles, equipment, technology, and professional services.

The equipment purchase was not budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2024-25 operating budget. The Toro Field Pro 6040 Field Groomer can take over infield grooming for the baseball and softball fields that the Workman is doing. It can also tow the synthetic turf attachment in the event the Workman is out of service.

The quote the City received to the purchase the Field Groomer from Turf Star is for amount of $40,476.36, including assembly and delivery. The Turf Star quote, as part of the cooperative purchasing contract, will deliver the vehicle 22% off the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. The Field Groomer, if purchased, would not replace the Workman as the Workman performs other functions that the Field Groomer does not. It would be a new equipment added to the City’s fleet inventory.

A budget appropriation of $40,476.36 in the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund (account no. 573-1- 740-9041) is necessary to purchase the Field Groomer this fiscal year.

Alternatives

1. Take No Action

2. Refer back to staff for more information
Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Quote from Turf Star
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed: Budget appropriation in the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund (Account No. 573-1-740-9041).

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
20

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT APPROPRIATING $40,476.36 FOR PURCHASE OF A FIELD GROOMER WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department is currently using the Workman for infield grooming for the baseball and softball fields in the parks in Belmont, among other duties; and,
WHEREAS, the Workman is past its useful life and could become out of service any day going forward; and,
WHEREAS, The Toro Field Pro 6040 Field Groomer can take over infield grooming that the Workman is currently performing; and
WHEREAS, the City received a quote to purchase the field groomer from Turf Star for total amount of $40,476.36; and
WHEREAS, Turf Star is a Sourcewell contractor, a cooperative purchasing contractor, under contract no. 031121-TTC; and
WHEREAS, the Field Groomer, if purchased, would be new vehicle added to the fleet; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. Approves an appropriation of $40,476.36 to the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund (Account No, 573-1-740-9041) for the purchase of a Toro Field Pro 6040 Field Groomer from Turf Star.
* * *
ADOPTED January 14, 2025 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
21

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
22 23

BLT Update and Cannabis Tax Rate - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 14, 2025
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Kathy Kleinbaum, Assistant City Manager
Agenda Title: Business License Regulation Clean-Up, Solicitor Regulation Amendment, and Adjustment to the Category 4 Business License Tax Rate
Agenda Action: Ordinance
Recommendation

1. Introduce an ordinance repealing provisions in the Belmont City Code Chapter 12 and 19 pertaining to business licenses superseded by Measure DD and amending solicitor regulations contained therein, and

2. Adopt a resolution adjusting the Category 4 Business License Tax rate for cannabis-related businesses.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
Measure DD was placed on the November 5, 2024, ballot by the Belmont City Council for the purpose of restructuring the City’s business license tax program. The Measure aimed to modernize Belmont’s business license program, simplifying it, and making it more equitable. The new tax structure moves away from basing business license rates primarily on employee counts and instead establishes rates based on gross receipts from business activity conducted within the City. It also reduced the number of rate categories from 43 to 4.

On December 10, 2024, the City Council declared the election results, including Measure DD which passed with 85% of the votes cast (a simple majority was required). Changes implemented by the Measure took effect January 1, 2025.

Analysis
Proposed Ordinance
Before the Measure’s passage, business license regulations were contained in Chapters 12 and 19 of the City Code. Measure DD consolidated the new business license regulations in a new article in Chapter 23 with other tax regulations, superseding the regulations in Chapters 12 and 19. The proposed ordinance repeals the superseded business license regulations in Chapters 12 and 19.

Besides business license regulations, City Code Chapter 12 also contained regulations regulating door to door commercial solicitors. Measure DD did not affect these regulations. These regulations require solicitors to obtain a permit to engage in door-to-door solicitation. Staff reviewed the regulations and believe that they would benefit from updating to provide clearer standards and process. The proposed ordinance will adopt new solicitor regulations that will clarify the application process, standard of issuing 24

BLT Update and Cannabis Tax Rate - Staff Report
the permit, and appeal of permit determinations. Staff used the existing process regulations for regulated businesses (massage and cannabis) as the model for the new regulations with some adjustments to make the solicitor permit process more streamlined.

Proposed Resolution
Measure DD established a tax rate of up to $100 per $1,000 of gross receipts derived from business conducted in the City for Category 4 businesses which include all cannabis-related businesses. This is a common practice in most jurisdictions where a tax rate is set at a not-to-exceed level as a ceiling and then adjusted by action of the City Council as appropriate.

Staff has analyzed tax rates in neighboring jurisdictions in San Mateo County and other nearby cities and recommends that the tax rate for Category 4 businesses be set at $60 per $1,000 of gross receipts or 6%.

This is same tax rate as most other jurisdictions with operating retail cannabis establishments in San Mateo County, including Pacifica, Daly City, and San Bruno, as well as Hayward just across the bridge. Redwood City is currently the outlier in the County with a lower rate of 4%. Although they are our closest neighbor, staff does not believe that the typical cannabis customer will be price-sensitive enough to travel the extra distance to take advantage of the nominal savings. Given the City's constrained tax revenue streams, this is an opportunity to optimize revenue generation from this key source to support fiscal sustainability and economic growth.

Alternatives

1. Take No Action.

2. Set the Category 4 Tax Rate at an alternative level.

Attachments
A. Ordinance
B. Resolution
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

Setting the Category 4 tax rate will affect future revenues if related business(es) are allowed to operate. The business license tax revenues and associated costs in administering the business license tax program are accounted for in the General Fund.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Council Vision/Priority Posting of Agenda
25

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT ADJUSTING THE CATEGORY 4 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX RATE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 23, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 23-203 OF THE BELMONT CITY CODE,

CONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE VOTER APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 2024-1181.

WHEREAS, on November 5, 2024, a majority of the City’s voter’s approved Ordinance No. 2024-1181 making amendments to the City’s Business License Tax provisions and codifying the new provisions in Belmont City Code Chapter 23, Article VI; and, WHEREAS, the ordinance established a tax rate of up to $100.00 per $1,000 of gross receipts derived from business conducted in the City for Category 4 businesses which include all cannabis-related businesses; and,
WHEREAS, the tax rate applied is the maximum tax rate unless lowered by appropriate Council action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adjust the Category 4 tax rate, within the rates authorized by the ordinance, to allow for greater economic feasibility for cannabis retail businesses to operate within the City and to provide consistency with the tax rates for cannabis businesses in other jurisdictions in San Mateo County.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The proposed actions in this Resolution are consistent with the voter approved Ordinance No. 2024-1181, which adopted the business license tax set forth in Chapter 23, Article VI, Section 23-203 of the Belmont City Code.

SECTION 2. The Category 4 license tax shall be adjusted as follows and is hereby approved as: Up to $60.00 per $1,000 total gross receipts derived from business conducted in the City.

SECTION 3. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to take any and all other actions necessary to implement the intent of this Resolution, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
* * *
ADOPTED January 14, 2025 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:
26

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
27

ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BELMONT REPEALING PROVISIONS

PERTAINING TO BUSINESS LICENSES SUPERSEDED BY MEASURE DD (ORDINANCE 2024-1181) AND AMENDING REGULATIONS RELATED TO

SOLICITORS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. BCC § 1-2 AMENDED
Belmont City Code Section 1-2 is amended by modifying the unnumbered paragraph containing the rule “Computation of time” to read as follows. All other paragraphs in Section 1-2 are unchanged.

Computation of time. The time in which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or holiday recognized by the City of Belmont, and then it is also excluded and the date for the performance of that act is extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday.

SECTION 2. BCC CHP 12 SECTIONS RELATED TO TAXES REPEALED City of Belmont Measure DD, Ordinance 2024-1181 adopted November 5, 2024 by the People of Belmont, restructures the City’s Business License Tax and supersedes City Code Sections 12- 1, 12-1.1, 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, 12-5, 12-6, 12-7, 12-8, 12-9, 12-10, 12-11, 12-12, 12-13, 12-16, 12- 17, 12-18, 12-19, 12-20, 12-21, 12-23, 12-24, 12-25, 12-26, 12-27, 12-28, and 12-29. The foregoing sections are repealed effective January 1, 2025. This section which relates to taxes for the usual and current expenses of the city takes effect immediately under Government Code Section 36937(d) upon adoption of this ordinance.

SECTION 3. BCC CHP 12 AND SECTION 12-22 REPEALED
Belmont City Code Chapter 12 and section 12-22 are repealed.

SECTION 4. BCC CHP 12 ADDED.

Belmont City Code Chapter 12 is added to read:

Chapter 12 – Regulated Business Activities
Article 1 – Solicitors
Sec. 12-1 Definitions
The definitions in this section apply to the words and phrases used in this chapter unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
“Applicant” means the natural person seeking to obtain a registration certificate. “Registration Authority” means the chief of police, his or her authorized representatives, or 28

the person designated by the city manager.
“Solicitor” means any person who engaged in the business of going from door to door within the city, selling or taking orders for or offering to sell or take orders for goods, wares or merchandise or other things of value for future delivery, or for services to be performed in the future. For the purposes of this article, "solicitor" includes all persons engaged in the business of distributing samples, handbills, brochures, and other similar items door to door for commercial purposes. Solicitor does not include a person going door to door for the purpose of non-commercial communication.
“Solicitor Registration Certificate” means a certificate issued by the registration authority.

Sec. 12-2 Solicitor Registration and Identification
(a) It is unlawful for a person to engage in the business of a solicitor within the City without a current and valid solicitor registration certificate issued to the person by the registration authority.
(b) It is unlawful for a person to engage in the business of a solicitor within the City without displaying on their person at all times a valid solicitor identification card issued by the registration authority.

Sec. 12-3 Solicitor Registration Application
(a) An application to register as a solicitor, together with the required application fee, must be filed with the City Clerk who will forward the application to the registration authority. A new or renewal application may not be processed without the required application fee. (b) If the registration authority determines the application is incomplete or that additional information is necessary to determine whether registration complies with this article, the registration authority must promptly inform the applicant in writing to cure the incompleteness or provide additional information required within 30 days or such time as the registration authority determines to be reasonable under the circumstances. (c) If the applicant does not cure all incompleteness or provide all additional information requested within the time specified by the registration authority, the registration authority may deny the application.
(d) An application to register or renew registration must be on a form approved by the registration authority. The registration authority may develop a form for mandatory use. The application must include the information and documents in subsection (e) and any additional information or documents that the registration authority determines appropriate to carry out the intent and purpose of this chapter.
(e) A registration application must include the following. A mail box number may not be used for required address information.
(1) The legal name and physical address of the applicant. (2) For each business for which orders are to be secured, 29

(A) The name and physical address of business;
(B) All fictitious business names and the county of fictitious name registration; (C) If a business entity, the state of incorporation and proof of registration in good standing with the California Secretary of State and Franchise Tax Board; (D) The name of the nearest local or state manager, if any, and physical address, (E) The location of any warehouse or manufacturing facility within the State of California from which goods will be shipped.
(3) The kind of goods, wares, or merchandise to be shipped or forwarded and the business supplying them.
(4) The method of solicitation or taking orders.
(5) The method of delivery of goods or services.
(6) Any other facts the registration authority may require. (7) A background check application with the following information about the Applicant. (A) The Applicant’s business, occupation, and employment history for the seven years preceding the date of the application, including the inclusive dates of any employment; (B) A current driver's license or identification issued by a state or federal governmental agency or other authenticable photographic identification bearing a bona fide seal by a foreign government;
(C) Any arrests or convictions within the previous seven years for violations of local, state or federal law;
(D) Any administrative or civil proceeding in which a license, permit, or other permission to operate a business was suspended or revoked or in which a civil penalty or fine was imposed or stipulated to in the previous seven years.
(8) The Applicant must complete a California Department of Justice Live Scan BCIA 8016 form and submit to a live scan fingerprinting process through the Belmont Police Department or an authorized provider.
(9) The applicant attests under penalty of perjury that all of the information contained in the application, including supporting documentation is complete, true and accurate to the best of the Applicant’s knowledge.
(10) The application must be signed by the applicant and the signature notarized.

Sec. 12-4 Registration
(a) Registration certificate. Registration is specific to the applicant and may not be 30

transferred to another person.
(b) Term. Registration is valid for one year unless revoked or surrendered. Suspension of a registration certificate does not extend the term of registration. (c) Renewal. Registration may be renewed subject to the same requirements as registration, except as expressly otherwise provided in this chapter. A registration holder is solely responsible to timely submit a complete renewal application. Failure to timely submit a renewal application may result in the expiration of the registration before the renewal application is granted or denied.
(d) Other approvals. Registration required by this chapter is in addition to any other license or permit required under any other provisions of the Belmont City Code or Belmont ordinances, including but not limited to a business license, zoning administrator permit, conditional use permit, building permit, occupancy certification or permit, or any other permit or license required by law. The issuance of a registration certificate does not modify the requirements of any other permit or approval and is not a substitute for obtaining any other permit, license or approval otherwise required. The issuance of a registration certificate may not be construed as a factor in favor of the issuance of any other permit, license, or approval necessary under this Code for the operation of a regulated business.

Sec. 12-5 Registration certificate issuance or denial
(a) Determination. Within 45 days of receiving a complete application, the registration authority must register the applicant and issue a registration certificate unless he or she finds one or more grounds for denial under this section.
(b) Mandatory grounds for denial. The registration authority may not issue a registration certificate and must deny the application for registration if:
(1) The application fee has not been fully paid;
(2) The application, once complete, does not conform to the requirements of this article; (3) The applicant is disqualified from registration under this article; or, (4) Registration for purpose of sales identified in the application is not consistent with federal, state or local laws, rules, and regulations, or any final administrative decision or court order.
(c) Permissive grounds for denial. The registration authority may deny a registration application if:
(1) The applicant has outstanding violations associated with solicitor activity in another jurisdiction;
(2) The applicant held an approval to engage in the business of soliciting in another jurisdiction and within the last seven years the applicant either surrendered the approval while an enforcement proceeding was pending or had the approval revoked; 31

(3) The applicant holds an approval to engage in the business of soliciting in another jurisdiction and enforcement proceedings are pending in that jurisdiction based on conduct that if committed in the City of Belmont would be grounds to deny or revoke registration.

The registration authority must make an independent determination based on substantial evidence as to whether the conduct occurred; or,
(d) An applicant is disqualified from registration and possessing a solicitor registration if:
(1) The application contains a material misrepresentation including false or misleading information, the application fails to include all required information, or a material fact is omitted;
(2) The applicant has been convicted of an offense that is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the application is made which include, but not be limited to, the following:
(A) A violent felony, as specified in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code; (B) A serious felony, as specified in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code; (C) Any crime involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, violence, or moral turpitude; (D) A felony for hiring, employing, or using a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling, any controlled substance to a minor; or selling, offering to sell, furnishing, offering to furnish, administering, or giving any controlled substance to a minor;
(E) Any crime involving burglary, larceny, identity theft, elder abuse, trespassing, public intoxication, or being under the influence of a controlled substance; or, (F) Any crime involving the sale, manufacture, distribution or transportation of a controlled substance.
(3) The applicant has within the last 10 years from the date of the pending application:
(A) made a material misrepresentation in an application for license, permit or other permission to operate a business or engage in solicitor activity in the City; (B) had a solicitor or other approval revoked by the City; or (C) while an administrative, civil or criminal proceeding was pending against the applicant for conduct arising out of business activity in the city, the applicant surrendered the registration certificate, business permit, a land use permit, or other approval issued by the City and necessary to operate the business. (e) The registration authority may disqualify an applicant from registration if the authority finds based on a preponderance of evidence that:
(1) The applicant engaged in conduct comprising all of the elements of any crime identified in subsection (d)(2);
32

(2) The applicant has a history of committing, permitting or failing to prevent significant violations of City of Belmont ordinances relating to business operations; or, (3) The applicant had an approval from another jurisdiction to engage in solicitor activity in that jurisdiction within the last seven years and either:
(A) the jurisdiction revoked the approval, or
(B) while an administrative, civil or criminal proceeding was pending against the applicant for conduct arising out of solicitor activities, surrendered the approval. (f) As used in this section the term conviction includes convictions that are dismissed under Penal Code Section 1203.4, 1203.4a, or 1203.41 or any other provision allowing for dismissal of a conviction.
(g) If the registration authority denies the application, he or she must notify the applicant of the reasons for the denial in writing, the right of appeal under this chapter, and that the failure to request a timely appeal will waive the applicant’s to right to contest the decision.

Sec. 12-6 Registration revocation or suspension.
(a) The registration authority must revoke the registration of a solicitor found to be disqualified under Section 12-5(d).
(b) The registration authority must either revoke or suspend the registration found to be disqualified under Section 12-5(e).
(c) The registration authority must revoke a registration under subsection (b) unless he or she finds based on substantial evidence that the circumstance or conduct giving rise to the disqualification is not likely to be repeated.
(d) The remedies in this section are in addition to and cumulative of other remedies at law. (e) Before suspending or revoking the registration of an existing registrant under this section, the registration authority must provide the ownership notice and an opportunity to be heard in accordance with procedures applicable to regulated businesses set forth in Section 13-11.

Sec. 12-7 Appeal of Registration Decision
Solicitor registration decisions may be appealed to the city manager in accordance with procedures applicable to regulated businesses set forth in Section 13-12.

Sec. 12-8 Enforcement
(a) A violation of this article is a misdemeanor offense that may be charged as an infraction at the discretion of the initiating enforcement official. (b) Violation of this article may be remedied by any means available to remedy a violation of this Code. The remedies are cumulative and non-exclusive. 33

(c) Notwithstanding Section 30-12, administrative fines issued under chapter 30 for violation of this chapter may be issued in amount between $100 and $1,000 as determined by the registration authority for each offense.
(d) Every person violating this chapter is subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each day of each violation which may be recovered in a civil action. (e) An offense charged as a misdemeanor violation of this chapter is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both.

Sec. 12-9 Mandatory duty
This article is not intended to create a mandatory duty on the part of the city to protect any person from any injury or damage arising out of the establishment or operation of a regulated business activity or the enforcement or non-enforcement of this article.

SECTION 5. BCC CHP 19 REPEALED.

Belmont City Code Chapter 19 and sections 19-1 and 19-2 are repealed.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as provided in Section 2, this ordinance is effective 30 days after adoption. * * *
YES:

NO:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
34

Adoption of the San Mateo Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Vision Zero Goal - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 14, 2025
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Tracy Scramaglia, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer [email protected], (650) 595-7469
Agenda Title: Adoption of the San Mateo Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan and Vision Zero Goal
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt by resolution the San Mateo Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan and accompanying Vision Zero Goal.

Strategic Focus Area
Public Safety
Background
A Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies and systematically analyzes roadway safety needs and develops a prioritized list of safety countermeasures. A 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 of the countywide LRSP will render jurisdictions in the County eligible for grant funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) OBAG 3 County & Local Program, and future funding for Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program and US Department of Transportation Safe Streets for All (SS4A).

The Countywide Vision Zero Goal 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, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) envisions a County of diverse partners sharing resources and responsibility for maintaining a safe and equitable transportation system, with all agencies consistently working together to eliminate death and severe injury on roads countywide. C/CAG held various public outreach events in the County throughout the development of the LRSP between August 2023 and January 2024 to gather public feedback. In addition to the launch and advertisement of an online web map, C/CAG visited the Belmont Farmers’ Market on December 17, 2023, to share a list of draft prioritized locations, types of engineering recommendations, and to receive comments on locations and types of treatments at desired locations.

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. 35

Adoption of the San Mateo Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Vision Zero Goal - Staff Report • 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.

Analysis
According to the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 17,317 people were killed in traffic incidents between 2013 and 2017 in the state of California, for an average of over 9 people per day. Within Belmont, there were 244 collisions between 2018 and 2022 which resulted in injuries or fatalities, for an average of 61 per year. This data underscores the need for both a regional and local approach to traffic safety. Vision Zero, a public health-based approach to traffic safety, recognizes that even one traffic death on City streets is too many and that traffic deaths and injuries are preventable by using a data-driven, multi-disciplinary, and Safe System approach. The Safe System Approach acknowledges that although human error is inevitable, redundant engineering and non-engineering solutions can reduce crashes and prevent casualties. The adoption of the LRSP will provide the City with a framework to realize the principles of Vision Zero.

The City of Belmont’s vision for roadway safety is to eliminate traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2040. To support this vision, the City has established several goals including reviewing crash history and community needs, implementing safety countermeasures systematically to target emphasis areas within the community, promoting the plan’s recommendations through projects and education, providing opportunities for community engagement, embracing the Safe System Approach, incorporating social equity into safety improvements, and monitoring the implementation of the LRSP.

As mentioned earlier, adoption of the LRSP allows the City to be eligible for grant funding from MTC OBAG 3 County & Local Program, and future funding for Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program and US Department of Transportation Safe Streets for All (SS4A).

The entire Final San Mateo Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan can be found on C/CAG’s website:

4.2-A2-28717_CCAG-Countywide-LRSP-Countywide-Local-no-appendices_Jun7_1-compressed.pdf Attachment B is the LRSP chapter specific to the City of Belmont, which includes minor updates based on staff input marked in red. These changes will be incorporated in C/CAG’s future updates.

Alternatives

1. Take no action.

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
36

Adoption of the San Mateo Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Vision Zero Goal - Staff Report Attachments
A. Resolution
B. C/CAG Countywide LRSP Belmont Chapter
C. C/CAG Presentation Slides
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

Adoption of the San Mateo Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Vision Zero Goal has no direct fiscal impact.

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects that get identified from the LRSP will be incorporated into the five-year capital improvement program.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
37

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT ADOPTING

THE COUNTYWIDE AND BELMONT LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND

ACCOMPANYING VISION ZERO GOAL
WHEREAS, according to data from the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 17,317 people have been killed in traffic collisions in California from 2013 through 2017, for an average of 9.5 people per day; and,
WHEREAS, from 2018 to 2022, a reported 244 crashes resulted in deaths or injuries on non-freeway roadways in Belmont, an average of 61 per year; and, WHEREAS, one death on Belmont streets is one too many, and the City of Belmont is dedicated to strategies that aim to reduce and eliminate deaths and serious injuries on streets in all jurisdictions countywide; and,
WHEREAS, seniors, children, people of color, people with disabilities, people in lowincome communities, people walking, and people bicycling face a disproportionate risk of traffic injuries and fatalities; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Belmont Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies El Camino Real, Ralston Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas corridors as emphasis areas for safety improvement; and,
WHEREAS, Vision Zero is a public health-based traffic safety strategy to reduce and eventually eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries using a data-driven, multi- disciplinary, and Safe System approach that also increases safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all; and, WHEREAS, the Safe System Approach recognizes that while human error will always occur, a system of redundant engineering and non-engineering solutions can reduce crashes and can prevent crashes from causing death or severe injuries; and, WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration has made a commitment to eliminating fatalities and serious injuries on the nation's roadways using a Safe System approach to achieve the goals of Vision Zero; and,
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration and State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) grant funding for improving safety requires the preparation and implementation of a systematic approach to improve safety as presented in the Countywide and City of Belmont LRSP (Exhibit A); and,
WHEREAS, Caltrans has adopted the goal of moving “toward zero deaths” by incorporating the Safe System Approach and using proven effective strategies and countermeasures; and,
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) passed a Vision Zero policy in 2020 that identified actions to support agencies like the City of Belmont. 38

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The City shall participate in an inter-jurisdictional Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) led by C/CAG, to include staff from constituent jurisdictions along with partner agencies identified in the LRSP; and which will be used to implement the LRSP and integrate the Safe System approach into all aspects of transportation planning and engineering.

SECTION 2. The City adopts the Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan and the City of Belmont Local Roadway Safety Plan that summarizes specific recommendations and action items to be taken by the City of Belmont and partner agencies that will address the listed emphasis areas.

SECTION 3. The City will refer to the prioritized locations in the Countywide and City of Belmont LRSP sections when considering safety improvements, which locations were prioritized including considerations of social equity.

SECTION 4. The City adopts Vision Zero as its guiding principle for transportation planning, in conjunction with C/CAG adopting this vision at the County level.

SECTION 5. The City will pursue the recommended near-and long-term policy, program, and guidelines recommendations identified in the LRSP, with the overriding goal of eliminating traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries.

SECTION 6. The LRSP will be implemented in an equitable manner, accounting for historic inequities in transportation and safety investments across the county.

SECTION 7. The City will develop an annual update and a 3-5 year report on progress toward the Vision Zero goals, tracking process and outcome metrics, and will present these updates to the City Council.

SECTION 8. This resolution and the adoption of Vision Zero is not intended to create a mandatory duty on the part of the City to protect any person from any injury or damage arising out of traffic related incidents, roadway design, or the implementation or non-implementation of the policies in Vision Zero.
* * *
39

ADOPTED January 14, 2025 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
40 City of
Belmont

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
DRAFT
MARCH 2024
41 / City of Belmont
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...............................................................................7 Crash Data & Trends ........................................................................................................... 9 Emphasis Areas .....................................................................................................................................................9 Countywide High Injury Network............................................................................................................... 13 Project Identification & Prioritization .............................................................................15 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................................15 Social Equity ............................................................................................................................................................17 Results .........................................................................................................................................................................17 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs ....................................................... 21 Project Scopes ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 42 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2
Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox................................................................................................ 22 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations......................................... 27 Near-Term Actions....................................................................................................................................... 27 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ...........................................................................................................28 Implementation & Monitoring..........................................................................................31

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Online Map Survey Tool.........................................................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 2. Webmap Comments in Belmont ..................................................................................................................................................................8 Figure 3. Countywide HIN within the City of Belmont.......................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)....................................................................... 15 Figure 5. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) ............................................................................... 16 Figure 6. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................ 16 Figure 7: Belmont Priority Locations............................................................................................................................................................................... 20

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City of Belmont Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs...................................................................3 Table 2. Countywide HIN Segments in Belmont......................................................................................................................................................13 Table 3. Priority Locations.......................................................................................................................................................................................................17 Table 4. City of Belmont Policy and Program Recommendations ............................................................................................................27 Table 5. City of Belmont Goals and Measures of Success...............................................................................................................................31

APPENDICES
Appendix A Webmap Comments
Appendix B Phase 2 Engagement Comments
Appendix C Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis
Appendix D Prioritization Results
Appendix E Prioritization Results
43 / City of Belmont
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
44 / City of Belmont
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 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.

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. 45 / City of Belmont
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 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 takes a broad view to evaluate risk across an entire roadway system. 46 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2

INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the City of Belmont. 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 City will revisit and update this LRSP at least every five years.

The City of Belmont has a 2023 population of 26,793 per California Department of Finance. The city has 68 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 244 reported crashes on surface streets in the City and 8 fatal/severe injury crashes. In that time period, pedestrians were involved in 11 percent of all reported crashes and 13 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. Bicyclists were involved in 14 percent of all reported crashes and 25 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Belmont’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 City 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
47 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

VISION & GOALS
The City of Belmont’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2040.

To support this vision, the City 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 Belmont.

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 Belmont LRSP to track progress towards goals.

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

Table 1. City of Belmont 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
Comprehensive
Pedestrian and
Bicycle Plan
The key goals of the plan are to support efforts to increase the rate of walking and bicycling, as well as to support adopted policies that are aimed at providing complete
streets.

Safe Roads, Safe
Speeds, Safe Road
Users
Traffic-Calming
Policy
This policy seeks to address speeding and other driving behavior issues.

Safe Road Users,
Safe Speeds
48 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
Parking and Traffic
Safety Committee
(PTSC)
This committee is comprised of senior members of the
Department of Public Works, Police Department, and Fire Department. Residents may submit traffic and parking
problems and/or recommendations to the Parking Traffic
and Safety Committee (PTSC). The PTSC will evaluate the request based on current policy, perform field investigations if required, review existing traffic information, and schedule the item for discussion at a public PTSC meeting if needed.

Safe Roads
Stop Sign Warrant
Policy
The City maintains a policy for all-way stop, 2-way stop, and 3-way stop sign installation. It is available on the City’s Parking & Traffic Safety Committee website.

Safe Speeds, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Roads
Speed Cushion
Guidelines
The City’s Guidelines for the Installation of Speed Humps provides criteria for the placement and design of speed humps. They are available on the City’s Parking & Traffic Safety Committee website.

Safe Roads, Safe
Speeds
Truck Parking Policy This policy states that no large trucks can park at an intersection.

Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users
Complete Streets
Policy
The City’s commitment to creating and maintaining
Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and
convenient travel for all users.

Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Speeds, Post-Crash
Care, Safe Vehicles
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 support of the City of Belmont’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
• Belmont Police Department
• Parking and Traffic Safety Committee (PTSC)
49 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
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 City’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 1. Community Engagement Phases and Events
Date Event Location
August 10, 2023 Countywide Virtual Kickoff Meeting:

Shared 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
50 / City of Belmont
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 ).

Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.

Biking Concerns/Requests
• Add new bike infrastructure such as protected bike lanes and separated bike lanes. • Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, vehicle speeds, right of way issues, and turning conflicts at intersections. • 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.

Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, speeding, and running STOP signs.
• Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Concerns regarding speeding and on-street parking.

Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Clear sight triangles to improve visibility on intersection approaches. • Requests to install STOP signs at unsignalized intersections. • Concerns regarding narrow and windy roads.
• Concerns regarding maintenance of roadway infrastructure including high friction of the roadway surfaces.

Figure 1. Online Map Survey Tool
51 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7
The location and modal emphasis of comments in Belmont is presented in Figure 2. Webmap Comments in Belmont. 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 City. 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 Belmont Farmers’ Market in December 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. The comments received are provided in Appendix B.

The following themes were identified:

General Comments
• Desire to reduce speed limits
• Desire for better signage and lighting near speed bumps • Concerns around traffic near schools during drop-off and pick-up Pedestrian Comments
• Desire for more signage around crosswalks so pedestrians can cross safely, especially around schools • Concern that pedestrians do not have enough time to cross the street • Concern that bicyclists using sidewalks to ride bikes and e-bikes put pedestrians in danger Bicycle Comments
• Desire for separated bike lanes, specifically on El Camino Real, Alameda de las Pulgas and Old County Road
Motor Vehicle Comments
• Desire for signal improvements to make traveling more efficient Countermeasures Comments
• Desire for more lighting at intersections, specifically flashing lights • Desire for larger signal backplates and signal visibility during sunrise and sunset • Concerns that curb extensions would impact bicyclist safety • Concerns that lane narrowing would make driving and biking more dangerous • Concerns that pedestrian refuge islands are dangerous to vehicles 52 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!p
!p !p
Devonshire
Peninsula
Golf And
Country Club
Belmont
Cal.

Fish
And Game
Water Dog
Lake
Park
Laurelwood
Park
Eaton Park
Sugarloaf
Mtn.

Big
Canyon Park
ß/101
∙þ92
¦§¨280
Elmer St
Dolton Ave
C
oro
n
et
Blvd
Lynton Ave
Tramanto Dr
Terrace Dr
Laurel St
Brittan Ave
Bis
ho
p
Rd
Bayview
Av
e
Port Royal Ave
Graceland Ave
Lincoln Ave
S
helford Ave
Lyall Way
Hillcrest Rd
Derby Ave
Dartmouth Ave
Valley View Dr
Hastings Dr
Manor Dr
Ponce Ave
43rd Ave
Old County Rd
Portola Dr
41st Ave
Elm St
Winding Way
Hiller St
Oneill Ave
H
a
br
orBlvd
Polaris
Av
e
Baffin
St
San Juan Blvd
Palm Pl
Hillman Ave
Devonshire Blvd
Casanova Dr
Live Oak Dr
M
adera Dr
Clipper Dr
El Verano Way
30th Ave
Hillcrest Dr
24th Ave
Arbor Ave
23rd Ave
De Anza Ave
Olive St
Tahoe Dr
Cherry St
Lyon Ave
Alley
St James Rd
Fernwood
St
Hull Dr
22nd Ave
27th Ave
Vista Ave
Isabelle Ave
Wilshire Ave
6th Ave
Beresford St
Hill St
Hewitt
Dr
Folger Dr
Colegrove St
Belle Ave
Sunset Dr
Bodega St
E 39th Ave
Tamarack Ave
Cordiller
a
s
Ave
Elizabeth St Blythe St
Holly Rd
E 40th Ave
Mason
Ln
S
Rosilie St
hasta
Dr
Cedar St
Playa St
Howard Ave
Malco l m Ave
Antigua Ln
Pasadena Dr
Melendy Dr
Branson Dr
Kingridge Dr
26th Ave Flores St
J
a
m
aic
a
St
Buckland Ave
Comstock Cir
Walnut St
Ensenada Way
Donner St
Fay Ave
George
Ave
Magnolia
Ave
O
verland Dr
Arroyo Ave
Haskins
Dr
Mezes Ave
Del
Monte
St
CasabonaAve
42nd Ave
South Rd
Belburn Dr
Gate
Kent St
Wellington
Dr
Monterey St
Greenbriar Rd
Greenwood Ave
Holly St
Chula Vista Dr
Foothill Dr
Pitcairn Dr
Cipriani Blvd
Sycamore
St
29th Ave
W 39th Ave
Edison St
W 40th Ave
San Miguel Way
Pico Ave
Sunset Ter
Barclay Way
Boothbay
Ave
Solana Dr
Orange Ave
Monterey
Ave
La Casa Ave
Thatcher Ln
Highland Ave
Torino Dr
Carlmont Dr
Prindle Rd
Monte
Cresta
Dr
Prospect St
Nimitz
L
n
5th Ave
Yew St
Vine St
Middle Rd
Yates Way
H
als
e
y
Blv
d
Sylvan Ave Otay Ave
Eaton Ave
Louise Ln
E
Laurel Creek Rd
N
orth
Rd
Wakefield Dr
Fir St
Park Pl
Martin Dr
Taylor Way
Sequoia
Way
Laurelwood Dr Ruth Ave
Ventura Ave
Birch Ave
Oakview Dr
Clifton
Ave
Oracle Pkwy
Somerset Dr
Plateau
Dr
Knoll Dr
Chesterton Ave
Oxford
Way
Belmont Canyon Rd
Carmelita Ave
Buena Vista Ave
Alden Ave
Talbryn Dr
Edgehill Dr
Curtiss St
36th Ave
Notre Dame
Ave
Sequoia Ave
Chesham Ave
Chestnut St
Parkwood
Dr
W 25th Ave
Mclellan Ave
Mira
St
Coronado Ave
Beverly
Dr
Wemberley Dr
Poinsettia Ave
Davis Dr
Arundel Rd
Monroe Ave
Villa
Ave
Lodge Dr
Sylvan Dr
Pullman Ave
Oneill Dr
Madera Ave
Hill Way
Lago St
Alhambra Dr
BauerDr
Deepwell Ct
Bayview Dr
Hallmark Dr
Lupin Ave
Quarry Rd
Nb 280 Hwy
Exeter Ave
Viewridge Dr
Countryside Dr
Cherrywood Dr
Sheep Camp Trail
Bartlett Way
Crestview Dr
De Anza Blvd
S El Camino Real
Harbor Blvd
Is
al n
d
Pkw
42n
y
d Ave
Alameda
De
Las
Pulgas
La Selva St
W 20th Ave
37th Ave
Holly St
Twin Dolphin Dr
E Hillsdale Blvd
Pacific Blvd
Beach Park Blvd
Edison St
Brittan Ave
Old County Rd
El Camino Real
Hacienda St
S
Delaware St
San Carlos Ave
Laurel St
28th Ave
Shoreway Rd
Marine Pkwy
Franklin Pkwy
Canada Rd
Ralston Ave
Los
Pra
d
os
St
E
d
g
e
w
a
t
er Blv
d
Saratoga
Dr
G
el n
d
ora
Dr
31st Ave
S Norfolk St
W Hillsdale Blvd
Murphy Dr
Industrial Way
Club
Dr
Brid
g
e
P
kw
y
Campus Dr
H:\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 3/13/2024 Public Comments
City of Belmont, CA
0 0.25 0.5Miles [
! Safety Concern - Walking
! Safety Concern - Bicycling
! Safety Concern - Public Transit
!p Safety Concern - Driving
!! General Comments
! Schools
BART Station
Caltrain Station
Unincorporated Places
Parks
Figure 2
53 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 9

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 System26F 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 Belmont and compared countywide trends to establish emphasis areas. Emphasis areas are crash dynamic, behavioral, or road user characteristics that the City 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 City of Belmont:

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of 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 injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. In Belmont, pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in 13 percent and 25 percent of the 8 reported F/SI crashes—higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (11 percent and 14 percent, total).

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 Belmont, one in every four crashes (25 percent) 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 Belmont, 17 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 injury crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes). 1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu 54 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 10
In Belmont, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among motor vehicle crashes (in 26 percent of injury crashes).

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.

7. Alcohol involvement. Countywide, one in ten (10 percent) of motor vehicle injury crashes and one in five F/SI motor vehicle crashes (19 percent) involved alcohol. In Belmont, 12 crashes or 5 percent of all reported injury crashes involve impaired driving.

The next pages present summary findings from a crash data review that compares the City of Belmont 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. 55 18%
(1,164)
Belmont—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
Local
71% (178)
State Highway
29% (66)
41%
(75)
6%
(11)
9%
(17)
15%
(28) 28%
(52)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Belmont compares:

Belmont Countywide 5% (12) 7%
of reported collisions
in Belmont involved
drugs or alcohol
of reported collisions
in Belmont involved
young drivers1
(17)
29%
(1,858)
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (26)
Belmont
Belmont
Belmont
Bicycle Crashes (35)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (183)
25% (2)
63% (5)
11% (26) 13% (1)
14% (35)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
75% (183)

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.

Total Crashes
In Belmont, 244 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
Belmont Countywide
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
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
8%
(625)
5%
(472)
56 Belmont—Crash History
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (26)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (35)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
Countywide
Countywide
Agency
Agency
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
12%
(3)
24%
(256)
Motorist Making
left turn
12%
(3)
15%
(163)
Motorist proceeding
straight
23%
(6)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
23%
(8)
21%
(186)
11%
(4)
12%
(106)
14%
(5)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
26%
(9)
35%
(372)
Belmont
Belmont
Belmont
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (5)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (8)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (47)
All Injury Crashes (183)
All Injury Crashes (35)
All Injury Crashes (26)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (5)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (2)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
26% (47) 0% (0)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Belmont compares to Countywide crashes:
31% (8)
14% (5)
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)
57 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 13
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 City.

Table 2. Countywide HIN Segments in Belmont
Roadway name
All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Lyall Way Belmont 0.3 X
Ralston Ave Belmont, Unincorporated 3.5 X 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
Old County Rd
San Carlos, Belmont,
Harbor/Industrial 3.4 X X
58 Peninsula
Golf And
Country Club
Belmont
Cal. Fish
And
Game
Water Dog Lake Park
Laurelwood
Park
Eaton Park
Sugarloaf
Mtn.
ß/101
∙þ92
¦§¨280
Port
Royal Ave
Hastings Dr
Elm St
Trinidad Ln
M
adera Dr
30th Ave
23rd Ave 24th Ave
Shasta
Dr
Pasadena Dr
Melendy Dr
Branson Dr
26th Ave
Lo
s
Pra
d
o
s
S
E
t
28th Ave
31st Ave
Cedar
St
28th Ave
Nimitz
L
n
Vine St
E Laurel Creek Rd
Laurelwood Dr
Talbryn Dr
36th Ave
Chestn
ut St
LagoSt
42nd Ave
Exeter
Av
e
Sheep Camp Trail
Club Dr
Brittan Ave
S El Camino Real
Shoreway Rd
Ralston Ave
Campus Dr
Canada 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)
City of Belmont, CA
Figure 3
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
59 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
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 City 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).

Figure 4. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) 60 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
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
61 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
Social Equity
Social equity is a critical factor 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 City 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 3. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Anita Ave and El Camino
Real
Intersection Yes X
2 Ruth Ave and El Camino
Real
Intersection Yes X
3 El Camino Real and
Belmont Ave
Intersection Yes X
4 El Camino Real and North
Rd
Intersection Yes X
5 El Camino Real and
Davey Glen Rd
Intersection Yes X
6 Belmont Canyon Rd (W)
and Ralston Ave
Intersection No X X
7 Ralston Ave and Lyall Wy/
Pullman Ave
Intersection No X X X
8 El Camino Real and 5th
Ave
Intersection Yes X
X
62 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 18
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
9 Flashner Ln (Driveway)
and El Camino Real
Intersection Yes X
10 El Camino Real and
Broadway
Intersection Yes X
11 El Camino Real and
Emmett Ave
Intersection Yes X
12 Davis Dr and Ralston Ave Intersection No X X X
13 Oneill Ave and Old
County Rd
Intersection No X
14 Ralston Ave and Belmont
Canyon Rd
Intersection No X X X
15 Merry Moppet Ln and
Ralston Ave
Intersection No X X X
16 Belmont Canyon Rd (E)
and Ralston Ave
Intersection No X X
17 Hill St and El Camino Real Intersection Yes X
18 Sterling View Ave and Old
County Rd
Intersection No X
19 Belmont Canyon Rd and
Ralston Ave
Intersection No X
20 Lassen Dr and Ralston
Ave
Intersection No X
21 Old County Rd and
Waltermire St
Intersection No X
22 El Camino Real and
Waltermire St
Intersection Yes X
23 Belmont Canyon Rd and
Ralston Ave
Intersection No X
24 Harbor Blvd and Us
Highway 101 Hwy
Intersection Yes X
25 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Monroe Ave
Intersection No X
26 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Cipriani Blvd
Intersection No X
27 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Lyon Ave
Intersection No X
X
63 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
28 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Forest Ave
Intersection No X
29 Ralston Ave and
Academy Ave
Intersection No X
30 Ralston Ave and
Maywood Dr
Intersection No X
31 Ralston Ave and Furlong
St
Intersection No X
32 Ralston Ave and Villa Ave Intersection No X
33 Ralston Ave and Chula
Vista Dr
Intersection No X
34 Granada St and Ralston
Ave
Intersection No X
35 Notre Dame Ave and
Ralston Ave
Intersection No X
36 Ralston Ave and Misty Ln Intersection No X
37 Ralston Ave and Chevy St Intersection No X
38 El Camino Real, North
Road to F Street
Corridor Yes X
39 Ralston Avenue, Villa
Street to west of South
Road
Corridor No X
40 Ralston Avenue,
Christrian Drive to Villa
Street
Corridor No X X X
X
X
X
41 Alameda de las Pulgus, San Carlos Corridor No X X X
Ave (City Limit) to Forest Ave
64 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@
@
@
@@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@@@
@
@
@@@ @
@
@

Devonshire
Peninsula
Golf And
Country Club
Belmont
Cal.

Fish
And Game
Water Dog
Lake
Park
Laurelwood
Park
Eaton Park
Sugarloaf
Mtn.

Big
Canyon Park
ß/101
∙þ92
¦§¨280
Elmer St
Dolton Ave
Coronet Blvd
Lynton Ave
Tramanto Dr
Terrace Dr
Laurel St
Brittan Ave
Bishop Rd
Bayview Ave
Port
Roya
l
Av
e Graceland Ave
Lincoln Ave
Shelford Ave
Lya
l
l
W
ay
Hillcrest Rd
Derby Ave
Dartmo
u
t
h
Ave
Valley View Dr
Hastings Dr
Manor Dr
43rd Ave
Old County Rd
Portola Dr
Sunnyslope Ave
41st Ave
Elm St
Winding
Wa
yHiller St
Oneill Ave
Wooster Ave
Polaris Ave
Baffin St
San Juan Blvd
Palm Pl
Hillman Ave
Devo
n
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d Casanova Dr
Live Oak Dr
Madera Dr
Clipper Dr
El Verano Way
30th Ave
Hillcrest Dr
24th Ave
Arbor Ave
23rd Ave
D
e
A
n
za
Ave
Olive St
Taho
e
Dr
Cherry St
Lyon Ave
St
Ja
m
e
s
R
d
Fernwood St
Hull Dr
22nd Ave
27th Ave
Vista Ave
Isabelle Ave
Wilshire Ave
Beresford St
Hill St
Hewitt Dr
Folger Dr
Colegrove St
Belle Ave
Sunset
Dr
Bodega
S
t
E 39th Ave
Tamarack Ave
Cordilleras Ave
Elizabeth St Blythe St
Holly Rd
E 40th Ave
Alley
Mason Ln
S
Rosilie St
hasta Dr
Cedar St
Playa St
Howard Ave
Malco l m Ave
Antigua
Ln
Pasadena Dr Melendy
Dr
Branson Dr
Kingrid
g
e
Dr
26th Ave
6th Ave
Flores St
Jamaica St
Buckland Ave
Comst
o
c
k
Cir
Walnut St
Ensenada Way
Donner St
Fay Ave
George Ave
Magnolia Ave
Overland Dr
Arroyo Ave
Haskins Dr
Mezes Ave
Del Monte St
Casabona
Ave
42nd Ave
South
Rd
Belburn Dr
Gate
Kent St
Wellington Dr
Monterey St
G
re
e
n
bria
r
Rd
Greenwood Ave
Holly St
Chula Vista
Dr
Foothill
D
r
Pitcairn Dr
Cipriani B vl d
Sycamore St
29th Ave
W 39th Ave Edison St W 40th Ave
San Miguel
Way
Pico Ave Sunset Ter
Barclay Way
Boothbay Ave
Solana Dr
Orange Ave
Monterey Ave
La
Casa
Ave
Thatcher Ln
Highland Ave Torino Dr
Carlmont Dr
Prindle Rd
Monte Cresta Dr
Prospect St
Nimitz Ln
5th Ave
Yew
St
Vine St
Mi
d
d
l
e
Rd
Yates Way
Halsey Blvd
Sylvan Ave
Otay Ave
Eaton Ave
Louise
Ln Read Ave
E Laurel Creek Rd
North Rd
Wakefield Dr
Fir St
Park Pl
Martin Dr
Taylor Way
Sequoia Way
Laurelwood Dr
Ruth
Ave
Ventura Ave
Birch Ave Oakview Dr
Clifton Ave
O
ra
c
le
Pkwy
Somerset Dr
Plateau Dr
Knoll Dr
Chesterton Ave
Oxford Way
Belmont
C
a
n
yon
Rd
Carmelita
A
v
e
B
u
e
na
Vista Ave
Ald
e
n
A
v
e
Talbryn Dr
Edgehill Dr
Curtiss St
36th
Ave
Notre
D
a
m
e
Ave
Sequoia Ave
Chesham Ave
Chestnut St
Parkwood Dr
W 25th Ave
Mclellan Ave
Mira St Coron
a
d
o
A
v
e
Beverly Dr
Wemb
e
r
l
ey
Dr
Poinsettia Ave
Davis Dr
Aru
n
d
e
l
R
d
Monroe Ave
Villa Ave
Lodge
D
r
Sylvan Dr
Pullman Ave
Oneill Dr
M
a
dera
Ave
Hill Way
La
g
o
St
Alhambra Dr
BauerDr
Deepwe
l
l
C
t
Bayview Dr
Hallmark Dr
Lupin Ave Quarry Rd
Nb 280 Hwy
Exeter Ave
Viewridge Dr
Countryside Dr Cherrywood Dr
Sheep Camp Trail Bartlett Way
Crestview Dr
D
e
Anza Blvd
S El Camino Real
Harbor Blvd Is al nd Pkw
42 n
y
d
Ave
Alameda De Las Pulgas
La Selva St
W 20th Ave
37th Ave
Holly St
Twin
Dolphin
Dr
E Hillsdale Blvd Pacific Blvd
Beach
Park
Blvd
Edison St
Brittan
Av
e
Old County Rd
El Camino Real
Hacienda St
S Delaware St
San Carlos Ave
Laurel St
28th Ave
Shoreway Rd
Marine Pkwy
F
ra
nklin Pkwy
Canada Rd
Ralston
Ave
Los Prados St
Edgewater Blvd
Saratoga Dr
G el ndora Dr
31st Ave
S Norfolk St
W
Hillsd
a
l
e
B
l
v
d
Murphy Dr
Industrial Way
Club Dr
Bridge Pkwy
Campus Dr
H:\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 3/12/2024 Priority Intersections
and Segments
City of Belmont, 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 7
Added ADLP Corridor
65 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

POLICY & PROGRAMS
This section presents Safe System-aligned recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the City of Belmont. 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 City departments and partners in pursuit of the plan’s vision and goals.

Project Scopes
With the development of this plan the project team worked with the City to identify two project locations or two groups of project locations to apply safety treatments. We worked from the list of priority project locations and used potential benefit-to-cost ratio to identify a suite of treatments the City could consider at these locations.

The City can move forward with further project development and community engagement to advance solutions at these locations. They may also consider bundling some of the treatments identified with the same treatments at other, similar locations identified in this plan, for a systemic approach.

The project scopes were developed exclusively from a list of City-approved engineering countermeasures, which are presented as an engineering toolbox in the next section. The team prepared a suite of treatments to reduce crashes at the project locations. For each treatment, the list presents a planning-level cost of the treatments as recommended and the crash reduction benefit.

The scoped project locations include:

The scoped project locations include:
◼ Ralston Ave—Villa Ave to city limits. Recommended improvements include:
o Larger or additional regulatory signs
o Pedestrian crossing signs and markings
o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
o Separated bike lanes
o Pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features (flashing beacons, curb extensions, advance “yield” lines)
o Raised pedestrian crossings
◼ Ralston Ave—Christian Dr to Villa Ave. Recommended improvements include:
o Reduction in travel lanes
o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
o Delineators
o Pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features (flashing beacons, curb extensions, advance “yield” lines)
o Separated bike lanes
For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix E.

Alameda de las Pulgus – San Carlos Ave (San Carlos City Limit) to Ralston Avenue. Recommended improvements include:
•Mini-roudabouts at El Verano Way, Chula Vista Drive, and Cranfield Avenue •Bulb-outs at Carlmont Drive and Garden Court
•ADA improvements to sidewalk and driveway approaches, including widening the sidewalk at Belmont Creek •Bike lanes and buffered bike lanes between Cranfield Avenue and El Verano Way • Traffic signal at Carlmont Drive
•Designated school drop off areas
•Conversion of parking from angled to parallel
66 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
Table 5. City of Belmont Countermeasure Toolbox
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Lighting* 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 left-turn lane and add
turn phase*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.55 $-$$$ Low
Convert signal to mast arm
(from pedestal mounted)*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.3 $-$$$ Medium
Install raised median on
approaches*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $-$$$ Medium
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict left turns and U-turns
(signalized intersection)*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised pavement
markers and striping*
SI Wet, night, all 0.1 $ High
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (SI)*
SI Rear end,
broadside

0.3 $-$$ Medium
Centerline hardening or
continuous raised median
SI All crashes 0.46 $ Medium
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from signal)
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections
Varies $-$$$ Low
Install pedestrian countdown
signal heads*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $ High
67 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Install pedestrian crossing* SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $ High
Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk (bicycle
box)*
SI Pedestrian
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
Install painted safety zone SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ High
Install Protected Intersection
Elements
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $-$$$ Low
Convert to all-way STOP
control (from two-way or
Yield control)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $ Low
Install signals* UI All crashes 0.3 $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from all-way
stop)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from stop or
yield control on minor road)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
68 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 24
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Covert intersection to miniroundabout*UI All crashes 0.3 $$ Low Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left turns and Uturns (unsignalized
intersections)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised medians
(refuge islands)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

0.45 $ Medium
Install pedestrian crossings
(signs and markings only)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

0.25 $-$$$ High
Install pedestrian crossings
(with enhanced safety
features)*
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
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings*
UI Turning
crashes
related to
lack of driver
awareness

0.25 $ High
Install flashing beacons at
stop-controlled intersection*
UI Broadside,
rear end

0.15 $$$ High
Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid beacon*
UI Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.3 $$$ High
Road diet (Reduce travel
lanes from four to three, and
R All crashes 0.35 $ Medium
69 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 25
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
add a two-way, left-turn lane
and bike lanes)*
Corridor access
management
R N/A 0.35 $ Medium
Install separated bike lanes* R Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.45 $-$$ High
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing (with enhanced
safety features)*
R Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.35 $$-$$$ Medium
Install raised pedestrian
crossing*
R Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.35 $ Medium
Remove or relocate fixed
objects outside of clear
recovery zone*
R Hit object 035 $-$$ High
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
Extend green time for bikes SI Bicycle N/A $ High
Extend yellow and all-red
time
SI All crashes N/A $ High
Lane narrowing R All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
Bicycle crossing (solid green
paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Curb extensions UI All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
70 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 26
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
ADA-compliant directional
curb ramps and audible
push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low
Curb radius reduction SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Low
Approach curvature UI, SI All crashes N/A $$$ Low
Roadside design features All All crashes N/A $-$$$ 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 71 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27
Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines
Recommendations
In addition to the engineering countermeasures and projects recommended above, the City 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 City’s Safe System Approach.

Table 4. City of Belmont Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
LCS1: Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee participation
LCS3: Communication Protocol
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
Local Enforcement
Coordination (LEC)
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
LEC4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Citation Diversion
Program
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
Local Planning/
Evaluation (LPE)
LPE1: Annual Review
LPE2: Plan Update
LPE3: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation
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) • Opportunities for cross-jurisdiction coordination (e.g., roadways or intersections shared with adjacent jurisdictions or Caltrans)
72 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 28
• Requests for trainings / best practices that could be provided through the TSAC Lead agency: City of Belmont 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: City of Belmont 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: City of Belmont 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: City of Belmont Public Works
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Coordinate with Belmont PD to deploy a trailer to monitor speeds on streets and to raise awareness of speeding.

It can be deployed long term along HIN and other arterials, or short term in neighborhoods. Use the priority locations and data in this plan to identify locations and schedule for deployment.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Police Department
Coordinating partners: City of Belmont Public Works
LEC4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Citation Diversion Program Implements an alternative citation structure for bicyclists and pedestrians. Upon incurring a traffic violation, these users can reduce or remove the fee associated with the violation by instead attending a class. Requires local law enforcement to sanction preexisting curricula or to sanction original material of their own.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Police Department
LF2: Equitable Investment
Prioritize citywide 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: City of Belmont Public Works
73 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 29
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: City of Belmont 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
Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: County Public Health, Office of Sustainability, SVBC LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
Plan community engagement efforts to be tailored for vulnerable road users and all travel modes. Make outreach materials available in accessible formats and multiple languages.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Public Works
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: City of Belmont Public Works
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
Run education campaigns and outreach to foster community awareness of a shared responsibility for road safety. Use the emphasis areas highlighted in this plan as focus areas and target groups for a campaign.

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

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

Lead agency: City of Belmont Public Works
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: City of Belmont Public Works C/CAG
74 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30
LPE3: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation
Fund a study to address traffic injury and enforcement inequities to inform policies, projects, programs, and needed data quality improvements.

Solicit feedback on the report’s equity analysis from groups representing equity priority communities. Topics for the study may include injury related to homelessness, race/ethnicity, language, income, and immigration status, citations by demographics, citation type, and location.

Alternately, coordinate with the TSAC to participate in a countywide version of the same that can include the City as part of its scope.

Lead agency: C/CAG
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 City.

Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: City of Belmont 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: City of Belmont Public Works
75 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 31

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

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

This section identifies recommendations for Belmont 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 5. City of Belmont 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 Belmont.

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/CAGfunded safety project development activities • Number of engagement touchpoints and number of
community member interactions citywide for safety plans or projects.
• Report-backs to the City 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 City

6. Embrace the Safe System Approach to
promote engineering and nonengineering strategies in the community.
• Percent of school district participation in SRTS and
roadway safety education opportunities
• Number of trainings city staff have participated in
regarding Safe System elements, available tools, or
practices
76 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 32

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS
• Improved data availability or maintenance to enhance
safety analysis and practice

7. Monitor implementation of the Belmont
LRSP to track progress towards goals.
• See above in this table
77 / City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 38
City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
78 San Mateo Countywide
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Belmont City CouncilJanuary 14, 2025
Image Source: http://astanehelaw.com/2020/09/02/san-mateo-county-passes-emergency-ordinance-establishing-paid-sick-leave-for-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic/ 1 1
79 Presentation Overview

1. What is a Local Roadway Safety Plan?2. Commitment to Vision Zero3. Plan Development4. Safety Analysis5. Priority Projects6. Recommendations7. Next Steps 2 80
What is a Local Road Safety Plan?
A Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP):• Follows Federal and State commitment to Safe System approach to improve traffic safety
• Provides an assessment of historical and
existing roadway traffic safety
• Identifies actions and prioritized project lists
with implementation partners
Safe System Approach
3 81
What is a Local Road Safety Plan?
• Purpose
• Set a regionwide vision to advance roadway
safety, while also developing LRSPs for local agencies without one • Position all local agencies for OBAG, Caltrans
HSIP, and USDOT SS4A funding
• Plan document includes individual plans for 10
jurisdictions without existing or ongoing safety plan:
• Atherton• Belmont• Brisbane• Colma• East Palo Alto
• Foster City• Half Moon Bay • Hillsborough• San Carlos• Woodside Reported Injury/Fatal Crash Frequency,
4 2017-2021
82 Commitment to Vision Zero
• The Countywide Plan aggregates and lists communities’ visions and goals.
• Countywide commitment to eliminate fatal/severe injuries by 2050.
• Aligns with State and Federal expectations / requirements• Includes recommendations to evolve from “business as usual” • Citywide commitment to eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2040.
5 83
Plan Development – Advisory Group
• Engaged stakeholders and public throughout the plan
development process
6 84
Plan Development – Community Input & Engagement
• Hosted events in communities without
existing plans
• Asked for community feedback on:
• Safety concerns and priorities• Locations• Safety analysis results• Priority locations• Engineering recommendations • Online map for comments
• 528 comments by 352 respondents
on safety concerns and priorities
• 11 in-person engagement events
• Over 200 comments on priority
locations and proposed countermeasures
• Comments included in the plan
document and provided as appendix for future reference
7 85
Safety Analysis
• Created countywide High Injury Network
identified for motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists • Based on 5-year county crash patterns • Detailed findings provided for jurisdictions without a plan
• Identified emphasis areas
• Behavior, environmental, and user
characteristics associated with fatal/severe injury crashes • Provide starting point for project
identification and grant opportunities
8 Countywide HIN
Emphasis Areas
86 • Used data to identify priority project
locations
• Three inputs to identify locations:
• Crash History - highest crash locations• Social Equity – disadvantaged populations• Systemic Factors – roadway/land use characteristics associated with crash frequency/severity 9 Priority Projects
87 Recommendations - Engineering
• Roadway and intersection treatments• Targeted to match emphasis areas• Can be applied “systemically” – in locations with high risk even if crashes haven’t occurred • Applied treatments to selected locations
as “project scopes” – starting point for future concept designs and grant funding 10 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB’s)
Intersection Lighting
88 Recommendations - Policy/Program
11 • Safe System
recommendations to improve safety beyond engineering projects • Include action items for
partner agencies
Plan Table of Recommendations
89 Next Steps
• Adopt plan• Pursue safety grant funding• Continue participation through countywide Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC)
• Implement and track progress measures in plan
12 90

Council IGR Assignments Council Intergovernmental Assignments for Calendar Year 2025 - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 14, 2025
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Afshin Oskoui, City Manager, [email protected]/Jozi Plut, City Clerk, [email protected], 650-595-7414
Agenda Title: Council Intergovernmental Assignments for Calendar Year 2025 Agenda Action: Motion
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the proposed updates to its intergovernmental assignments for the 2025 calendar year. Staff further recommends that the Council consider retiring subcommittees that have completed their work or are no longer active and discuss the addition of alternates for key assignments to improve scheduling flexibility.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
City Councilmembers play a vital role in representing the City of Belmont on various regional agencies, organizations, and liaison roles. These responsibilities allow the City to participate in regional decisionmaking, advocate for its interests, and engage with community partners.

Additionally, Councilmembers serve on several City subcommittees that focus on specific initiatives and policy areas. These assignments are reviewed and updated annually, typically after the reorganization of the Council or the swearing-in of new Councilmembers, to ensure alignment with individual preferences, availability, and City priorities.

The last update to Council assignments occurred at the regular Council meeting on January 9, 2024.

Analysis
Council last updated the various assignments at its regular meeting on January 9, 2024, by consensus as individual Councilmembers expressed their interest, desire, and availability for the various agencies and committees.

Annual Review of Assignments:

This review provides the Council an opportunity to:

1. Update assignments to reflect current priorities.

2. Reassign roles based on Councilmember availability and expertise.

3. Address gaps in representation or coverage on key assignments. 91

Council IGR Assignments Council Intergovernmental Assignments for Calendar Year 2025 - Staff Report Retiring Completed or Inactive Subcommittees:

Several subcommittees established in prior years have completed their objectives or become inactive. Staff recommends that the following subcommittees be retired:
• Business License Tax Modernization Subcommittee: Supported the successful modernization of the City’s business license tax structure.
• Placemaking Ad-hoc Subcommittee: Completed its objectives related to community space enhancements.
• Two County Stanford Ad-hoc Subcommittee: Concluded its work on Santa Clara/San Mateo multi-jurisdictional meetings to discuss Stanford related matters. • High School Crossing Guard Pilot Program Subcommittee: No longer requiring subcommittee oversight.

Potential for New Subcommittees:

If there are emerging priorities or policy areas requiring focused attention, the Council may consider creating new subcommittees.

One such priority involves the City’s Community Center initiative. In January 2023, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Belmont Community Foundation, which focuses on engaging the community to support the construction and operation of a new Community Center, as well as pursuing additional benefits for the Belmont community.

The MOU designates a City Council representative, and the Mayor has served in this role, attending meetings of the Foundation’s Board of Directors as an advisory participant and liaison to the City Council.

Given the City’s strategic focus on addressing the aging Community Center facility, staff recommends the creation of a Council Subcommittee dedicated to this initiative.

This proposed subcommittee would:

1. Serve as a liaison to the Community Foundation Board, ensuring alignment between the Foundation’s efforts and City priorities.

2. Work with staff to advance the Community Center initiative, including engaging the community in conversations regarding this important project.

The establishment of this subcommittee would enhance the City’s ability to focus on this critical community priority and ensure close collaboration with the Foundation.

Adding Alternates for Key Assignments:

The Audit Committee, a critical assignment, currently lacks a designated alternate. The absence of alternates can create challenges in scheduling meetings if a primary representative(s) is unavailable.

Assigning an alternate ensures continuity, reduces disruptions, and supports timely decision-making.

Next Steps:

1. The Council will discuss and provide direction on updates to the intergovernmental assignments and subcommittee structure during this meeting.
92

Council IGR Assignments Council Intergovernmental Assignments for Calendar Year 2025 - Staff Report

2. Based on Council consensus, staff will finalize and distribute the updated list of assignments.

The annual review and update of intergovernmental assignments and subcommittees ensure that the City of Belmont maintains strong representation in regional and local matters, while aligning Councilmember roles with current priorities and availability. This process also allows the Council to retire subcommittees that have completed their work and address any gaps in existing assignments.

Alternatives

1. Defer to future meeting

2. Take no action
Attachments
A. 2024 IGR Assignment List
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
93 Last reviewed, January 9, 2024 1 | Page
Committee Delegate/
Representative
Alternates Schedule Meeting
Location
Contact
2+2 Ad hoc Committee with
Mid-Peninsula Water District
McCune and
Hurt
n/a As Needed Public Works
Director
2+2+2 BRSSD Committee
Multi agency committee to discuss/share
issues of interest between the Belmont
Redwood Shores School District, Redwood
City, and Belmont"
PangMaganaris
and
Latimerlo
n/a As Needed City Manager
Audit Committee
The Audit Committee provides independent
review and oversight of the City's financial
reporting processes, internal controls and
independent auditors and participates in the
budget review process
Vice Mayor
and
PangMaganaris
Quarterly Finance Director
Belmont-SC Fire Dept JPA -
Oversight of the legacy Fire Department with
San Carlos
Mates McCune As Needed City
Manager/Finance
Director
Business License Tax Modernization SubCommittee Hurt and PangMaganaris
n/a As Needed Assistant City
Manager/Finance
Director
Council Committee and Intergovernmental Assignments (IGR) 2024 94 Last reviewed, January 9, 2024 2 | Page
Evaluate options for modernization of the
Business License Tax and assist staff with
stakeholder outreach.

Carlmont High School Crossing Guard Pilot
Program Sub Committee
Mates and
PangMaganaris
(C/CAG)
C/CAG operates as a Joint Powers Authority
and has membership that includes each of
the 20 cities and the County in San Mateo
County. It works on issues that affect the
quality of life in general; transportation, air
quality, stormwater runoff, airport/land use
compatibility planning, hazardous waste,
climate planning, energy and water resource
strategies, and solid waste and recycling.

Hurt Mates Monthly
2nd Thursday,
7:00 p.m..
650-599-1406
Public Works
Director
Belmont Community Foundation Mayor Hurt
Four Corners Ad-hoc Committee
Alameda de Las Pulgas Corridor Improvement
Project is a multi-agency regional
transportation improvement project
involving cities of Belmont, San Carlos, and
two School Districts (Sequoia Union High
School and San Carlos School District) along
the Alameda de Las Pulgas and San Carlos
Ave Corridor.

Mates and
PangMaganaris
n/a As Needed City Manager
Public Works
Director
Liaison to Senior Citizen Advisory Committee
(committee not resumed)
McCune Hurt Odd Months
4th Tuesday,
3:00 P.M. (time
may change in
2024)
Twin Pines
Senior &
Community
Center
Craft Room
Parks and Rec
95 Last reviewed, January 9, 2024 3 | Page
Liaison to Chamber San Mateo County –
Governmental Relations Committee
Mayor Latimerlo Every other
Month
Amy
Buckmaster/Mary
Parden
Notre Dame de Namur University
Advisory Board
Hurt Mates As Needed City Manager
Placemaking Ad-hoc Subcommittee Hurt and
Mates
n/a As Needed Com Dev
Public Safety Committee –
The Public Safety Committee’s duties are to
consider policy matters related to police and
public safety services in Belmont, provide a
forum for presentation and discussion of
specific information related to public safety
policy and practices.

Vice Mayor McCune Quarterly/As
Needed
City
Manager/Police
Chief
Silicon Valley Clean Water
JPA for Wastewater Treatment
Hurt McCune Monthly,
2nd Monday,
8:00 a.m.

Public Works
Director
Stanford Ad-hoc Subcommittee -
Santa Clara/San Mateo Counties multijurisdictional meeting to discuss Stanford related matters
Mayor Hurt As Needed City Manager
Youth Advisory Committee -
Belmont Youth (grades 7-12) focused on civic
engagement through planning and hosting
activities and events.

McCune PangMaganarisYAC meetings 2x
Month Thursdays
6:30 pm; school
year only;
Delegate
attendance only
as needed
Barrett
Community
Center;
Hideout
Room
Parks and Rec
96 Last reviewed, January 9, 2024 4 | Page
Joint Powers Authorities/Intergovernmental Agencies
San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency
Services JPA –
The San Mateo County Pre-Hospital
Emergency Medical Services Group
provides service to the residents and
visitors of San Mateo County to advance life
support first response fire companies to
respond to all 911 emergency medical
requests, to work in tandem with hospital
transport and support partners.

Hurt McCune Quarterly City Manager
Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance
(Commute.org) –
Commute.org’s mission is to reduce the
number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by
commuters to decrease congestion,
improve the environment, and enhance
quality of life. The Board has five scheduled
meetings each year for the purpose of
adopting a work plan and budget,
developing policy, and reviewing
Commute.org performance.

Latimerlo Hurt Even months
3rd Thursday,
8 am
Public Works Director
ABAG General Assembly -
Regional planning agency for land use,
housing, environmental quality, and
economic development- Association of Bay
Area Governments, mission is to strengthen
cooperation and collaboration across local
Mayor Vice
Mayor
April,
November
General
Assembly
Meetings
Fred Castro
Clerk of the Board
[email protected]
97 Last reviewed, January 9, 2024 5 | Page
governments to build healthier, stronger
communities.
-ABAG is part regional planning agency and
part local government service provider. We
accomplish our goals by providing planning
services and cost-effective ABAG member
services to local governments struggling
with rising costs and diminishing incomes
Peninsula Division, League of CA Cities -
State and local legislative issues
(All Councilmembers invited)- The Peninsula
Division includes 36 cities in San Francisco,
San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties and
provides members with the opportunity to
exchange ideas and information and share
the advantages of cooperative advocacy.

Mayor Vice
Mayor
Quarterly
dinner
meetings
League of CA Cities
San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector
Control District -
Independent Special District, the Board of
Trustees consists of 21 members, one from
each city and one representative for the
County at-large. Trustees are appointed by
their respective City Council to govern the
Mosquito and Vector Control District
Citizen
Representative:

Chuck Cotton
Term expires
12/24
n/a Monthly 2nd
Tuesday, 7:30
pm
650-344-8592
San Mateo County Library JPA -
Policy direction, oversee budget, services &
library programs for the JPA related library
system
Mates PangMaganaris Quarterly plus
one
2nd Monday,
8:00 A.M.

Ann-Marie Despaine,
Library Director
SFO Roundtable -
The Airport/Community Roundtable was
established in 1981 to address community
PangMaganarisHurt 1st
Wednesday of
Month
James Castaneda
(650) 363-1853
98 Last reviewed, January 9, 2024 6 | Page
noise impacts from aircraft operations at
San Francisco International Airport (SFO).
6 x yr., 7:00
p.m.

San Mateo County Emergency Service
CouncilDisaster Preparedness
McCune Hurt Quarterly
3rd Thursday,
5:30 p.m.,
Courthouse
Lt. Craig Denton
(650) 599-1295
Kathleen Pape (650) 363-
4790
San Mateo County
Council of Cities/City Selection Committee
-
(All Councilmembers invited)
Mayor Vice
Mayor
MonthlyDinner
meeting
4th Friday,
6:00 p.m.

Sukhmani Purewal 650)
363-1802
[email protected]
Regional Housing Needs Policy Committee Latimerlo Hurt As Needed Carlos de Melo C/CAG
Sean Charpentier (650)-
599-1409
Housing and Regional Trust (HEART)
Member Agency Committee –
HEART is a 501(c)(3) that was founded in
2003 as a public/private partnership among
the cities in San Mateo County, the County,
and the business, nonprofit, education, and
labor communities to create more
affordable housing in San Mateo County.

HEART’s mission is to create and preserve
affordable housing for low- and moderateincome families by raising and investing money from public and private sources.

Latimerlo PangMaganaris2-3 annually,
3rd Wed, 7:30
a.m.

HEART Exec Director,
(650) 204-5640
Grand Boulevard –
The Grand Boulevard is a collaboration of
19 cities, counties, local and regional
agencies united to improve the
Mates PangMaganaris2-3 times
annually
Carlos de Melo
99 Last reviewed, January 9, 2024 7 | Page
performance, safety, and aesthetics of El
Camino Real. The initiative brings together
all the agencies having responsibility for the
condition, use and performance of the
street.

Caltrain Local Policy Maker Group (LPMG)-
LMPG provides policy and stakeholder input
to Caltrain staff on the Caltrain
Modernization Program (CalMod), and
Business Plan.

PangMaganarisHurt Last Thurs of
Month
6-8 pm
(650) 508-6493
SBWMA (South Bay Waste Management
Authority – “RethinkWaste”) -
RethinkWaste, also known as the South
Bayside Waste Management Authority
(SBWMA), is a joint powers authority
formed by eleven local government
jurisdictions in San Mateo County.

California. The agency provides oversight,
support and management of service
providers that collect, process, recycle and
dispose of materials on behalf of
RethinkWaste agencies.

McCune Hurt 4th Thursdays,
2:00 p.m., San
Carlos
Public Works Director
Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) -
Peninsula Clean Energy is a communitycontrolled, not-for-profit, joint powers agency formed as a Community Choice
Aggregation (CCA) program by San Mateo
County and all 20 of its cities and towns in
2016 and joined by the City of Los Banos in
2020.

McCune Mates 4th Thursdays
6:30 p.m.

City Manager
100
Last reviewed, January 9, 2024 8 | Page
Home For All Initiative -
The mission of Home for All initiative is to
establish a climate in San Mateo County
where a diversity of housing is produced
and preserved so that San Mateo County is
a culturally, generationally, and
economically diverse community with
housing for all. Home for All SMC is a
collaborative initiative comprised of the
County of San Mateo, local governments,
school districts, community-based
organizations, faith-based organizations,
advocacy groups and businesses.

Mates Latimerlo As Needed City Manager
San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department -
established January 2019 The department
was formed by the establishment of a Joint
Powers Authority (JPA) and represents the
merger of fire departments in San Mateo,
Foster City, and Belmont. The Board of
Directors for the Department is comprised
of a Council member from each partner
city.

Mates McCune Quarterly City Manager

THESE APPOINTMENTS ARE MADE BY THE CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE (Council of Cities):

Association of Bay Area Governments
Regional planning agency for land use, housing,
environmental quality, and economic
development
Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO)
Authority over all reorganizations &
boundary changes within County
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
Works to reduce air contaminants within
the District
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC)
Reviews applications for state & federal
California Identification System (Cal-ID)
Determine the placement of RandomPeninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) 101
Last reviewed, January 9, 2024 9 | Page
transportation funds, maintains regional
transportation plan for Bay Area
Access Network equipment within the
County
Set policy for operation of Peninsula
Commute Service
Community Development Committee Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committee
Review Supplemental Law Enforcement
Service Fund expenditures
Domestic Violence Council
Evaluate efforts to reduce domestic
violence, raise public awareness and
collect statistics
San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SAMTAC)
HEART (Housing Endowment and
Regional Trust) Board
THESE APPOINTMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH C/CAG:
2020 Peninsula Gateway Corridor Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
Congestion Management Program and
Environmental Quality Committee (CMEQ)
Congestion Management Program
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Technical Advisory Committee (NPDES) -
Integrated Waste management (SWAC) Utilities Sustainability Task Force (USTF) 102