Belmont City Council
September 8, 2026

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. ITEMS BEFORE 7:00 PM

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT

ON THE AGENDA

8. COUNCILMEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

9. CONSENT BUSINESS

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS - none

11. GENERAL BUSINESS

12. BRIEF VERBAL REPORTS FROM

MEMBERS AND STAFF

13. MATTERS OF

INTEREST/CLARIFICATION

14. ADJOURNMENT
City Council
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, September 8, 2026 City Council Chambers
City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California
General order of Business City Council
Julia Mates, Mayor
Cathy Jordan, Vice Mayor
Robin Pang-Maganaris, Councilmember
Gina Latimerlo, Councilmember
Tom McCune, Councilmember
Anais Martinez Aquino, Administrative Service
Director
Staff
Afshin Oskoui, City Manager
Scott Rennie, City Attorney
Ken Stenquist, Police Chief
Grace Castaneda, Finance Director
Kevin Kobayashi, Parks and Recreation Director
Edric Kwan, Public Works Director
Jozi Plut, City Clerk
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 www.Belmont.gov

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

4. 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.

Belmont City Council Meeting Agenda September 8, 2026
1 To submit a written public comment:

E-mail [email protected] before the Council discusses the item, noting the agenda topic or number in the subject line. Comments received up to three hours before the meeting will be distributed to the Council and included in the record but not read aloud during the 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 always conduct themselves with civility and courtesy. All 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 to foster an environment where everyone feels welcome to speak.

LEVINE ACT:

The Levine Act (California Government Code Section 84308) limits campaign contributions that may be made to elected or appointed City officials (including councilmembers and the mayor) and certain candidates for elective city offices. The Act prohibits an agent of a party from contributing any amount to councilmember while a proceeding for a contract valued at $50,000 or more, permit, license, or other entitlement for use is pending that does not solely involve purely ministerial decisions. The Act also prohibits parties and participants in the above entitlement proceedings from contributing more than $500 during the proceeding and for 12 months after the proceeding and requires disclosure of the prohibited contributions. The Act prohibits certain officials, including local elected officials, from taking part in an entitlement proceeding if the official has received a contribution exceeding $500 from a party or participant in the proceeding within the preceding 12 months. An official is also prohibited from accepting, soliciting, or directing a contribution exceeding $500 from a party or participant in the proceeding for 12 months after a final decision is rendered in such a proceeding. The law is complex, and this brief description is not legal advice. If you or an agent have made any campaign contributions to a councilmember in the 12 months before a proceeding in which you have an interest or you are contemplating making a contribution within the 12 months after such a proceeding, you are urged to review the Levine Act and consider consulting an attorney. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is responsible for administering the Levine Act. More information about the Act and its implementing regulations can be found on the FPPC’s website here:
https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html

ACCESSIBILITY
If you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 595-7413. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this 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 Date: Time: /s/:

Belmont City Council Meeting Agenda September 8, 2026
2 1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. ITEMS BEFORE 7:00 PM

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation Designating September 2026 as Suicide Prevention Month B. Proclamation Recognizing Carlos de Melo Community Development Director on his Retirement

7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
City of Belmont
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
September 8, 2026
City Council Chambers
City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California

NOTICE REGARDING MEETING SCHEDULE
The City Council may meet prior to 7:00 PM for Study Sessions, Closed Sessions, or other Special Topics. All other business will commence at 7:00 PM as a time-certain agenda item.

A. CLOSED SESSION - 6:15 PM
1) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2): One case,
The City has received a communication from the Tamien Nation regarding the treatment and handling of culturally significant archaeological resources encountered during a City project. The City and the Tamien Nation have subsequently engaged in discussions regarding appropriate measures for the protection and handling of cultural resources, including monitoring and cultural resource handling services. 2) Conference with Labor Negotiators Government Code Section 54957.6 Unrepresented Employees: City Manager, City Attorney Designated Representatives: Julia Mates, Gina Latimerlo
B. STUDY SESSION - none
The public will have an opportunity to address the City Council concerning this item.

C. SPECIAL SESSION/OTHER TOPICS - none
ITEMS STARTING AT 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 Belmont City Council Meeting Agenda September 8, 2026
3 8. COUNCILMEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

9. CONSENT BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes
B. Fuel Delivery Services Agreement
C. 2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project – Notice of Completion D. Purchase of Parks & Recreation Passenger Van
E. Central Square Community Development Software Agreement 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.

Recommendation: Consider modifications and approve minutes.

Attachments:

Meeting Minutes July 14, 2026
Recommendation: Award a service agreement to Valley Oil Company for fuel delivery services to the City’s Corporation Yard and generator site locations throughout the City and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a three-year agreement, with an option for two additional one-year extensions.

Attachments:

Staff Report
Resolution
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution accepting the construction and authorizing the issuance of Notice of Completion for the 2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project, City Contract Number 2025-636.

Attachments:

Staff Report
Resolution
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing 1) the City Manager to execute a contract for the acquisition of one Parks and Recreation van for a total amount not to exceed $94,490, and 2) authorizing a budget appropriation of $94,490 from the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund for the new van purchase.

Attachments:

Staff Report
Resolution
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council make a motion authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Central Square Technologies for a three-year term for the continued subscription and maintenance of the cloud-based software servicing the Community Development Department for an amount not to exceed $269,073.25.

Attachments:

Staff Report
Central Square Contract Renewal
Belmont City Council Meeting Agenda September 8, 2026
4 F. Contract Amendment No. 3 for ADU Resource Center of San Mateo County

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS - none

11. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan Presentation & Supporting Resolution for development of SamTrans/Caltrans Complete Street Improvements Project on El Camino Real
B. Community Center Project Authorization of Design-Build Procurement, Evaluation of Delivery Options, and Direction to Explore a Project Labor Agreement Recommendation: Motion to authorize the City Manager to: 1) negotiate and execute Amendment No.3 to the Service Agreement with the ADU Resource Center to provide services for fiscal year 2026-27 for $29,800; 2) execute contract renewals for up to two additional one-year terms with an annual cost escalator of 3% to 5% based on the Consumer Price Index, subject to annual budget appropriations; and 3) execute future agreements with a potential new fiscal agent, in the event that the ADU Resource Center transitions to a new non-profit or other entity.

Attachments:

Staff Report
Performance Dashboard March 2026
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) Receive a presentation and update regarding the Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan.
2) Adopt a resolution supporting SamTrans and Caltrans working with Belmont through the Caltrans project development process to plan, design, and implement complete street improvements on El Camino Real in Belmont.

Attachments:

Staff Report
Resolution
Central ECR Multimodal Plan
Central ECR Multimodal Plan PPT
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to establish a design-build delivery framework for the Community Center Project and to evaluate whether conventional design-build or progressive design-build provides the best delivery approach as the project definition, funding strategy, schedule, risk profile, and market conditions become clearer.
1) Authorize use of a design-build delivery method for the Community Center Project pursuant to applicable California Public Contract Code authority. 2) Authorize staff to evaluate conventional design-build and progressive design-build and recommend the approach that best serves the City's interests. 3) Authorize preparation of the applicable procurement documents, evaluation criteria, conflict-of-interest guidelines, bonding, insurance, and contract requirements. 4) Authorize staff to begin evaluating and, if appropriate, negotiating a project-specific Project Labor Agreement (PLA) in connection with the selected design-build delivery method.
5) Require any proposed PLA and the final design-build procurement strategy to return to the City Council for approval at the appropriate stage before the City is contractually committed Belmont City Council Meeting Agenda September 8, 2026
5 12. BRIEF VERBAL REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF

13. MATTERS OF INTEREST/CLARIFICATION

14. ADJOURNMENT
to construction.

Attachments:

Staff Report
Resolution
Community Center Strategy PPT
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.

ADA Notice: If you require assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 595-7413 in advance so reasonable accommodations can be arranged.

Agenda Materials: Meeting materials are available at www.belmont.gov. Documents distributed to a majority of the City Council, District Board, or Commission regarding agenda items will be available at the City Clerk’s Of ice, One Twin Pines Lane, during normal business hours and at the meeting.

Belmont City Council Meeting Agenda September 8, 2026
6 City Council Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2026

CITY OF BELMONT CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
City Council Chambers, City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California July 14, 2026

1. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM

2. ROLL CALL

3. ITEMS BEFORE 7:00 PM
A. CLOSED SESSION 6:05 P.M.

1.) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Government Code Section 54957(b) Titles: City Manager, City Attorney
RECESS: 7:00 PM TO REGULAR MEETING
B. STUDY SESSION - none
C. SPECIAL SESSION/OTHER TOPICS - none
ITEMS STARTING AT 7:05 P.M.

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Mayor Mates.

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney stated that Council recessed the closed session and will reconvene after the open business of the meeting.

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS – none

7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Guliano Carlini provided comments on bicycle infrastructure.

8. COUNCILMEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers provided information on upcoming events.

9. CONSENT BUSINESS
A. Approval of June 23, 2026 Meeting Minutes
B. Approval of May 2026 Monthly Financials
C. Hill Street and El Camino Real Hawk Crossing Project (City Contract No. 2026-652) – Award of construction contract
Resolution 2026-54 awarding a construction contract to Gruendl, Inc. dba Ray’s Electric for the Hill Street and El Camino Real HAWK Crossing Project (City Contract No. 2026-652) in an amount not to exceed $659,942, plus a 10% construction contingency, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the construction contract 7 City Council Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2026

D. Belmont Village Bicycle Improvement Project – Notice of Completion Resolution 2026-55 accepting the construction work and authorizing the issuance of a Notice of Completion for the Belmont Village Bicycle Improvement Project, City Contract Number 2025-638
E. 2025 Pavement Rehabilitation Project – Notice of Completion Resolution 2026-56 accepting the construction work and authorizing the issuance of Notice of Completion for the 2025 Pavement Rehabilitation Project, City Contact Number 2025-637
F. 2026 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Infrastructure Repair Project – Design Contract
Resolution 2026-57 authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Task Order with WHB Engineers for an amount not-to-exceed $307,346 for the design of the 2026 Sanitary Sewer and Storm Infrastructure Repair Project G. 2027 Pavement Rehabilitation and Utility Improvement Project Resolution 2026-58 authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Task Order with Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers in an amount not to exceed $419,015 to provide design, bidding, and construction support services for the 2027 Pavement Rehabilitation and Utility Improvement Project H. Agreement with Pavement Engineering Inc. for construction inspection services for the 2026 Pavement Rehabilitation Project
Resolution 2026-59 authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Pavement Engineering Inc. to provide construction inspection and materials testing services in an amount not to exceed $258,730 for the 2026 Pavement Rehabilitation Project, and approve a $100,000 budget transfer from the 2025 Pavement Rehabilitation Project to the 2026 Pavement Rehabilitation Project
I. Parcel Map for SB-9 Urban Lot Split at Miramar Terrace – APNs 045-140- 410 and 044-211-090
Resolution 2026-60 approving the Parcel Map for an Urban Lot Split under Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) for the properties located at APNs 045-140-410 and 044-211-090 and accepting the dedication of an Emergency Vehicle Access Easement (EVAE), Ingress/Egress Easement, and Public Utility Easement (PUE) J. Revised Master Employee Pay Schedule – July 2026
Resolution 2026-61 updating the City’s Master Employee Pay Schedule to meet California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) requirements K. Approval of New and Revised Job Descriptions and Salary Ranges in the Parks and Recreation Department
Resolution 2026-62 establishing the Recreation Coordinator II classification, formalizing the Recreation Specialist II classification, updating the Recreation Coordinator and Supervisor job descriptions and revising the salary range and job description for the Recreation Manager classification
L. Server Replacement
Resolution 2026-63 1) authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute the purchase of servers, equipment, implementation services, and 5-year support with 8 City Council Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2026

Nutanix for a total amount not to exceed $400,000; and 2) authorizing a budget appropriation of $380,000 from the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund and $20,000 from the Belmont Fire Protection District Fund
M. Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 California Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program
Resolution 2026-64 authorizing the City Manager to submit and execute all necessary grant documents upon approval of its application for the FY 2026-27 California Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax Fund Grant for a total award of $78,774.74, making grant performance and funding commitments, and appropriating $78,774.74 grant revenue and associated expenditures in the current FY 2026-27 budget related to the Cannabis Tax Fund Program N. Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program Resolution 2026-65 authorizing the City Manager to submit and execute all documents necessary to accept and administer the FY 2026-27 through FY 2030- 31 Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant in the amount of $999,447, make all required grant assurances and commitments, and appropriate $246,007 in grant revenue and corresponding expenditures in the FY 2026-27 budget
O. Authorization of Change Order No. 4 with InCharge Energy, Inc. and Supplemental Budget Appropriation for the EV Charging Stations Project (CIP No. 8090)
Resolution 2026-66 (1) authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute Change Order No. 4 with InCharge Energy, Inc. in the amount of $77,559 for the EV Charging Stations Project (CIP No. 8090), increasing the total contract amount to $423,927 and (2) approving a $90,000 supplemental budget appropriation to CIP No. 8090, funded by Westlight Energy’s EV Ready Incentive Program P. 678 Ralston Ave and 951 Old County Rd. Loan Funding Agreement Amendment
Resolution 2026-67 Authorizing The City Manager To Negotiate And Enter Into A Loan Funding Agreement With CRP Affordable Housing And Community Development LLC Or Affiliated Entities Or Partners To Provide A Loan Of Up To $1.5 Million For Construction Of An Affordable Housing Project At 678 Ralston Avenue And Approving A Supplemental Budget Appropriation Of $1.5 Million From The Affordable Housing Fund
Resolution 206-68 Authorizing The City Manager To Negotiate And Enter Into A Loan Funding Agreement With CRP Affordable Housing And Community Development LLC Or Affiliated Entities Or Partners To Provide A Loan Of Up To $1.5 Million For Construction Of An Affordable Housing Project At 951 Old County Road
Q. CSG Consultants, Inc. Building Plan Review Services – Task Order #3 Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Task Order #3 with CSG Consultants, Inc. (CSG) for Building Plan Review Services for Fiscal Year 26-27 for a not to exceed contract amount of $480,000
9 City Council Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2026

R. Amendment #1 to Service Agreement for Building Inspection Services from 4 Leaf, Inc.

Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Amendment #1 to the Service Agreement with 4 Leaf, Inc. (4LEAF) to provide building inspection services for FY26-27 for $180,000. This amendment would bring the total not to exceed cost for this contract to $445,000
Public Comment provided by Leslie Wambach, and Guliano Carlini.

ACTION: On a motion made by Councilmember Pang-Maganaris and seconded by Councilmember Latimerlo, the Consent Business was approved by a roll call vote (4-1, Jordan recused on item 9I) this vote was concurrent with the BFPD consent agenda, separate minutes created.

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS - none

11. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Citizen Initiative Community Center Tax Measure
City Clerk Plut provided an overview of the requested Council actions to adopt the resolution calling the election and, by motion, designate a two-member Council subcommittee to prepare and sign the ballot argument in favor of the measure, if requested by the proponents.

Public Comment provided by Alan Sarver, Sarah Delisle, Jim Howard, and Guliano Carlini.

Council discussion ensued.

ACTION: On a motion made by Councilmember Jordan and seconded by Councilmember PangMaganaris, Resolution 2026-69 calling a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, to submit to the voters a proposed citizen initiative special tax measure, requesting that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors consolidate the municipal election with the statewide election and authorize the San Mateo County Clerk to conduct all election services, and direct the City Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis of the measure was approved by a roll call vote. (5-0)
On a motion made by Councilmember Latimerlo and seconded by Councilmember McCune, Councilmember Pang-Maganaris and Mayor Mates were designated to a twomember Council subcommittee to prepare and sign, if requested by the proponents, the argument in favor of the measure and any rebuttal was approved by a roll call vote (5-0).

Councilmember Latimerlo recused herself from the next item due to the proximity of her residence to the project site and stepped down from the dais. 10 City Council Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2026

B. Belmont Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) Specific Plan Update Deputy Community Development Director Russell presented an update on the Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) Specific Plan. The presentation included an overview of the Specific Plan foundation and guiding principles, land use and build-out assumptions, residential transition areas, design guidelines, a proposed Master Plan approach, community outreach efforts, and next steps.

Public comment provided by Jill Ellington, Sean Williams, Caroline Pyrz, Guliano Carlini, Carolyn Shepard, Leslie Wambach, Joseph LoCoco, Annie Chung, Taylor, Amey Shroff, Carissa Gomea, Anika
Councilmembers provided feedback on the proposed Residential Transition Areas, requesting additional definition and refinement of the concept. Council also commented on the proposed height and setback standards, design guidelines, and Master Plan approach. Staff will incorporate Council feedback into the draft Specific Plan prior to public review.

At this time Councilmember Latimerlo returned to the dais.

C. Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for League of California Cities Annual Conference September 23-25, 2026
City Clerk Plut explained that the League of California Cities requires each member city to designate a voting delegate for the Annual Conference. She further explained that the City Council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates by motion and authorize the delegate to represent the City during the General Assembly. She noted that Mayor Mates and City Manager Oskoui are registered to attend the conference.

ACTION: On a motion made by Mayor Mates and seconded by Councilmember Latimerlo, the City Council designated Mayor Mates as the voting delegate and City Manager Oskoui as the alternate voting delegate by roll call vote (5-0).

12. BRIEF VERBAL REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF
A. Verbal report from Councilmembers on Intergovernmental (IGR) and Subcommittee Assignments
Councilmembers reported on their assignments
B. Verbal report from City Manager

13. MATTERS OF INTEREST/CLARIFICATION

14. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Mates honored the life and legacy of Belmont community leader Judy King, recognizing her decades of service to the community, including her leadership of the Belmont Park Boosters Summer Concert Series and her many years of volunteer service on City commissions and committees. The City Council adjourned the meeting in her memory, and a moment of silence was observed.
11 City Council Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2026

Submitted by,
Jozi Plut, City Clerk
12

Fuel Delivery Services Agreement - Staff Report.docx

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Sean Prevette, Public Works, (650) 595-7465, [email protected] Agenda Title: Fuel Delivery Services Agreement
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Award a service agreement to Valley Oil Company for fuel delivery services to the City’s Corporation Yard and generator site locations throughout the City and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a three-year agreement, with an option for two additional one-year extensions.

Strategic Focus Area
Public Safety
Background
On March 23, 2021, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Valley Oil Company for a period of five years. On June 22, 2021, the City Council reviewed additional information provided by staff regarding the modification to the agreement language related to the amount paid by the City to Valley Oil Company. These modifications included the allowable mark-up for fuel products, removal of language related to the Consumer Price Index, and limitations for operational expenses based on the annual fiscal appropriations for the purchase of gasoline.

Since the expiration of the prior agreement in May 2026, Public Works staff have purchased gasoline and diesel for citywide use by requesting multiple quotes for each fuel purchase. While this approach has allowed the City to continue meeting its fuel needs, establishing a new service agreement will provide a more consistent and efficient procurement process while maintaining competitive pricing.

Analysis
The City purchased $125,953.36 of fuel during fiscal year (FY) 2025-26 for fleet operations, including public safety vehicles, generators, and heavy construction machinery and equipment.

To obtain competitive pricing for ongoing fuel delivery services, the City issued a Request for Quotes (RFQ) to qualified service providers for fuel delivery to the City’s Corporation Yard. The Corporation Yard provides fuel for vehicles operated by Public Works, Police, Community Development, and Parks and Recreation, as well as for generators located at sites throughout the City.

The City advertised the RFQ and received two bid packages by the August 17, 2026 bid deadline. Valley Oil Company was determined to meet the City’s requirements and is deemed to be the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. Table 1 provides a summary of the fuel delivery services bids. 13

Fuel Delivery Services Agreement - Staff Report.docx
Table 1
Summary of Fuel Delivery Services Bids
Bidder Base Bid Unleaded
Gasoline, 87
Base Bid R99 Diesel *Additional Sites
AAA Oil Inc. +0.1583 +0.7000 +0.8500 Plus $250.00
Delivery Fee
Valley Oil Company -0.08 -0.04 +0.45

*Additional locations refer to the generator sites throughout the City that may require direct fuel delivery.

Fuel pricing under the proposed agreement is based on the San Jose OPIS (Oil Price Information Service) average daily price per gallon, a widely used published regional benchmark for wholesale fuel prices. Bidders proposed a fixed per-gallon adjustment to the OPIS price, with a negative adjustment representing a discount and a positive adjustment representing an amount added to the OPIS price. This allows the City’s fuel cost to fluctuate with market conditions while maintaining the competitively established vendor adjustment for the duration of the agreement. The proposed pricing is based on a 24-hour notice for delivery.

Valley Oil Company’s bid provides the City with the most favorable pricing among the responsive bids received for all three fuel delivery categories. In addition to providing competitive pricing, Valley Oil Company has provided fuel delivery services to the City for more than ten years and has been a responsive and responsible contractor in providing fuel to the Corporation Yard and other locations throughout Belmont.

As part of the procurement process, staff contacted multiple public agencies that currently utilize Valley Oil Company’s fuel delivery services and received favorable feedback regarding its services and performance. Based on the competitive pricing, experience serving the City and other municipalities throughout the San Francisco Peninsula, and demonstrated service record, staff recommends awarding the service agreement to Valley Oil Company.

The proposed agreement does not establish a not-to-exceed contract amount. Fuel purchases will be made as needed based on the City's operational requirements and will be limited to the annual fuel appropriations authorized through the City's budget process. This approach allows the City to purchase fuel as needed while maintaining the competitively established pricing under the agreement.

Alternatives

1. Take No Action

2. Refer back to staff for more information
14

Fuel Delivery Services Agreement - Staff Report.docx
Attachments
None
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

Funding is included in annual fuel appropriation in the current fiscal year (Account No. 8639/ Gasoline throughout operating departments). Funding for subsequent years of the agreement term and optional extensions, if exercised, will be incorporated into the annual budget development process and contingent on the City Council budget appropriation.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 15

RESOLUTION NO. 2026 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

AWARDING A SERVICE AGREEMENT TO VALLEY OIL COMPANY FOR FUEL

DELIVERY SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Police Department, Community Development, Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and other City departments purchase fuel for their fleets that allows them to perform their departmental operations; and,; and,
WHEREAS, in an effort to obtain competitive pricing, the City issued a Request for Quotes (RFQ) to qualified service providers for the delivery of unleaded and diesel fuel to the City’s Corporation Yard and additional generator sites throughout the City; and,; and, WHEREAS, the City received a total of two bid packages by the bid deadline; and,.

WHEREAS, fuel pricing under the agreement is based on the San Jose OPIS average daily price per gallon, with bidders providing a fixed per-gallon adjustment to the OPIS price; and,
WHEREAS, the City analyzed the bids received and determined that Valley Oil Company is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, having submitted the most favorable bid, including a $0.08 per-gallon discount from the OPIS price for Unleaded Gasoline, a $0.04 per-gallon discount from OPIS price for R99 Diesel, and a $0.45 per-gallon adjustment for deliveries to the additional generator sites; and,
WHEREAS, Valley Oil Company submitted a responsive bid in accordance with the requirements of the RFQ and has demonstrated its responsibility through many years of providing fuel services to the City; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. : The City Manager is authorized to award a fuel contract to Valley Oil Company for fuel delivery services for a period of three years, with an option for two additional one-year extensions, consistent with the terms of the RFQ and Valley Oil Company’s bid.

SECTION 2. Fuel purchases under the agreement are limited to the annual appropriation authorized in the City’s fiscal year budget, Account No. 8639/Gasoline. * * *
ADOPTED September 8, 2026 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:
16

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
17

2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project - Notice of Completion - Staff Report (1).docx

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Bozhena Palatnik, Public Works, (650) 595-7463, [email protected] Agenda Title: 2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project – Notice of Completion Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution accepting the construction and authorizing the issuance of Notice of Completion for the 2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project, City Contract Number 2025-636.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
The 2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project included approximately 6,049 feet of sanitary sewer replacement, of which 4,365 feet was completed through trenchless technologies and 1,684 feet through open trench methods. The project also included sewer lateral reconnections, manhole replacements, approximately 200 feet of storm drainpipe replacement, and storm drain inlet replacements at various locations throughout the City.

On March 25, 2025, through Resolution No. 2025-22, the City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized the City Manager to execute a construction contract with the lowest responsible and responsive bidder in an amount not to exceed $2,330,000, plus a 10% construction contingency. The project was advertised on March 26, 2025, and received six bids on April 23, 2025.

Following the competitive bidding process, the City entered into a construction contract with APB General Engineering Corporation, the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, for $1,698,901, plus a 10% construction contingency.

Analysis
The Notice to Proceed was issued on June 26, 2025, construction commenced on July 7, 2025, and the project reached substantial completion on April 27, 2026.

The project rehabilitated sanitary sewer infrastructure at various locations throughout the City, addressing aging and deteriorated sanitary sewer mains, laterals, and manholes. The project also included targeted storm drain improvements. Completion of this work improves the reliability of the City’s sewer and storm drain systems, eliminates likelihood of sanitary sewer overflows, and reduces ongoing maintenance needs and potential emergency repairs.

During construction, six change orders totaling $116,845 were approved to address unforeseen conditions 18

2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project - Notice of Completion - Staff Report (1).docx related to utility and structure conflicts and changed soils condition. These changes were necessary to address conditions identified during construction and ensure the project improvements were completed as intended. The final construction contract amount was $1,815,746, approximately 7% over the original contract amount and within the approved 10% construction contingency.

The final project costs are as follows:

Design - $164,715
Construction - $1,815,746
Construction Management and Inspection - $314,340
Total: $2,294,801
Approval of the proposed resolution will accept the improvements, begin the warranty period, authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder’s Office, and release retention to the contractor after 35 days.

Alternatives

1. Refer back to staff for additional information.

2. Take no action.

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

The project’s final construction contract amount of $1,815,746 is within the approved project budget. Funds have been
budgeted and charged under the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project No. 7074 (Account 399-3-730-7074-9030), funded by Measure I Fund and Sewer Collection Fund.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 19

RESOLUTION NO. 2026 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

ACCEPTING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE

OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $1,815,746, AND RECORDING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION, FOR THE 2025 SEWER REHABILTATION PROJECT, CITY CONTRACT NUMBER 2025-636
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2025, through Resolution 2025-22, the City Council approved the plans and specifications for the 2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project, City Contract Number 2025-636, authorized advertisement for sealed bids, and authorized the City Manager to award and execute a construction contract with the lowest responsible and responsive bidder; and, WHEREAS, six bids were opened on April 23, 2025; and,
WHEREAS, the City entered into a construction contract with APB General Engineering Corporation, the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, for $1,698,901, plus a 10% construction contingency; and,
WHEREAS, the project rehabilitated sanitary sewer infrastructure at various locations throughout the City, including sanitary sewer mains, laterals, and manholes, and also included targeted storm drain improvements; and,
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2026, the project was substantially completed to the satisfaction of the City in accordance with the approved plans and specifications; and, WHEREAS, six change orders totaling $116,845 were approved during construction to address unforeseen conditions related to utility and structure conflicts and changed soils condition, resulting in a final construction contract amount of $1,815,746, within the approved construction contingency; and,
WHEREAS, the approved project budget is adequate to cover the final construction contract amount.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby accepts the construction work performed by APB General Engineering Corporation for the 2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project, City Contract Number 2025-636.

SECTION 2. Authorizes the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with San Mateo County Clerk-Recorder’s office for the 2025 Sewer Rehabilitation Project, City Contract Number 2025-636.

SECTION 3. Authorizes the release of withheld retention 35 days after the filing of the Notice of Completion with the County Clerk-Recorder’s office. 20

* * *
ADOPTED September 8, 2026 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
21

Purchase of Parks & Recreation Passenger Van - Staff Report.docx

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Dustin Moore, Public Works, (650) 595-7466, Sean Prevette, Public Works, (650) 595-7465, [email protected]
Agenda Title: Purchase of Parks & Recreation Passenger Van Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution authorizing 1) the City Manager to execute a contract for the acquisition of one Parks and Recreation van for a total amount not to exceed $94,490, and 2) authorizing a budget appropriation of $94,490 from the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund for the new van purchase.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
The City of Belmont maintains an inventory of 96 assets, including vehicles, off-road equipment, and emergency generators. Public Works Fleet Management is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of these assets to ensure safe and reliable operations across City departments.

The City's vehicle replacement program is intended to proactively replace aging vehicles that have reached the end of their useful life based on age, mileage, condition, increasing maintenance costs, or operational need. Public Works Fleet Management uses a variety of procurement methods to acquire and outfit replacement vehicles in the most cost-effective and efficient manner available.

Vehicle #315, a 2014 Ford E250 van, currently provides transportation to recreation activities in underserved neighborhoods, supports reliable transportation for older adults, and assists with communitywide emergency preparedness and evacuation efforts. However, this vehicle does not currently include features with mobility aids that meet ADA compliance requirements. Staff has identified this van for replacement.

The purchase of a new 2026 Ford Transit 350 Passenger Van will partially be funded through a San Mateo County Measure K grant in an amount up to $20,000. Grant funds will be released to the City upon completion of the van purchase and achievement of specified performance measures. These measures include providing at least 25 one-way rides to a minimum of 20 unique older adults. The Parks and Recreation Department will complete the required performance measures by the December 9, 2026 deadline and provide the necessary documentation to the County of San Mateo to obtain release of the grant funding. Additionally, the City received a $50,000 one-time contribution through a development agreement with NUG, a retail cannabis business, towards the purchase of a parks and recreation vehicle. 22

Purchase of Parks & Recreation Passenger Van - Staff Report.docx The remaining balance will come from the City’s funding from the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund.

Analysis
The Parks and Recreation Vehicle #315, a 2014 Ford E250 van, has accumulated more than 36,581 miles.

The van was originally slated for replacement in fiscal year (FY) 2023-24 but was deferred to FY 2027- 28 due to its relatively low mileage and continued operational reliability. With the availability of the Measure K grant funding to offset the cost of the replacement vehicle, staff determined that advancing the replacement to FY 2026-27 would provide a cost-effective opportunity to replace the aging vehicle while also improving the City’s ability to provide accessible and reliable transportation to the community. The replacement vehicle will also feature a secure track system on the floor of the van that provides improved securement for mobility aids during transit that meets ADA compliance requirements.

The Parks and Recreation Department plans to keep the current vehicle #315 in service for limited and backup use, until it reaches the end of its useful life and retires. This will provide the department with additional transportation capacity for riders and allow the vehicle to transport materials to and from event sites. Fleet Management staff will provide updates to the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the condition and remaining useful life of Vehicle #315 during the department’s semi-annual fleet meetings.

During the period when Vehicle #315 and the new 2026 Ford Transit 350 Passenger Van are in inventory, additional costs are required to maintain both vehicles. After Vehicle #315 is retired, only the cost of maintenance and eventual replacement of the 2026 Ford Transit 350 Passenger Van will be needed.

Procurement
Fleet Management works collaboratively with each department to develop vehicle specifications that meet operational needs while improving fuel efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As part of the replacement process, Fleet Management evaluates available vehicles based on their potential to reduce fleet emissions while also considering operational, economic, and environmental factors.

When procuring vehicles and equipment, staff utilize a combination of competitive procurement methods available to the City. These methods include the following:
• Formal competitive bid solicitations to obtain pricing from qualified vendors • Piggyback contracts through other public agencies
• Cooperative purchasing agreements through organizations, such as Sourcewell or HoustonGalveston Area Council (HGAC) Where applicable, staff will utilize the formal bid process to solicit competitive quotes from qualified vendors to ensure the City receives the best value while complying with the City's purchasing requirements. Piggyback contracts and cooperative purchasing agreements provide additional procurement flexibility, can reduce administrative and purchasing costs, and can expedite vehicle acquisition timelines. Organizations such as Sourcewell and HGAC competitively solicit, evaluate, and 23

Purchase of Parks & Recreation Passenger Van - Staff Report.docx award contracts on behalf of the public agency nationwide, allowing participating agencies to procure vehicles and equipment at competitively established pricing. These procurement methods satisfy the City's competitive purchasing requirements and the City has successfully utilized these methods for prior vehicle acquisitions.

For the purchase of the Ford Transit 350 Passenger Van, staff will utilize Sourcewell Cooperative Purchase Agreement #032824 with Olathe Fleet. The associated Request for Proposals was published in March 2024, with the formal agreement executed between Olathe Fleet and Sourcewell in July 2024. This agreement remains in effect until July 2028.

Approval of the proposed resolution will authorize the procurement of the replacement vehicle in an amount not to exceed $94,490. Funding for vehicle replacement is accumulated over the useful life of fleet assets through the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund.

Alternatives

1. Take No Action.

2. Refer back to staff for more information.

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

Budget appropriation of $94,490 in the current FY 2026-27 is required in the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund
(Account No. 573-0-000-9041 Vehicles) for the purchase of Parks & Recreation Passenger Van.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
*Insert additional information, or delete if not used
24

RESOLUTION NO. 2026 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF ONE PARKS AND RECREATION VAN AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $94,490

AND APPROPRIATING ASSOCIATED GRANT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2026-27 BUDGET RELATED TO THE PURCHASE OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION VAN.

WHEREAS, Parks & Recreation Vehicle #315, a 2014 Ford E250, was evaluated by Public Works Fleet Management and the Parks & Recreation Department and determined to retain useful life as a passenger van, although it is approaching the end of its service life and will require eventual replacement; and,
WHEREAS, the City has identified and proposes to purchase a new passenger van to enhance transportation services and operational capabilities, while retaining Vehicle #315 in service until it is determined to have reached the end of its useful life; and, WHEREAS, The replacement vehicle will provide enhanced safety features and improved securement systems for mobility aids during transit, supporting accessible transportation for Parks and Recreation programs while also serving as a reliable transportation resource during emergency response and evacuation situations, particularly for individuals with mobility limitations; and,
WHEREAS, the City intends to use the newly purchased Passenger Van as the primary vehicle for Parks and Recreation programming and the current Vehicle #315 as a secondary vehicle for transportation needs until Vehicle #315 reaches the end of its useful life; and, WHEREAS, the City will receive partial reimbursement of up to $20,000 through San Mateo County Measure K grant funding upon purchase of the replacement vehicle and completion of associated performance measures; additionally, the City received a $50,000 onetime contribution through a development agreement with NUG, a retail cannabis business, towards the purchase of a parks and recreation vehicle; the remaining balance will come from the City’s funding from the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund; and, WHEREAS, the current FY 2026-27 budget does not include the Measure K grant funding amount and the Passenger Van purchase and related expenditures, pending Council approval of the budget appropriation.

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

SECTION 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute an agreement purchasing of one Parks & Recreation vehicle and associated equipment through Sourcewell Cooperative Purchase Agreement #032824 with Olathe Fleet for an amount not to exceed $94,490.

SECTION 2. The Council amends the FY 2026-27 budget by appropriating funds to reflect the San Mateo County Measure K grant award and associated vehicle replacement 25

expenditure as follows: $20,000 through San Mateo County Measure K grant funding in Contribution for Fleet Purchase Account #573-0-000-7271; $94,490 to Vehicles Expenditure Account #573-0-000-9041.
* * *
ADOPTED September 8, 2026 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
26

Central Square Software Contract Extension - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Anais Martinez Aquino, Administrative Services Director, [email protected], 650-637-2988
Agenda Title: Central Square Community Development Software Agreement Agenda Action: Motion
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council make a motion authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Central Square Technologies for a three-year term for the continued subscription and maintenance of the cloud-based software servicing the Community Development Department for an amount not to exceed $269,073.25.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
In 2020, the City entered into a three-year agreement with Central Square Technologies, which was implemented and configured that same year. In 2023, the City Council authorized staff to enter into a second contract with Central Square for a second three-year term. The contract is for a Software as a Service (SaaS) called ‘Community Development’ which contains several modules, including permitting, projects and planning, code compliance, licensing, land management, response to residents, workspace, reporting/analytics, and a GIS component. The current contract with Central Square is set to expire on September 30, 2026. The City’s continued use of Central Square requires a renewal of the contract.

Analysis
Central Square continues to meet organizational needs for the Community Development Department. The proposed renewal will extend the terms and conditions that the City agreed to in 2023 for three additional years. To secure pricing for the next contract term, Central Square has provided a renewal order that reflects an approximate 5.8% increase for year one, and the vendor proposes 5% increases for years two and three. The total amount for the renewal will not exceed the following:

Year 1 2026 - 2027 $85,352.34
Year 2 2027 - 2028 $89,619.96
Year 3 2028 - 2029 $94,100.95
Total for 3 Years $269,073.25
27

Central Square Software Contract Extension - Staff Report Alternatives

1. Take no action.

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Attachments
A. Central Square Solutions Renewal Order
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:
$85,352.34 is anticipated for the subscription and maintenance for the SaaS contract and funding has been allocated in the for the current FY 2026-27 budget, Account No. 573-1-301-8359.

Additional costs for the second and third contract years for Central Square will be incorporated as part of the annual budget development process and subject to City Council appropriation.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 28 CST-2026-105985
August 17, 2026
City of Belmont
1 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, California 94002
Renewal of Software Support Agreement
This Renewal Amendment renews the Software Support Agreement by and between City of Belmont (“Client”) and Superion LLC, a CentralSquare Technologies, LLC company dated September 30, 2026 (“Agreement”) for the renewal term of October 01, 2026 through September 30, 2027. The renewal of the Agreement will allow continued support and maintenance in accordance with the Agreement.

Please execute this Renewal Amendment and return it to Superion, LLC along with your payment, in accordance with Renewal Invoice 468528, attached, in order to receive uninterrupted support and maintenance services.

Superion, LLC Support Services Renewal Agreement Amendment Client agrees to renew the Agreement, the terms of which are incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in full, and accordance with the terms and conditions included herein. Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. With respect to the content contained herein, in the event of any conflict between this Renewal Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control. Payment shall be for the Software listed and the amount specified on Renewal Invoice 468528, attached hereto.

If you have any questions or would like to add additional software and/or services, please contact your Account Manager at (833) 278-7877.

City of Belmont Superion, LLC
Accepted By \Signature1\ Accepted By \Signature2\
Printed Name \FullName1\ Printed Name \FullName2\
Title \Title1\ Title \Title2\
Date \DateSigned1\ Date \DateSigned2\
Docusign Envelope ID: 3FE51AE2-F766-8636-80AA-793CE7E67E45 In Process
29 Superion, LLC, a CentralSquare Company
1000 Business Center Drive
Lake Mary, FL 32746
Billing Inquiries: [email protected] Invoice
Invoice No Date Page
468528 7/28/2026 1 of 3
Bill To
City of Belmont
Jason Eggers
1 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont CA 94002
United States
Ship To
City of Belmont
Jason Eggers
1 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont CA 94002
United States
Customer No Customer Name Customer PO # Currency Due Date 4426 City of Belmont USD 9/29/2026
Invoice Sequence Number 1 of 1
Quote No. Q-264357
Order No. 00127073
Description Units Rate Extended
1 GIS Advanced Engine Annual Subscription - SaaS - Annual Subscription Fee
Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 8,085.76 8,085.76
2 Community Development: Advanced SaaS Annual Subscription - Annual Subscription Fee
Community Development: Advanced SaaS Annual Subscription Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 50,897.00 50,897.00
3 Permitting PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee - Annual
Subscription Fee
Permitting PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee
Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 0.00 0.00
4 Community Development Mobile SaaS Annual Subscription Fee - Access Fee
Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 0.00 0.00
5 CRM PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee - Annual Subscription Fee
CRM PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee
Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 0.00 0.00
6 Entity Management PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee - Annual Subscription Fee
Entity Management PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee
Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 0.00 0.00
7 Land Management PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee - Annual Subscription Fee
Land Management PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee
Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 0.00 0.00
8 Licensing PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee - Annual
Subscription Fee
Licensing PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee
Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 0.00 0.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 3FE51AE2-F766-8636-80AA-793CE7E67E45 In Process
30 Superion, LLC, a CentralSquare Company
1000 Business Center Drive
Lake Mary, FL 32746
Billing Inquiries: [email protected] Invoice
Invoice No Date Page
468528 7/28/2026 2 of 3
Bill To
City of Belmont
Jason Eggers
1 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont CA 94002
United States
Ship To
City of Belmont
Jason Eggers
1 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont CA 94002
United States
Customer No Customer Name Customer PO # Currency Due Date 4426 City of Belmont USD 9/29/2026
Invoice Sequence Number 1 of 1
Quote No. Q-264357
Order No. 00127073
Description Units Rate Extended
9 Projects and Planning PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee - Annual Subscription Fee
Projects and Planning PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee
Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 0.00 0.00
10 Code Compliance PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee - Annual Subscription Fee
Code Compliance PA Cloud Annual Subscription Fee
Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 0.00 0.00
11 Community Development: Advanced SaaS Annual Subscription - Annual Subscription Fee
Community Development: Advanced SaaS Annual Subscription Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 0.00 0.00
12 AnalyticsNOW Annual Subscription Fee - Annual Subscription Fee
Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 11,668.18 11,668.18
13 IVR Subscription SaaS Annual Subscription Fee SaaS - Annual Subscription Fee
Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 9,555.92 9,555.92
14 Citizen Engagement SaaS Annual Subscription Fee - Annual Subscription Fee
Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 0.00 0.00
15 Fusion Annual Subscription SaaS - Annual Subscription Fee Maintenance: Start:9/30/2026, End: 9/29/2027
1 5,145.48 5,145.48
Docusign Envelope ID: 3FE51AE2-F766-8636-80AA-793CE7E67E45 In Process
31 Superion, LLC, a CentralSquare Company
1000 Business Center Drive
Lake Mary, FL 32746
Billing Inquiries: [email protected] Invoice
Invoice No Date Page
468528 7/28/2026 3 of 3
Bill To
City of Belmont
Jason Eggers
1 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont CA 94002
United States
Ship To
City of Belmont
Jason Eggers
1 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont CA 94002
United States
Customer No Customer Name Customer PO # Currency Due Date 4426 City of Belmont USD 9/29/2026
Invoice Sequence Number 1 of 1
Quote No. Q-264357
Order No. 00127073
Please include invoice number(s) on your remittance advice.

ACH:

Routing Number 121000358
Account Number 1416612641
E-mail payment details to: [email protected] Check:
12709 Collection Center Drive
Chicago, IL 60693
Subtotal 85,352.34
Tax 0.00
Invoice Total 85,352.34
Payments Applied 0.00
Balance Due USD 85,352.34
Docusign Envelope ID: 3FE51AE2-F766-8636-80AA-793CE7E67E45 In Process
32

ADU Resource Center Contract Amendment - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Tobi Liebermann, Housing and Economic Development Manager, [email protected]
Agenda Title: Contract Amendment No. 3 for ADU Resource Center of San Mateo County Agenda Action: Motion
Recommendation
Motion to authorize the City Manager to: 1) negotiate and execute Amendment No.3 to the Service Agreement with the ADU Resource Center to provide services for fiscal year 2026-27 for $29,800; 2) execute contract renewals for up to two additional one-year terms with an annual cost escalator of 3% to 5% based on the Consumer Price Index, subject to annual budget appropriations; and 3) execute future agreements with a potential new fiscal agent, in the event that the ADU Resource Center transitions to a new non-profit or other entity.

Strategic Focus Area
Economic Development and Housing
Background
The Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Resource Center (smcadu.org) is a nonprofit that works with homeowners and jurisdictions in San Mateo County to facilitate ADU production. The Center aims to help jurisdictions meet their ADU production and affordability commitments and ensure they are up-to-date on State laws and Housing and Community Development (HCD) compliance requirements. The Center also provides direct assistance to homeowners including individual feasibility consults, webinars, and educational website content. Attachment A includes a summary of Resource Center activities since it was founded in September 2024 through spring 2026. Sixteen jurisdictions in San Mateo County were members of the ADU Resource Center during fiscal year 2025-26. The City of Belmont participated in the creation of the ADU Resource Center and also serves on the Steering Committee.

The City and the ADU Resource Center entered into Service Agreement 2025-03 (Agreement) on January 21, 2025 in the amount of $29,000, by which the Consultant agreed to perform services including assistance in meeting ADU production and affordability commitments in the City of Belmont's Housing Element, providing programs to incentivize ADU production, and increasing ADU affordability. On June 24, 2025, Agreement was amended by Amendment No. 1, which added the City of Belmont’s participation in the San Mateo County ADU Resource Center’s ADU Plans Gallery for no additional cost. On September 28, 2025, Agreement was amended by Amendment No. 2 to include the cost for participation in fiscal year 2025-26 for $29,800. The currently proposed Amendment brings the contract total to $88,600, which requires City Council approval.
33

ADU Resource Center Contract
Analysis
The ADU Resource Center provides valuable services to Belmont homeowners throughout the process of developing an ADU. Attachment A includes the types of programming the Center provides for homeowners. Specific to Belmont, the Center completed 13 Feasibility Consults in fiscal year 2025-2026.

These are unique, detailed assessments for each property owner to help them understand the feasibility of constructing an ADU and assistance with the process. ADU Center staff also assisted Belmont property owners through the Help Line, webinars and live events. Of the ADUs that were permitted in Belmont in 2025, 76% of the property owners received assistance from the Resource Center.

The Resource Center has also been helpful in assisting Community Development staff in complying with State law requirements and Housing Element obligations. The webinars and trainings are very useful to staff and provide an opportunity to ask questions and share best practices. In addition, participation in the ADU Resource Center aligns with affordability and production commitments in the City of Belmont Adopted Housing Element. The Resource Center programs and resources are directly assisting the City in implementing several Housing Element programs.

Staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement for $29,800 which would cover the cost of participation in the ADU Resource Center for fiscal year 2026-27. Staff further recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute two additional one-year terms to cover participation for fiscal years 2027-28 and 2028-29 with an annual fee escalator of 3% to 5% based on the Consumer Price Index contingent on future budget appropriations. This multi-year approach reflects the City’s intent to continue participation in the Center.

The ADU Resource Center is a joint effort of Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) and the many member jurisdictions and funders. Because the ADU Resource Center is hosted by CPC, the contract with the ADU Resource Center is with Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning, dba Community Planning Collaborative. In the future, the ADU Resource Center may transition to a new non-profit fiscal agent to enhance fiscal sustainability over time. If that occurs, the City Manager would be authorized to execute an agreement with the new fiscal agent consistent with the terms outlined in the paragraph above.

Alternatives

1. Deny the request.

2. Approve the Agreement Amendment with a modified not-to-exceed amount or term.

Attachments
A. ADU Center Performance Dashboard
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed: Funds for the ADU Resource Center were included in the FY 34

ADU Resource Center Contract
2026-27 budget from the Affordable Housing Fund (Account #275-5-902-8589). If any of the two one-year optional terms is exercised, funding for those terms will be contingent on the annual City Council budget process.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
35 Highlights
• Engaged with 1,000+ community members through direct outreach and virtual and inperson workshops, including almost 200 one-on-one support sessions with residents • Created Resource Hub for member jurisdictions with exclusive ADU trainings & resources • Hosted in-person events with hundreds of participants and local news coverage • Developed affordable ADU program concept with cross-jurisdictional working group • Connected with 60+ vendors, local orgs and groups
Website
Top resource pages
Jurisdiction Services
Webinars & Homeowner Education
Homeowner Consults
Getting ADUs built through direct
homeowner support
Network & Marketing
• NBC Bay Area coverage (link)
• San Mateo Daily Journal profile (link)
• American City & County article (link)
• Yahoo! Finance pick-up (link)
• 790+ followers across email and social
channels
• 63 organizational connections
Performance Dashboard
September 2024 – February 2026
Unique visitors
10,100
Page views
28,700
Staff trained
(unique)
105
Webinar
registrations
872
Webinar
attendees
291
Video library
views
730
Saving jurisdiction staff time with collated
homeowners resources
Helping jurisdictions stay in compliance
with HCD and up-to-date on State Law
Answering homeowners’ questions before
they get to jurisdictions
Supporting the ADU ecosystem through
network building and outreach
• Guidebook • Pre-designed plans
• Calculator
In-person
event attendees
370+
Feasibility
Consults
113
Help Line
Calls
82 Funder
Nonprofit
Other
Vendor
Staff TA requests
managed
62 Average attendees
per training
27 Staff trainings
conducted
10 36

Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan Central ECR Multimodal Plan - Staff Report - 9-8-26CC (1).docx

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Josh Sun, Senior Civil Engineer, (650)730-5706, [email protected]; Carlos de Melo, Community Development Director, (650) 595-7440, [email protected] Agenda Title: Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan Presentation & Supporting Resolution for development of SamTrans/Caltrans Complete Street Improvements Project on El Camino Real
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
1) Receive a presentation and update regarding the Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan. 2) Adopt a resolution supporting SamTrans and Caltrans working with Belmont through the Caltrans project development process to plan, design, and implement complete street improvements on El Camino Real in Belmont.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
El Camino Real is the main arterial of San Mateo County, connecting downtowns, businesses, schools, regional transit hubs, and other key destinations. While El Camino Real serves a range of trip purposes and users, its design reflects its historic role as a state highway focused on facilitating high speed auto travel. Consequently, the corridor is a barrier for pedestrians and cyclists and is challenging to navigate efficiently for buses.

In February 2025, SamTrans launched the Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan (“Central El Camino Plan”), a corridor study for an eight-and-a-half-mile segment of El Camino Real (Caltrans State Route 82) within the cities of Belmont, San Carlos, San Mateo, and the northern segment of Redwood City until intersecting with Brewster Avenue.

The Central El Camino Plan is a part of a broader effort called the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI), which is a collaboration in San Mateo County between 15 local jurisdictions, four countywide agencies, and Caltrans. This effort is supporting cities along the corridor by leading a joint, coordinated Caltrans process to advance local city transportation visions. GBI aims to make El Camino Real a safer and more comfortable place to walk, bike, and take transit by installing streetscape improvements along the corridor.

Historically, implementing changes on this Caltrans facility has been difficult for cities with only a patchwork of improvements occurring over the past several decades. The development of the Central El 37

Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan Central ECR Multimodal Plan - Staff Report - 9-8-26CC (1).docx Camino Plan is essential for Belmont, in partnership with SamTrans and neighboring cities, to advance roadway safety and active transportation improvements. The Plan will fill a critical corridor planning gap that is necessary for Belmont and its neighboring cities to complete the requisite planning for the first stage of the Caltrans project development process being led through GBI.

Over the past year, GBI convened a Task Force and a Working Group of staff representing all cities and various agencies and organizations along the corridor. These groups provide direction on corridor-wide challenges and needs, potential solutions, public and stakeholder engagement, and the vision for the corridor. SamTrans used this feedback to develop a GBI Action Plan that was finalized and formally adopted by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority boards in January 2026. Currently, SamTrans is leading the first phase of a coordinated Caltrans project development process, called a Project Initiation Document (PID), for all of El Camino Real in San Mateo County. The PID will define the purpose and need for transportation improvements to the corridor and establish potential design alternatives.

Because El Camino Real is a state highway, Caltrans has the final authority over design approvals, rightof-way changes, signal modifications, and construction standards. No changes can be implemented on the state highway without Caltrans review and approval. Consequently, SamTrans must continue to coordinate closely with Caltrans throughout the PID process.

The SamTrans team previously presented this matter to the City Council at its May 27, 2025 meeting to introduce the Central El Camino Real Plan project, and subsequently presented design alternatives at the Council’s February 25, 2026 meeting.

Analysis
Central El Camino Real Plan
In Belmont, the Central El Camino Real Plan identifies corridor needs, defines alternatives, and narrows down alternatives to advance to the next phase based on an analysis of tradeoffs as well as community and stakeholder feedback. This will allow Belmont to participate in the countywide Caltrans project development process.

The Central El Camino Plan builds upon Belmont’s efforts related to El Camino Real over past years, including its goals/policy objectives for the adopted Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (2016), Belmont Village Specific Plan (2017), and Belmont Village Specific Plan Design Guidelines (2022). In outreach conducted during these plans, Belmont residents have indicated concerns related to the heavy traffic volumes, including the lack of safe routes to schools, high-speed traffic, and a lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Central El Camino Real Plan incorporated this input as well as findings from these plans in defining design alternatives.

Community Outreach
The Central El Camino Real Plan’s findings during Phase 1 and Phase 2 of community engagement closely aligned with those of local plans, highlighting a strong interest in reducing congestion and improving safety for all modes as business and housing growth continues. Based on a survey fielded during Phase 2 engagement, respondents echoed the need for safer pedestrian crossings, wider and better-maintained sidewalks, additional pedestrian-scale lighting, separated bike facilities, and improved bus connections to 38

Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan Central ECR Multimodal Plan - Staff Report - 9-8-26CC (1).docx Caltrain stations. The project team engaged extensively with the Belmont community throughout the process, conducting a pop-up at the Belmont Caltrain station, multiple listening sessions with residents, a walk audit along the El Camino Real corridor, meetings with community business organizations, stakeholder presentations, and a virtual community workshop.

As noted earlier, tonight’s presentation serves as an update to the project. SamTrans and Belmont staff are also requesting Council adoption of a resolution supporting SamTrans’ continued efforts to coordinate with Caltrans to advance complete streets improvements on El Camino Real through the Central El Camino Real Plan, and the Grand Boulevard Initiative.

After the Central El Camino Real Plan is complete, a corridor-wide redesign will be facilitated through the Grand Boulevard Initiative. There will be extensive future public engagement involved in selecting a preferred alternative for each city beginning next year.

Alternatives

1. Continue the matter and direct staff to prepare an alternative course of action

2. Refer back to staff for additional information
Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Central ECR Multimodal Plan Presentation
C. Central ECR Multimodal Plan – September 2026
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:

At this time, there is no direct fiscal impact related to this informational report and resolution. Fiscal impacts will be identified with requests for Council approval as necessary for any future recommendations moving forward.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Plan Implementation* Posting of Agenda
39

RESOLUTION NO. 2026 –

RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SAMTRANS AND CALTRANS COLLABORATION

WITH THE CITY OF BELMONT THROUGH THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

TO PLAN, DESIGN, AND IMPLEMENT COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENTS ALONG

EL CAMINO REAL IN BELMONT
WHEREAS, El Camino Real (State Route 82) is a major transportation corridor serving all modes and connecting multiple jurisdictions; and,
WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) has led the Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan identifying strategies to improve transit, safety, and multimodal access; and,
WHEREAS, SamTrans has led the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) Action Plan that provides a coordinated multi-agency framework for corridor improvements; and, WHEREAS, effective improvements require coordination among cities and public agencies along the corridor; and,
WHEREAS, the City supports complete streets improvements that improve safety, accessibility, and transit performance for all users and recognizes the importance of continued coordination and collaboration to advance transportation safety and mobility within the project corridor; and,
WHEREAS, potential improvements identified through the Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan are preliminary concepts intended to inform future study and evaluation and do not represent finalized project recommendations or approved improvements; and, WHEREAS, the City recognizes that further refinement and evaluation of potential alternatives and improvements identified by the Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan will occur during subsequent phases of project development, and will require additional evaluation, technical analysis, feasibility review, stakeholder engagement, environmental review, and future approval by Caltrans and other applicable agencies prior to implementation; and, WHEREAS, participation in this collaborative effort does not constitute City approval or endorsement of any specific project alternative, operational change, or funding commitment at this time.

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

SECTION 1. Hereby supports collaboration among SamTrans, Caltrans, and the City of Belmont through the Project Development Process to plan, design, pursue funding for, and implement complete streets improvements along El Camino Real in Belmont.

SECTION 2. Supports coordination and collaboration with neighboring cities and public agencies along the El Camino Real corridor to advance regional complete streets improvements and enhance connectivity, safety, and mobility.
40

SECTION 3. The El Camino Real improvements will be guided by the Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan and the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) Action Plan, consistent with the City’s goals and plans for improving safety, mobility, connectivity, and the overall corridor experience.

SECTION 4. The City Manager or authorized designee is authorized to represent the City’s interests and coordinate with partner agencies and project stakeholders as necessary to advance the project and support its implementation.
* * *
ADOPTED September 8, 2026 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
41 Central
El Camino Real
Multimodal Plan
AU G
2026

STUDY FUNDED BY THE METROPOLITAN TR ANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC)

PRIORITIZED UNDER THE MTC TRANSIT PERFORMANCE INITIATIVE Cities of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City 42 Frequently Used Terms
El Camino Refers to El Camino Real, State Route 82
Central Cities Refers to San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City (always listed in this order)
Central El Camino Plan Refers to Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan List of Figures
Figure 1.2. Policy Framework Themes 2
Figure 1.1. Coordinated GBI Approach 2
Figure 1.3. Countywide Initiative Motivators 3
Figure 1.4. Plan Partners 5
Figure 1.5. Central El Camino Plan Study Area 6
Figure 2.1. Trip Origin and Destination on El Camino Real by City 13 Figure 2.2. Average Trip Length in the Central Cities 15 Figure 2.3. Mode Share on El Camino Real by City 16
Figure 2.4. Collisions Along El Camino Real 19
Figure 2.5. Injury Collisions by Mode 20
Figure 2.6. Killed/Serious Injury (KSI) Crashes 20
Figure 2.7. Bus Speeds on El Camino Real (6AM to 7PM) 26 Figure 2.8. Anticipated Housing Units and Jobs along El Camino Real 28 Figure 2.9. Anticipated Job and Population Growth 28
Figure 5.1. Caltrans Project Development Process Timeline 89 Figure 5.2. Caltrans Process Approach 91
Appendices
Appendix A: Community Engagement Reports
Appendix B: Placemaking Action Plan
Appendix C: Phase 2 Alternatives and Evaluation
Appendix D: Existing Conditions
Appendix E: City of San Mateo Business Survey and Parking Analysis Table of Contents
Introduction ————————————————————————————————————— 1
Grand Boulevard Initiative 1
Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan 5
Next Steps 10
Planning Context —————————————————————————————————— 11
El Camino Real of
the Past and Present 11
Understanding the Challenges 17
Policies and Previous Planning Efforts Influencing El Camino Real’s Future 29 Community Engagement ————————————————————————————— 31
Phase 1: Listening to Understand the Corridor 34
Phase 2: Discussing Alternatives with the Community 35
Phase 3: Communicating the Path Forward 37
Vision for Central El Camino Real ————————————————————————— 39 How the Vision Developed 40
Alternatives 47
Bike Connectivity 71
Spot Improvements + Placemaking Opportunities 73
Next Steps ————————————————————————————————————— 89
Caltrans Project Development Process 89
ii CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN iii 43 Introduction
Introduction
1 Grand Boulevard Initiative
The Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI)
is a long-standing, multi-agency
partnership led by SamTrans.

GBI seeks to transform El Camino Real (State
Route 82) into a cohesive, multimodal “Grand
Boulevard” that better serves the communities
of San Mateo County. Established in 2006, GBI
brings together cities, countywide and regional
agencies, Caltrans, and community stakeholders
to align transportation, land use, and placemaking
strategies along the 25-mile corridor. GBI was
relaunched in 2025 backed by funding from
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
and local matches. The recent shifts in state and
regional policies towards safe, sustainable, and
equitable mobility have created a strong alignment
between the goals of GBI and cross-jurisdictional
priorities, introducing an opportunity to advance
the implementation of the Grand Boulevard Vision.

At its core, GBI envisions El Camino Real as a safe,
vibrant, and accessible corridor where people
of all ages and abilities can travel comfortably,
supporting a balance of walking, bicycling,
transit, and vehicle travel while enhancing
economic vitality and community identity.

Off-street bicycle lanes along
El Camino Real, where present,
encourage safe, multimodal travel.

El Camino Real and Emmett Avenue
(Belmont)
GBI Action Plan

COUNTYWIDE VISION & POLICY FRAMEWORK
Future Countywide Project
Initiation Document (PID) led in
partnership between Caltrans,
SamTrans, San Mateo County
Transportation Authority, and local
jurisdictions

CITY-LEVEL DESIGN & CONTEXT REFINEMENT
Local Corridor Studies
Central El Camino Plan

SUBAREA EFFORTS
SAFETY
Eliminate fatal and serious injury
collisions through a Safe System,
injury- prevention approach
The GBI Action Plan
establishes a clear policy
framework centered on
three core themes.

MOBILITY
Transform El
Camino Real into a
complete street that
supports walking,
biking, and transit

IMPLEMENTATION
Create a coordinated,
countywide process
to deliver
improvements
efficiently
Countywide Corridor Vision
GBI reflects the need for a coordinated, corridorwide approach to planning and implementation.

While individual cities have advanced local corridor
plans over the past two decades, El Camino Real
functions as a continuous state highway crossing
multiple jurisdictions. As such, consistent design,
policy alignment, and implementation strategies are
critical to achieving meaningful improvements. As
shown in Figure 1.1, the GBI Action Plan establishes
this unified framework and is the first step in the
Caltrans Project Review process, a countywide
Project Initiation Document (PID) led in partnership
between Caltrans, SamTrans, San Mateo County
Transportation Authority, and local jurisdictions.

The GBI Action Plan establishes a clear policy
framework centered on three core themes:
safety, mobility, and implementation. These
themes are shown in Figure 1.2 and supported
by specific actions, including prioritizing
vulnerable roadway users, advancing corridorwide bicycle and transit improvements, enhancing walkability, and establishing a coordinated
Caltrans project development process.

Figure 1.1. Coordinated GBI Approach
Figure 1.2. Policy Framework Themes
Click to
learn more
about GBI!
1 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 2 44 Introduction
Narrow and obstructed sidewalks along El Camino
Real limit accessible pedestrian space and create an
uncomfortable walking environment.

El Camino Real and Belmont Avenue (San Carlos)

KEY MOTIVATORS
for a Countywide Initiative

SAFETY DISPARITIES
El Camino Real sees a
disproportionate share of severe
and fatal collisions, especially
involving pedestrians and cyclists.

Although El Camino Real
represents a small share of
roadway mileage, it accounts for
far more serious injuries than
other county streets.

GROWTH PRESSURES
The corridor is a focal point for
future housing and job growth,
with tens of thousands of new
residents and employees
expected within a half-mile of El
Camino Real over the next
decade. This growth will demand
a shift toward more
space-efficient travel
modes.

NEED FOR A CONSISTENT

MULTIMODAL FRAMEWORK
Existing roadway design remains
largely auto-oriented and
inconsistent across jurisdictions,
creating barriers for walking,
biking, and transit. A unified
design framework is needed to
provide a seamless user
experience across the
corridor.

ALIGNMENT WITH

REGIONAL GOALS
The GBI vision supports broader
regional and state policies,
including greenhouse gas
reduction, transit-first principles,
equity priorities, and Complete
Streets requirements (such as
Caltrans DP-361, DP-372, and
DP-403).

The need for GBI is driven by
several interrelated challenges
and opportunities along El
Camino Real.

Collectively, these motivators
underscore the importance of a
coordinated, countywide effort
to redesign El Camino Real as a
multimodal corridor that
balances mobility, safety, and
community goals.

Figure 1.3. Countywide Initiative Motivators

1. Caltrans Director’s Policy 36, Road Safety. February 15, 2022. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safetyprograms/documents/policy/dp_36-a11y.pdf

2. Caltrans Director’s Policy 37, Complete Streets. December 7, 2021. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/esta/ documents/complete-streets/dp-37-complete-streets-a11y.pdf

3. Caltrans Director’s Policy 40, Transit. February 6, 2026. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportationplanning/documents/division-transportation-planning/transit-planning/dp-40-transit-policy-signed-v2-a11y.pdf 3 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 4 45 Introduction
The Central El Camino Real Multimodal
Plan (referred to as Central El Camino
Plan) is a subarea planning effort
within the broader GBI framework,
focused on advancing a corridor vision
and developing design alternatives
for key segments of El Camino Real.

Led by SamTrans in partnership with local
jurisdictions, this effort serves as a preProject Initiation Document (PID) study that bridges city-led planning and the
Caltrans project development process.

Plan Partnerships
This effort is led by SamTrans in coordination
with the other partner agencies listed
in Figure 1.4. Funding for this effort was
provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC), with a local match from
SamTrans, and local funds from Redwood City.

MTC prioritized the Central El Camino Plan
under their Transit Performance Initiative.

Purpose and Role within GBI
The Central El Camino Plan functions as a
visioning and alternatives development effort
that translates the countywide GBI framework
into corridor-specific design concepts. The plan
study area includes El Camino Real between
Peninsula Avenue and Brewster Avenue in the
cities of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and
part of Redwood City, as shown in Figure 1.5.

Key purposes include:
↘ Establishing a shared, multimodal vision
for the Central corridor segment
↘ Defining cross-section concepts
and modal priorities consistent with
GBI and Caltrans guidance
↘ Developing and refining design
alternatives for further study
↘ Informing the countywide Caltrans PID
which will advance complete street
improvements into environmental
clearance and design
Project Goals and Outcomes
The Central El Camino Plan is focused
on improving El Camino Real for people
walking, biking, and taking transit by:
↘ Creating a cohesive multimodal corridor
with continuous, connected facilities
↘ Advancing meaningful transit
priority treatments, such as transitonly lanes where appropriate ↘ Establishing low-stress bicycle facilities
that connect to the surrounding network
↘ Enhancing walkability, safety, and
access to destinations and transit
The primary outcome of the project
is the development of feasible
corridor design alternatives that:
↘ Reflect community priorities
and technical constraints
↘ Align with Caltrans policy (e.g., DIB 94
modal priority guidance4) and build
upon previous planning efforts (refer
to Chapter 2 for more details)
↘ Can be advanced into the countywide
PID for formal evaluation
This effort represents an early phase in
the Caltrans project development process,
laying the groundwork for subsequent
analysis during PID and Project Approval &
Environmental Document (PA&ED) phases.

Figure 1.5. Central El Camino Plan Study Area
42nd
Peninsula Ave.

Hillsdale Blvd.
5th Ave.

Brittan Ave.

Ralston
F St.

Crystal Springs
Edgewood
28th
Brewster Ave.

Monte Diablo Ave.
36th Ave.

Ave.

Ave.

Ave.

Rd.

Rd.
84 84
92 92
92 280
280
101
101
101

SAN MATEO

BELMONT

SAN CARLOS

REDWOOD CITY
0 0.5 1 Miles
El Camino Real
Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan

4. Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94, January 16, 2024. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/
design/documents/dib-94-010224-a11y.pdf
Figure 1.4. Plan Partners
5 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 6 46 Introduction
Project Process
The Central El Camino Plan used a
comprehensive, multi-step process to develop
and refine corridor alternatives. This process
integrated technical analysis, interagency
coordination, and robust community
engagement to ensure that proposed designs
respond to both existing conditions and future
corridor needs. Given the corridor’s evolution
from a regional highway to a multimodal
urban spine, and the resulting mismatch
between its current function and auto-oriented
design, the study placed particular emphasis
on addressing safety, accessibility, transit
performance, and placemaking challenges. The
alternatives development process was designed
to translate these needs into feasible, policyaligned design concepts that can advance into the Caltrans project development process.

Governance and Coordination
Development of the design alternatives was
guided by a coordinated governance structure
involving the Project Team, which included
SamTrans and participating cities (San Mateo,
Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City),
and Caltrans as the owner and operator of
the corridor. Ongoing collaboration with city
staff ensured that alternatives responded to
local priorities, land use context, and existing
planning efforts. In addition, coordination
with Caltrans established alignment with
current state policies and design guidance,
including Complete Streets principles (DP-37
and SB-960
5 ), safety-focused design standards
(DB-36), and transit-supportive directives
(DP-40). Engagement with city leadership,
including city managers and elected officials,
provided strategic direction throughout the
process, helping to balance corridor-wide
objectives with local considerations. This
coordinated approach ensured consistency
across the multi-jurisdictional corridor while
recognizing variations in segment conditions
and community priorities. It also positioned
the resulting alternatives to be feasible within
the Caltrans project development framework.

Multimodal connections to transit are
key to reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Caltrain Station at El Camino Real and Ralston
Avenue (Belmont)

5. California Senate Bill 960, September 27,
2024. Planning, Complete Streets Facilities,
Transit Priority Facilities. https://leginfo.
legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_
id=202320240SB960
7 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 8 47 Introduction
Community Engagement
Community engagement was a key
part of the alternatives development
process, occurring in two phases
between 2025 and 2026. Phase 1
focused on understanding corridor
conditions and key issues. Through
more than a dozen activities
(pop-ups, walk audits, workshops,
and a multilingual map-based
survey), the team collected over
800 location-specific comments
and engaged more than 500
community members. This
validated known challenges, such
as safety concerns, uncomfortable
walking conditions, and unreliable
transit, while capturing new
perspectives from corridor users.

Phase 2 focused on reviewing
draft alternatives with the public.

Community members evaluated
cross-section concepts and preferred
design approaches. More than 700
survey responses and over 1,000
total interactions gave feedback
on tradeoffs between transit,
bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle
improvements. Engagement showed
strong support for safer crossings,
wider sidewalks, continuous bicycle
facilities, and more reliable transit,
while documenting concerns
about parking and vehicle
capacity. This process ensured
community priorities informed
the refinement of alternatives.

More information about
community engagement can
be found in Appendix A.

Phase 2 engagement at
the San Carlos Library.
(San Carlos)
Technical Development of
Design Alternatives
The technical development of design
alternatives built upon the combined inputs
of existing conditions analysis, agency
coordination, and community feedback.

Initial concepts were developed as a set of
cross sections for each corridor segment,
organized around modal priority: transitfocused, pedestrian-focused, and bicyclefocused alternatives. These concepts were tailored to the eight distinct segments of the
corridor, reflecting variations in roadway width,
land use context, and existing conditions.

The alternatives were designed to address
key corridor challenges, including high
collision rates, limited pedestrian space, lack
of bicycle infrastructure, slow and unreliable
transit speeds, and the need to accommodate
future housing and job growth. They also
incorporated guidance from Caltrans Design
Information Bulletins (DIB 94 and DIB 89-
02), as well as applicable standards from the
Highway Design Manual and California MUTCD,
ensuring consistency with state requirements
for Complete Streets and separated bikeways.

Each alternative aligns with Caltrans, C/CAG,
County, and Local plans and recommendations,
and were evaluated using a multi-criteria
framework that includes the following: ↘ Alignment with Caltrans Policy ↘ Alignment with Local Policy ↘ Effect on People Walking ↘ Effect on People Biking ↘ Effect on People Riding Transit ↘ Effect on People Driving and Parking ↘ Effect on the Environment ↘ Addressing Community Input Based on this evaluation and subsequent
community feedback, a refined set of three
alternatives was identified for advancement.

These alternatives represent different
approaches to balancing transit efficiency,
pedestrian and bicycle comfort, and roadway
operations, and will be further analyzed
during the Caltrans project development
process to assess feasibility, safety outcomes,
and implementation considerations.

Next Steps
SamTrans will lead the Caltrans project
development process that will involve
further analysis, design, engagement, and
evaluation of potential changes, including the
identification of a preferred design alternative
estimated to occur in 2027 to 2028. Depending
on funding, construction could begin on
some segments in the early 2030s. In parallel,
incremental improvements to El Camino
Real will continue to be pursued by Caltrans,
SamTrans, SMCTA, and cities. More details
on Next Steps can be found in Chapter 5.

The Grand Boulevard Initiative will
track progress toward advancing project
designs, facilitating public engagement,
and advancing key performance
indicators. For more information and
updates on the Grand Boulevard Initiative,
please visit: samtrans.com/gbi.
9 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 10 48 Planning Context
Planning Context
2 El Camino Real of
the Past and Present
El Camino Real, owned and
operated by Caltrans, is a
regionally important corridor.

Stretching north into San Francisco and
south into Santa Clara County, the corridor
has evolved over centuries, from Indigenous
travel routes connecting Ramaytush Ohlone
communities, to the Spanish mission road
system, and ultimately into a paved state
highway. The later construction of US101 and Interstate 280 shifted El Camino Real away from its historic role as the
Peninsula’s primary regional highway.

El Camino Real was designed as a highway and
has remained largely unchanged for decades.

El Camino Real and Hillsdale Avenue in 1963 (San Mateo) Photo Courtesy of Norton Pearl Photography / San Mateo
County Historical Association
11 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 12 49 Planning Context
As regional vehicle traffic moved to the
freeway network, El Camino Real shifted its
purpose from a regional highway oriented
towards moving cars to a more locally
focused street serving commercial hubs
and downtowns. Within the Central Cities,
the corridor functions as a continuous
urban spine connecting neighborhoods,
businesses, schools, civic destinations,
and transit hubs across San Mateo,
Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City.

The full Central El Camino Real Needs
Assessment is included in Appendix D.

Today, El Camino Real serves many roles
simultaneously. The study corridor spans
approximately eight and a half miles in the
study area and contains eight segments with
varying width, land use, and urban character.

Much of the roadway remains designed
to prioritize vehicle throughput, generally
consisting of four to six travel lanes with
limited pedestrian space and minimal bicycle
infrastructure. Refer to Chapter 4 for more
details on existing cross-sectional elements
for each segment of the study corridor.

People traveling on El Camino Real tend
to use the street to access destinations
within the same city or in an adjacent city,
as shown in Figure 2.1. This demonstrates
the street’s role as a local connector and
underscores the opportunity to shift trips
to travel by bicycle, walking, and transit for
shorter trips. Some trips travel elsewhere
in the county, and only a small portion
of trips (under 15 percent) use El Camino
Real to travel outside of the county.

Today, El Camino Real in San Mateo has
six travel lanes and narrow sidewalks.

El Camino Real north of 24th Avenue (San Mateo)
Figure 2.1. Trip Origin and Destination on El Camino Real by City Within the
Same City
Between
Adjacent Cities
Elsewhere
in County
Elsewhere
in Region
San Mateo
Belmont
San Carlos
Redwood City
Percentage %
44 13
37 34
22 42
23 22
25 31
32 29
8 14
8 14
Trip Origin and Destination on El Camino Real show that trips are most often within the same city or between adjacent cities. Replica, 2024.
13 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 14 50 Planning Context
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
San Mateo
Belmont
San Carlos
Redwood City
Private Vehicle Transit Commercial Walk/Bike
89%
87%
87%
87%
8%
2%
11% 2%
10% 3%
7%
1%
5% 1%
Figure 2.3. Mode Share on El Camino Real by City
The share of person trips demonstrates that travel by private vehicle (including carpool) is the most dominate mode today. Source: Replica, 2024.

At the same time, the corridor functions as
one of the county’s most important transit and
commercial corridors. SamTrans’ bus Route
ECR operates along the full length of the
study area and is one of the highest-ridership
bus routes in San Mateo County. Much of the
corridor runs parallel to Caltrain, with several
stations located directly adjacent to El Camino
Real or within a quarter mile. The surrounding
land use context ranges from low-density
residential neighborhoods to higher-density
mixed-use and commercial districts, notably
bisecting or directly connecting the historic
downtown cores of the Central Cities.

The average trip length in the Central Cities
ranges from six to eight miles, as shown in
Figure 2.2, which is typically served by transit or
vehicle. The largest share of trips on El Camino
Real are made by car, around 88 percent,
followed by transit, hovering around 9 percent
of trips, with the breakdown by city shown in
Figure 2.3. Very few trips today are made by
walking and bicycling, due to the lack of safe
and accessible infrastructure for these modes.

Existing sidewalks are uncomfortable and
stressful due to lack of shade and proximity
to high volume, high speed vehicle traffic.

State law,6 regional planning, and local
planning efforts increasingly identify El Camino
Real as a focus area for future housing and
mixed-use growth. Priority Development Areas
located throughout the corridor are expected
to accommodate additional residents, jobs,
and commercial activity in transit-accessible
locations. As growth continues, El Camino
Real is expected to function not only as a
transportation corridor, but also as an urban
boulevard and public space that supports
placemaking and safe and convenient
travel for people using all modes. This aligns
with Caltrans’ own policy direction, which
now requires that transportation projects
on the state highway system deliver safe,
comfortable, and connected facilities for people
walking, biking, and riding transit, as part of
a broader commitment to eliminating traffic
fatalities and serious injuries and fostering
thriving, socially vibrant communities.7,8,9
0 5 10
San Mateo 7.9

7.8 7.5

6.5 Belmont
San Carlos
Redwood City
Median Trip Length (Miles)
Figure 2.2. Average Trip Length
in the Central Cities
Trip lengths in the Central Cities ranges from six to eight miles. Source: Replica, Spring 2024.

6. Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), 2025: https://leginfo.legislature. ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79

7. Caltrans Director’s Policy (DP-36), 2022: https://dot. ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/
documents/policy/dp_36-a11y.pdf

8. Caltrans Director’s Policy (DP-37), 2021: https://dot. ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/esta/documents/
complete-streets/dp-37-complete-streets-a11y.pdf

9. Caltrans Director’s Policy (DP-40), 2026: https://dot. ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/
dib-94-010224-a11y.pdf
The vehicle-heavy mode share
is influenced by design that
prioritizes cars over other
modes of travel.

El Camino Real and SR 92 (San Mateo)
While the role of El Camino Real has
evolved significantly over time, much of the
corridor’s physical design still reflects an
auto-oriented highway intended primarily
to move vehicles efficiently through the
Peninsula. This mismatch between the
corridor’s current function and its historic
design creates many of the transportation
and public realm challenges that exist today.
15 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 16 51 Planning Conte
xt
Safety
In Central County alone, more than five
people are killed or suffer life-altering
injuries on El Camino Real each year.

Pedestrian Experience
Sidewalks along El Camino Real are
typically less than six feet wide and
utility poles, signal infrastructure,
and other obstructions further limit
accessible pedestrian space, particularly
for people using mobility devices.

Transit Reliability
Route ECR currently experiences slow
operating speeds and unreliable service
throughout much of the study area,
with evening peak-period travel speeds
often falling below 15 miles per hour.

Bicycle Accessibility
There are no existing bicycle
facilities along El Camino Real in
Central County, except a one block
stretch near Belmont Station.

Future Growth
The corridor’s current auto-oriented
layout is not compatible with plans for
higher density development in the area.

Understanding
the Challenges
El Camino Real as it exists
today is falling short of meeting
the needs of the Region.

The existing design of El Camino Real
reflects transportation priorities of the
mid-20th century, when the corridor
primarily functioned as a regional
highway focused on automobile
movement. Today, however, the corridor
serves a fundamentally different role: a
multimodal urban corridor that must
safely accommodate transit riders,
pedestrians, bicyclists, local businesses,
and growing residential communities.

As travel patterns, land uses, and
transportation priorities continue
to evolve, the corridor increasingly
falls short of local and regional
goals related to safety, accessibility,
sustainability, transit performance,
and placemaking. Understanding the
existing challenges along El Camino
Real is critical to identifying corridor
improvements that better align the
roadway with its current and future role.

CHALLENGES ALONG EL CAMINO REAL Even where off-street bicycle paths exist, bicyclists still must cross
uncomfortable intersections along El
Camino Real.

El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue (Belmont)
17 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 18 52 Planning Context
El Camino Real has one of the highest
concentrations of serious injury and fatal
collisions in San Mateo County. Despite
accounting for only a small percentage of
the county’s roadway network, the corridor
experiences a disproportionately high number
of fatal and severe injury collisions, mapped
in Figure 2.4. In Central County alone, more
than five people are killed or suffer lifealtering injuries on El Camino Real each year.

Collision data from 2019 to 2023 in Figure

2.5 shows that people walking and biking
are disproportionately involved in injury
collisions along El Camino Real compared
to people traveling in vehicles. Severe injury
and fatal crashes, shown in Figure 2.6, are
also more likely to occur at intersections
where long crossing distances, high turning
volumes, and complex vehicle movements
create challenging conditions for all modes.

Unsafe speeds and failure to obey traffic
signals are among the most common factors
contributing to injury collisions along the
corridor. Rear-end, broadside, and vehiclepedestrian collisions are the most common crash types. Redesigning the street with
improvements that reduce vehicle speeds,
reduce conflict points, and separate modes with
comfortable facilities are critical to improving
safety outcomes along El Camino Real.

In San Mateo, 144 collisions resulted in
injury between 2019 and 2023, including 11
fatal or severe injury collisions. The highest
concentration of collisions occurred in
downtown San Mateo and near the State
Route 92 interchange. Belmont experienced
36 injury collisions, including two severe injury
collisions, while San Carlos and Redwood City
experienced 94 injury collisions, including
13 fatal or severe injury crashes. Collision
concentrations in these communities are
particularly high south of Arroyo Avenue.

Figure 2.4. Collisions Along El Camino Real
42nd
Peninsula Ave.

Hillsdale Blvd.
5th Ave.

Ralston
F St.

Edgewood
28th
Brewster Ave.

Monte Diablo Ave.
36th Ave.

Ave.

Ave.

Ave.

Rd.

Crystal Springs Rd.

Brittan Ave.
84 84
92 92
92 280
280
101
101
101
All Collisions (2019 - 2023)
Killed/Serious Injury (KSI) Collisions
Non-KSI Collisions

SAN MATEO

BELMONT

SAN CARLOS

REDWOOD CITY
0 0.5 1 Miles
Collisions were concentrated in downtown San Mateo,
near the State Route 92 interchange, and in San Carlos
and Redwood City south of Arroyo Avenue. Source: TIMS,
2023.

Concentration of Severe Collisions
77%
4%
17%
2%
Bicycle Pedestrian Motorcycle Auto KSI Non-KSI
8%
92% 77%
4%
17%
2%
Bicycle Pedestrian Motorcycle Auto KSI Non-KSI
8%
92%
Figure 2.5. Injury Collisions by Mode Figure 2.6. Killed/Serious Injury (KSI) Crashes On January 26, 2026, a vehicle and
pedestrian collision resulted in a
pedestrian fatality at the intersection of
El Camino Real and 17th Avenue in San
Mateo, underscoring the ongoing safety
challenges present along the corridor.

El Camino Real and 17th Avenue (San Mateo)
Bicycles and pedestrians account for 19% of injury
collisions despite comprising 2% of all trips on El Camino.

Source: TIMS, 2019-2023.

More than 80% of KSI collisions occurred at
intersections.

Source: TIMS, 2019-2023.
19 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 20 53 Planning Context
Uncomfortable Pedestrian
Environment
Many segments of El Camino Real provide an
uncomfortable, inaccessible, and uninviting
environment for people walking. Sidewalks
are typically less than six feet wide and
utility poles, signal infrastructure, curb
cuts, and other obstructions further limit
accessible pedestrian space, particularly
for people using mobility devices. Large
portions of the corridor lack street trees,
landscaping, or shade infrastructure,
creating uncomfortable walking conditions
during warm weather and reinforcing the
corridor’s highway-oriented character.

Many side-street intersections are stopcontrolled and do not have pedestrian crossings, making it harder for people to
access businesses, housing, transit stops, and
Caltrain stations. At signalized intersections,
long crossing distances, auto-oriented signal
timing, and reduced visibility for pedestrians
create additional barriers to walking.

Although El Camino Real serves many
commercial districts, transit stops, and
downtown destinations, the poor quality
Long crossing distances increase
exposure for people walking.

El Camino Real and Chestnut Street
(Redwood City)
of the pedestrian environment often
discourages walking and limits the corridor’s
potential to function as an active and
vibrant public space. This characteristic
separates communities, making it harder
to access one side from the other.

Outreach to community members gathered
input on concerns and opportunities for El
Camino Real.

Many community
members had the
same key concern
for the corridor:

Others also
commented on
the need to
shorten crossing
distances and
improve visibility
for people walking.
“Sidewalks are too
narrow... and this is a
scary crosswalk!”
“Cars need to be able
to see pedestrians,
and pedestrians need
to have adequate
time to cross.”
Streetlights, telephone poles, and
other utility conflicts block pedestrian
through zones.

El Camino Real and 4th Avenue (San Mateo)
Quotes reflect responses to the Phase 1 and 2 online surveys. 21 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 22 54 Planning Context
Lack of Bicycle Facilities
and Connections
There are no existing bicycle facilities along El
Camino Real in Central County, except a one
block stretch adjacent to the Belmont Caltrain
Station. Bicycles are required to ride in mixed
traffic flow with vehicles lanes, but with four
to six vehicle lanes and posted speed limit of
35 miles per hour, bicycles cannot safely or
comfortably share the street. Bicyclists have
been observed using the sidewalks along
El Camino Real, which are narrow and have
frequent utility poles that reduce the usable
space and create conflicts with people walking.

The bicycle network on parallel city streets
is fragmented or often nonexistent, leaving
people who want to access the businesses,
housing, and transit connection on El Camino
Real via bike limited in their options.

Crossing El Camino Real on a bike can be
equally challenging. The existing crossings
are long with a high volume of conflicting
vehicle movements and lack features that
separate bicycles in time in space such as
protected intersections and bicycle signals.

El Camino Real is a barrier for bicyclists both
on the corridor itself and for east/west travel.

People biking along El Camino Real
must ride next to high volume, high
speed vehicle traffic.

El Camino Real and State Route 92 (San
Mateo)
23 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 24 55 Planning Context
Deteriorating Bus Speed
and Reliability
El Camino Real is one of the most important
transit corridors in San Mateo County and
serves as the backbone of the SamTrans
network through Route ECR. Despite strong
ridership and frequent service, transit
operations along the corridor face ongoing
challenges related to speed, reliability, and
rider experience. The average weekday
bus speed is shown in Figure 2.7.

Transit performance is constrained by
roadway congestion, near-side stops,
limited transit priority measures, and
signal timing that prioritizes vehicle
throughput over bus operations. Existing
curbside bus stop configurations often
require buses to merge back into traffic
after stopping, further contributing to
delay and unreliable travel times.

As a result, Route ECR currently experiences
slow operating speeds throughout much of
the study area, with evening peak-period travel
speeds often falling below 15 miles per hour.

The El Camino Real Bus Speed and Reliability
Study (2022) estimated that transit lanes would
improve peak hour travel times by 10 minutes
northbound and 12 minutes southbound along
Route ECR. 10 If vehicle congestion worsens with
increased demand, bus speed and reliability
would continue to deteriorate. Improving
transit speed and reliability will be essential to
accommodating future growth while reducing
dependence on private vehicle travel.

10. Samtrans, El Camino Real Bus Speed and Reliability
Study, 2022: https://www.samtrans.com/media/25336/
download?inlinepdf
84 84
92 92
92 280
280
101
101
101
Weekday Average Speed (mph)
≤10
>10 to 15
>15 to 20
>20 to 25

SAN MATEO

BELMONT

SAN CARLOS

REDWOOD CITY
0 0.5 1 Miles
42nd
Peninsula Ave.

Hillsdale Blvd.
5th Ave.

Brittan Ave.

Ralston
F St.

Crystal Springs
Edgewood
28th
Brewster Ave.

Monte Diablo Ave.
36th Ave.

Ave.

Ave.

Ave.

Rd.

Rd.

Figure 2.7. Bus Speeds on El Camino Real
(6AM to 7PM)
Average weekday bus speeds are largely lower than 15
miles per hour in the Central Cities. Source: El Camino Real Bus Speed and Reliability Study (2022).

Route ECR provides bus service along
El Camino Real.

El Camino Real and 5th Avenue (San Mateo)
25 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 26 56 Planning Context
A Street That Can’t Absorb
Expected Growth
El Camino Real is expected to accommodate
substantial housing and mixed-use growth
over the coming decades as shown in
Figures 2.8 and 2.9. Throughout the study
area, many parcels along the corridor are
designated as Priority Development Areas
intended to support transit-oriented housing,
employment, and commercial activity.

As more people live, work, shop, and travel
along the corridor, the current roadway
configuration becomes increasingly
incompatible with the surrounding land use
context. A corridor designed primarily to
maximize vehicle throughput at the expense
of other modes is not an efficient, safe, or
effective way to move large numbers of people
within a dense, mixed-use urban environment.

Accommodating future growth will require
a corridor that safely and efficiently moves
significantly more people, not simply more
vehicles. Achieving this shift will require greater
emphasis on walkability, safer crossings, highquality transit service, bicycle connectivity, and a more comfortable public realm that
supports short local trips and multimodal
travel throughout Central County.

Auto-oriented design presents
a challenge for future job and
housing growth.

El Camino Real and Hillsdale Boulevard
(San Mateo)
Current Jobs
Job Growth
Current Population
Population Growth
0 10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
San
Mateo
Belmont
San
Carlos
Redwood
City
+10%
+10%
+64%
+22%
+5%
+9%
+107%
+15%
84 92
92 92
280
280
101
101
101

SAN MATEO

BELMONT

SAN CARLOS

REDWOOD CITY
0 0.5 1 Miles
50 10,000
1,000
200
Housing Units
Jobs
Job growth assumes 1 employee per 250 sq ft planned commercial 42nd
Peninsula Ave.

Hillsdale Blvd.
5th Ave.

Brittan Ave.

Ralston
F St.

Crystal Springs
Edgewood
28th
Brewster Ave.

Monte Diablo Ave.
36th Ave.

Ave.

Ave.

Ave.

Rd.

Rd.

Figure 2.8. Anticipated Housing Units
and Jobs along El Camino Real
Figure 2.9. Anticipated Job
and Population Growth
The Central Cities are expected to accommodate
substantial housing and mixed-use growth along El
Camino Real in the coming decades. Source: Fehr & Peers, based on a review of individual city Housing Elements and development pipelines in Fall 2024.

To calculate job growth, Fehr & Peers estimated a new
job for every 250 SF of commerical/office development. To calculate population growth, Fehr & Peers estimated two new residents for every projected housing unit. Source:

Fehr & Peers, based on a review of individual city Housing Elements and development pipelines in Fall 2024.
27 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 28 57 Planning Context
Policies and Previous Planning Efforts
Influencing El Camino Real’s Future
Recent statewide policies have
reshaped how Caltrans approaches
projects on El Camino Real
and other state highways.

Through DP-36, DP-37, and DP-40, Caltrans
has committed to reducing fatal and serious
injury crashes, creating Complete Streets
that serve people of all ages and abilities, and
improving transit travel times and reliability.

These policies recognize that state highways
in urban areas often function as community
streets and should support walking, biking,
and transit in addition to driving. The Central El
Camino Plan reflects this direction by exploring
ways to improve safety, to provide comfortable
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and to support
faster and more reliable transit service.

Regional and corridor-wide plans further
reinforce the need for a multimodal El Camino
Real. Caltrans District 4’s Bike Plan, Pedestrian
Plan, and Bay Area Transit Plan all identify
El Camino Real as an important connection
between homes, jobs, schools, community
centers, and regional transit. The SamTrans
Bus Speed and Reliability Study identifies
Route ECR as a priority corridor for transit
improvements and recommends strategies to
reduce delay and improve reliability, including
transit-only lanes, bus stop consolidation
and relocation, and implementing transit
signal priority. These efforts shape the
Separated bicycle facilities connect El Camino
Real to the Caltrain station in Belmont, making
it easier for people to access the businesses
without a car.

El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue (Belmont)
Plan’s focus on creating safer and more
connected travel options while improving
transit performance along the study area.

The Central Cities share a common vision for El
Camino Real. Key priorities include improving
safety through safer crossings and lower
vehicle speeds, creating a more comfortable
walking environment with wider sidewalks
and additional street trees, expanding bicycle
connectivity through continuous low-stress
facilities, and improving transit speed and
reliability along the Route ECR corridor. These
shared priorities reflect a coordinated effort to
make El Camino Real a multimodal corridor
that better serves the needs of existing
communities and the demands of future
growth throughout central San Mateo County.

Local planning efforts in Belmont and San
Carlos have also informed the vision for El
Camino Real. The Belmont Village Specific
Plan and the San Carlos Downtown Specific
Plan and Streetscape Master Plan call for
additional street trees and a more welcoming
public realm that supports local businesses
and future growth. Community feedback
collected through these efforts consistently
emphasized making El Camino Real easier
and more comfortable to walk, bike, and
access by transit. The Central El Camino Plan
builds on these local priorities while creating
a coordinated vision that extends across
city boundaries and supports the broader
goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative.
“All transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit.” - Caltrans Director’s Policy 37, Complete Streets
29 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 30 58 Community Engagement
Community
Engagement
3 The Central El Camino Plan conducted two phases
of community engagement between 2025 and 2026.

Engagement activities gathered input from corridor
users, residents, businesses, advocacy organizations,
and historically underrepresented communities to help
shape the Plan’s understanding of existing conditions and needs and shape the future corridor. Refer to Appendix
A for detailed summaries of engagement activities.
4 languages used in outreach material
1,500+ project feedback comments
1,500+ community member touchpoints
22 engagement activities
Hello
Hola привет
你好
31 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 32 59 Community Engagement
Phase 1: Listening to Understand the Corridor
Phase 1 engagement was performed
to understand existing corridor
conditions, identify transportation
and safety concerns, and build
awareness of the planning process.

Activities occurred between May and August
2025 and the engagement process sought to
confirm issues previously identified in local
planning efforts while collecting new input
from corridor users and communities not
previously engaged. Key questions focused
on how people travel along El Camino Real,
where safety concerns exist, and what types
of improvements community members
would like to see along the corridor.

Outreach materials and surveys were provided
in multiple languages, including English,
Spanish, simplified Chinese, and Russian, to
improve accessibility and broaden participation.

The Phase 1 engagement program
included a wide range of outreach:
↘ 12 engagement events (3 pop-up
events, 3 virtual listening sessions,
3 walk audits, 3 meetings with
community-based organizations)
↘ An online map-based survey
↘ 5 presentations to community
groups and advisory bodies
↘ More than 500 interactions
with community members
↘ Over 800 location-specific comments
related to walking, biking, transit,
driving, and safety conditions
Phase 1 Engagement Fourth of
July Pop-up Event at Central Park
(San Mateo)
Phase 1 Engagement Walk Audit
(San Carlos)
Phase 1 Engagement Pop-up
Event at Caltrain Station
(San Carlos)
“Sidewalks [are] too narrow in
front of businesses.”
(San Mateo)
“A bus only lane would
benefit all who rely on
SamTrans to get to work or
appointments on time.”
(Redwood City)
“It’s essential to have
protected bike lanes and
dedicated bus lanes.”
(Belmont)
“Stretches of El Camino Real
going north from San Carlos
Station...need additional
crosswalks.”
(San Carlos)
Quotes reflect responses to the Phase 1 online survey.
33 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 34 60 Community Engagement
Phase 2: Discussing
Alternatives with
the Community
The Plan conducted Phase 2
engagement to gather feedback
on draft corridor alternatives
and improvement concepts
developed through the technical
analysis and Phase 1 input.

In Phase 2, which occurred between January
and March 2026, community members
chose their preferred street design for El
Camino Real in each city and shared what
improvements they most want to see.

Engagement materials were again
provided in English, Spanish, and simplified
Chinese to support broad participation.

Phase 2 engagement included the
following outreach activities:
↘ 8 engagement events (3 pop-up
events, 3 virtual listening sessions,
an in-person Spanish-language
community-based organization
meeting, and a virtual workshop)
↘ An online survey
↘ Business outreach efforts
↘ 9 presentations to community
groups and advisory bodies
↘ More than 1,000 interactions
with community members
↘ Over 700 survey responses related
to safety improvements on El Camino
Real and transportation preferences
Phase 2 Engagement CommunityBased Organization Meeting with Peninsula Family Service
(San Mateo)
“Dedicated bus lanes
would improve transit
reliability.”
(San Mateo)
“I chose [the bicycle alternative]
because bicycles are already
on El Camino and they’re not
going away so we need to
accommodate them.”
(Belmont)
“We need both protected cycle
lanes and dedicated bus lanes
on both sides of [El Camino
Real] throughout the county.”
(Redwood City)
Phase 2 Engagement Belmont Popup Event at Twin Pines Senior and Community Center
(Belmont)
“I would
support
widening the
sidewalk in
the transit
option.”
(San Carlos)
Phase 2 engagement at the
San Carlos Library
(San Carlos)
Quotes reflect responses to the Phase 2 online survey.
35 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 36 61 Community Engagement
Phase 3:

Communicating
the Path Forward
The Plan conducted Phase 3
engagement in Summer 2026 to
share back what was heard through
Phases 1 and 2 and demonstrate how
community input has informed the
refinement of corridor alternatives
and recommended improvements.

Building on feedback gathered from residents,
businesses, community-based organizations,
and historically underrepresented communities,
Phase 3 focused on communicating the key
themes and priorities identified throughout
the engagement process and explaining how
they are reflected in the final alternatives
advancing into the Caltrans review process.

Engagement activities provided community
members and decision-makers, including City
Councils, with an opportunity to understand
the recommended path forward and how
public input helped shape the Plan’s outcomes.

Phase 1 Pop-up event in Belmont
(Belmont)
37 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 38 62 Vision for Central El Camino Real
4 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Access points should be designed for
easy transitions between modes.
(Belmont)
How the Vision Developed
The El Camino Real alternatives were developed
through a year-long process which included
evaluating existing conditions, consulting with
City Staff from each of the four cities, reaching
out to the community, and engaging with city
leadership including city managers and councils.

The initial development of alternatives created three
cross sections for each segment, organized around modal priority: transit priority, pedestrian priority, and bicycle priority. These alternatives originated from the universe of cross section options developed by the GBI Action
Plan. The project team then adapted them to city-specific contexts, making sure they reflect previous planning
efforts from Caltrans, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos,
Redwood City, SamTrans, and other agencies. They also
seek to address critical existing challenges along the
corridor, as informed by the existing conditions analysis, feedback from agency stakeholders, and community
input on needs and priorities. The designs also strive
to align with Caltrans standards and guidance.

The project team evaluated the initial cross
sections based on several key metrics. The full
evaluation matrix is included in Appendix C:
↘ Alignment with Caltrans Policy
↘ Alignment with Local Policy
↘ Effect on People Walking
↘ Effect on People Biking
↘ Effect on People Riding Transit
↘ Effect on People Driving and Parking
↘ Effect of the Environment
↘ Addressing Community Input
The second phase of community engagement sought
feedback on each cross section. Both the evaluation
and community feedback informed the refinement
of alternatives into current recommendations.
39 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 40 63 Vision for Central El Camino Real
What We Heard From
Community Members
Across the Central Cities, Phase 2 feedback
reflected a strong desire for a safer, more
comfortable, and more connected El Camino
Real that better serves people walking, biking,
and riding transit. Community members
consistently expressed support for pedestrian
safety improvements, protected bicycle
facilities, and transit-priority treatments.

Respondents also emphasized the importance
of creating a corridor that is easier to
navigate, more welcoming for users of all
ages and abilities, and better connected to
surrounding neighborhoods, destinations,
and regional transit services. While opinions
varied regarding the extent to which vehicle
travel lanes should be reallocated, a common
theme across all cities was the desire to
balance different travel needs while creating
a safer and more multimodal corridor.

San Mateo
Phase 2 feedback in San Mateo highlighted a
similar level of support across all alternatives.

Many respondents supported continuous
wider sidewalks, protected bicycle lanes, and
dedicated bus facilities that would encourage
more people to travel without driving
and improve connections to destinations
throughout the city. Participants highlighted
safety concerns in the downtown area,
particularly at busy intersections where
turning vehicles interact with people walking
and biking. Respondents also identified the
Hillsdale area as an important location for
improving transit operations and connectivity.

Some respondents expressed concern about
reducing vehicle capacity and the potential for
increased congestion, reflecting the desire for
a corridor that better balances all modes while
providing safe and continuous connections
for people walking, biking, and riding transit.
“Wider sidewalk for sure because
the shops are really struggling
when the outside is so unpleasant
when cars are zooming by.”
“I would love to have
continuous separated bike
lanes -- currently the speed
[on El Camino Real] makes it
dangerous without separation.”
“Traffic is at capacity now,
cannot remove any lanes...”
“Speed bus service with
dedicated lane. Also increase
distance between stops by
50% to reduce stops and
increase bus speed; faster
busses are more usable.”
Phase 1 Engagement Pop-up at the
San Carlos Caltrain Station
(San Carlos)
Quotes reflect responses to the Phase 2 online survey.
41 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 42 64 Vision for Central E
l Camino Real
Belmont
In Belmont, Phase 2 feedback indicated strong
support for improving bicycle conditions
along El Camino Real. Respondents frequently
identified protected bicycle lanes as a priority,
often citing concerns about safety and comfort
when riding alongside vehicle traffic. Many
participants expressed interest in using bicycles
more often for local trips if safer facilities were
provided, viewing bicycle improvements as
an important step toward reducing reliance
on driving. Feedback also reflected support
for improved transit service and a more
comfortable pedestrian environment. “Pedestrian and bicycle safety is paramount as road speeds
increase. Let’s make [El Camino
Real] a safe and welcoming space
for foot and bike travel that is well
connected, [especially] to our mass
transit options (i.e., Caltrain).”
“…I would like to ride a bike more
and use more buses. I want to
drive less as I get older. But I am
afraid to ride on El Camino.”
“I’d prefer bikes and busses and
wider sidewalks. Happy to give up
car lanes and parking for that.”
Despite recent improvements,
there are still many changes that
would make El Camino Real feel
safer for people outside of cars.

El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue
(Belmont)
San Carlos
Phase 2 feedback in San Carlos reflected
a desire for a well-balanced corridor that
improves multimodal travel while maintaining
functionality for all users. Respondents
frequently supported both bicycle and
transit improvements, often viewing them
as complementary investments that would
strengthen connections to Caltrain and other
regional destinations. Safety and comfort for
bicyclists were recurring themes, alongside
support for faster and more reliable bus service.

Opinions regarding pedestrian enhancements
were more mixed, with some respondents
prioritizing bicycle and transit improvements. “The only way to use El Camino on the bike is via a separated bike
lane.”
“Bikes and buses both - all up
and down the peninsula would
be great. Combined with Caltrain
you can get almost anywhere.”
Quotes reflect responses to the Phase 2 online survey.
“I think the single best thing
that could happen to [El Camino
Real] for San Mateo County is a
dedicated bus lane. ”
43 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 44 65 Vision for Central E
l Camino Real
Redwood City
Phase 2 feedback in Redwood City emphasized
creating a safer and more attractive multimodal
corridor through improvements for walking,
biking, and transit. Respondents frequently
supported protected bicycle lanes, dedicated
bus lanes, and wider or more comfortable
pedestrian spaces, often linking these
improvements to increased safety and quality
of life. Many participants expressed interest
in reducing reliance on driving by providing
more viable transportation alternatives, while
others noted concerns about maintaining
vehicle mobility and parking access. “I would like wider sidewalks to encourage walking in the
community.”
“Having dedicated transit only
lanes will greatly improve the
speed and reliability of bus service
along [El Camino Real] - I am a
frequent rider of the ECR bus and
it frequently gets delayed by nonbus traffic.” “Protected bike lanes and dedicated bus lanes would be
great.”
Quotes reflect responses to the Phase 2 online survey.

The location of bus stops affects rider
experience and can slow buses along
with surrounding traffic.

El Camino Real and Pine Street (Redwood CIty)
Design Considerations
The designs were developed based on Caltrans standards
in Design Information Bulletin 94 Complete Streets:

Contextual Design Guidance (DIB 94) and Design
Information Bulletin 89-02: Class IV Bikeway Design
Guidance (DIB 89-02). DIB 94 provides guidance for
the width of different Complete Streets elements
based upon the context of the street. DIB 94 is the
primary resource for determining the preferred widths
of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle facilities along El Camino Real and supersedes the design standards in
the Highway Design Manual (HDM). DIB 89-02 provides
guidance for the design of Class IV Separate Bikeways,
both for the basic cross sections and for conflict
locations at intersections, driveways, and loading areas.

Additional design standards align with standards from
the California HDMand California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The full design
considerations document can be found in Appendix C.

Reference to Previous
Planning Efforts
The following design alternatives and targeted
spot improvements also pull from previous
countywide and local planning efforts. The
following plans were referenced: ↘ SamTrans: SamTrans Bus Speed and Reliability Study (2022);
↘ San Mateo: Complete Streets Master Plan
(ongoing, draft), Local Roadway Safety Plan
(2024), Transit Oriented Development Pedestrian
Access Plan (2022), Bicycle Master Plan (2020);
↘ Belmont: Belmont Village Specific Plan (2017),
Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2016);
↘ San Carlos: Downtown Streetscape Master Plan
(2025), Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan;
↘ Redwood City: El Camino Real Corridor Plan (2017),
RWC Walk Bike Thrive (2022), RWC Moves (2018).
45 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 46 66 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Alternatives
Three design alternatives for El Camino
Real will advance into the Caltrans
project development process.

El Camino is currently four to six vehicle lanes,
with parking along most of the corridor.

There are no existing bicycle facilities along
the corridor, and sidewalk space is typically
narrow, without street trees or other shade.

Through the alternatives development process,
the project team used community feedback
and evaluation results to narrow the range
of cross section options and combine similar
cross sections into three design alternatives.

These three design alternatives for El Camino
will advance into the Caltrans project
development process. The following cut
sheets describe the proposed alternatives,
shown through representative cross sections
for each of the eight distinct segments along
the corridor. The cross sections within each
alternative work together as a complete
corridor-wide concept and are not intended
to be mixed-and-matched with cross
sections from other alternatives. The exact
widths of the design elements and detailed
considerations will be determined during
further study in future phases of the process.

These alternatives will be carried forward
into the Caltrans review process at which
point we will evaluate critical feasibility
consideration including, but not limited to,
traffic operations, safety outcomes, rightof-way constraints, and parking impacts.

Alternative 1 prioritizes transit speed with
dedicated bus lanes and includes dedicated
bicycle facilities in Belmont, San Carlos, and
Redwood City. Sidewalk improvements and
street trees are proposed where widths allow.

Alternative 2 prioritizes pedestrian and
bicycle comfort, including wider sidewalks,
street trees, and dedicated bicycle facilities
in Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City.

Alternative 3 only shows a variation for
the San Mateo segments, which includes
maintaining travel lanes and separated
bicycle facilities. Belmont, San Carlos, and
Redwood City may advance either Alternative
1 or 2 along with San Mateo’s alternative 3.
$23.5M
per mile
20%
of GBI cost
$22.1M
per mile
19%
of GBI cost
$23.4M
per mile
20%
of GBI cost

BIKE CONNECTIVITY SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Corridor Overview
Click on the segment number you want to navigate to.

CA 92
Hillsdale Blvd
Ralston Ave
Brittan Ave

SAN MATEO BELMONT SAN CARLOS REDWOOD CITY
El Camino Real
Segment Existing
El Camino Real
Alt 1
El Camino Real
Alt 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Parking Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Peninsula Ave
Monte Diablo Ave
Crystal Springs Rd
5th Ave
28th Ave
36th Ave
42nd Ave
Edgewood Rd
Brewster Ave
F St
Alt 3El Camino Real Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied Click to view corridor-wide improvements:
47 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 48 67 Vision for Central El Camino Real CITY OF SAN MATEO
SEGMENT 1
Peninsula Ave to Monte Diablo Ave
Segment 1 of El Camino has 74 feet of right-of-way with two vehicle lanes in each direction. This segment accommodates sidewalks and landscaping with trees on both sides, but does not include left turn pockets or on-street parking. Sidewalks on this segment do not meet minimum widths provided in Caltrans design standards. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are medium-density residential areas. 5’
Sidewalk
5’
Sidewalk
5’

5’

12’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle
15’
Vehicle & Transit
15’
Vehicle & Transit
5’
Sidewalk
5’
Sidewalk
11’
Turn Lane
11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
5’

5’

Existing Face of Curb
6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
5’
Bike
2’

2’

5’
Bike

2.5’

2.5’

Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 3 Cross Section
Alternative 1 & 2 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 74’
Sidewalk widths for these alternatives do not consistently meet the minimum standards per Caltrans DIB 94 (8 feet) and would therefore require seeking a design exception from Caltrans and leveraging setback requirements for future developments for expanded sidewalk space.

Alt 1 & 2 Typical Intersection
Proposed Key Changes
Alternatives 1 and 2 prioritize transit reliability by adding left turn pockets which improves circulation, improves safety, and reduces delay. Alternative 3 prioritizes safety and comfort for people walking and biking by adding separated bicycle facilities and widening sidewalks on both sides; left turns would be prohibited to improve safety at intersections.

Left turn
pocket
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
bus stop
Prohibited
left turn
Wide
sidewalks
Corner
bulb-out
Separated
bicycle
facilities Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Alt 3 Typical Intersection
El Camino Real
Existing
El Camino Real
Alt 1 & 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Alt 3El Camino Real Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied SEGMENT 1 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
49 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 5068 Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 2
Monte Diablo Ave to Crystal Springs Rd
Segment 2 of El Camino has 74 feet of right-of-way with two vehicle lanes in each direction.

This segment accommodates on-street parking on the west side and sidewalks and landscaping with trees on both sides, but does not include left turn pockets. Sidewalks on this segment do not meet minimum widths in Caltrans design standards. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are medium-density residential areas. 5’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
5’

5’

11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
5’
Sidewalk
5’
Sidewalk
11’
Turn Lane
11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
5’

5’

Existing Face of Curb
6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
5’
Bike
2’

2’

5’
Bike

2.5’

2.5’

Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 3 Cross Section
Alternative 1 & 2 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 74’
Sidewalk widths for these alternatives do not consistently meet the minimum standards per Caltrans DIB 94 (8 feet) and would therefore require seeking a design exception from Caltrans and leveraging setback requirements for future developments for expanded sidewalk space.

Proposed Key Changes
All alternatives proposed for this segment are the same as those for Segment 1. The only difference in key changes for all alternatives is removing the on-street parking on the west side. El Camino Real Existing
El Camino Real
Alt 1 & 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Alt 3El Camino Real Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied Alt 1 & 2 Typical Intersection
Left turn
pocket
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
bus stop
Alt 3 Typical Intersection
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Prohibited
left turn
Wide
sidewalks
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
Separated
bicycle
facilities
SEGMENT 2 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
51 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 52

CITY OF SAN MATEO
El Camino Real
Existing
El Camino Real
Alt 1
El Camino Real
Alt 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
69 Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 3
Crystal Springs Rd to 5th Ave / 28th Ave to 36th Ave
Segment 3 of El Camino has 102 feet of right-of-way with three vehicle lanes in each direction. This segment accommodates a raised concrete median with left-turn pockets at intersections, sidewalks on both sides, and landscaping with trees on the east side, but no on-street parking. Sidewalks do not meet minimum Caltrans width standards. The main adjacent land uses are the downtown core and Hillsdale commercial areas.
6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
5’

11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
18’
Median
6’
Sidewalk
5’
Sidewalk
5’

5’

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Bus Only Lane
11’
Bus Only Lane
17’
Median
Existing Face of Curb
5’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit
6’
Sidewalk
5’

5’

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
17’
Median
Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 2 Cross Section
Alternative 1 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 102’
5’
At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Parking feasible on one side if sidewalks/median narrowed (trees removed).

At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Parking feasible if sidewalks/median narrowed (trees removed). Or, separated bikeways feasible if sidewalks and median narrowed (trees removed).

Alt 1 Typical Intersection
Proposed Key Changes
Alternative 1 prioritizes transit reliability by converting one vehicle lane to a transit-only lane in each direction. Alternative 2 widens sidewalks, enhancing comfort for people walking. Both alternatives provide a pedestrian refuge, narrow lanes and left turn pockets, provide landscaping with trees on the west side, relocate bus stops to the far side, and improve safety for all modes. Parking is feasible if sidewalks or the median is narrowed, requiring tree removal. Future design phases may consider reducing the median width to allocate space to other priorities, such as wider sidewalks.

Left turn
pocket
Transitonly laneCorner
bulb-out
Landscaping
with trees
Far side
bus stop
Median
Left turn
pocket
Corner
bulb-out
Landscaping
with trees
Far side
bus stop
Median
Alt 2 Typical Intersection
El Camino Real
Existing
El Camino Real
Alt 1
El Camino Real
Alt 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

SEGMENT 3 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Pedestrian
refuge
Pedestrian
refuge
53 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 54

CITY OF SAN MATEO
70 Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 3
Crystal Springs Rd to 5th Ave / 28th Ave to 36th Ave
Segment 3 of El Camino has 102 feet of right-of-way with three vehicle lanes in each direction. This segment accommodates a raised concrete median with left-turn pockets at intersections, sidewalks on both sides, and landscaping with trees on the east side, but no on-street parking. Sidewalks do not meet minimum Caltrans width standards. The main adjacent land uses are the downtown core and Hillsdale commercial areas.

At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets.

Sidewalk widths for Alternative 3 do not consistently meet the minimum standards per Caltrans DIB 94 (8 feet) and would therefore require seeking a design exception from Caltrans and leveraging setback requirements for future developments for expanded sidewalk space.
6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
5’

11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
18’
Median
6’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Median
6’
Sidewalk

5.5’
Bike

5.5’
Bike
2’

2’

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
Existing Face of Curb

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
Alternative 3 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 102’ Alt 3 Typical Intersection Proposed Key Changes
Alternative 3 adds separated bicycle facilities which improves safety for all road users and enhances comfort for people biking. It also narrows left turn pockets, widens sidewalks on both sides, and relocates bus stops to the far side.

Separated
bicycle
facilities
Far side
bus stop
El Camino Real Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied El Camino Real
Existing Alt 3
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Corner
bulb-out
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

SEGMENT 3 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Pedestrian
refuge
55 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 56

CITY OF SAN MATEO
71 Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 4
5th Ave to 28th Ave
Segment 4 of El Camino has 100 feet of right-of-way with three vehicle lanes in each direction. This segment accommodates left turn pockets and on-street parking and sidewalks on both sides, but does not include any landscaping. Sidewalks on this segment do not meet minimum widths in Caltrans design standards. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are low-density commercial areas. 6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’ 4’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
12’
Median

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Bus Only Lane
6’

6’

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Bus Only Lane
Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 1 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 100’
6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
12’
Median

10.5’
Vehicle
6’

6’

11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 2 Cross Section
At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Parking feasible on one side if sidewalks/median narrowed (trees removed).

At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Parking feasible if sidewalks/median narrowed (trees removed). Or, separated bikeways feasible if sidewalks and median narrowed (trees removed).

Alt 1 Typical Intersection
Proposed Key Changes
Alternative 1 prioritizes transit reliability by converting one vehicle lane to a transit-only lane in each direction. This configuration improves safety for all road users. Alternative 2 narrows travel lanes. Both alternatives allow for alternating street trees and parking depending on demand, provide a planted median, and relocate bus stops to the far side. Parking is feasible if sidewalks or the median is narrowed, requiring tree removal. Future detailed design may consider reducing the width of the median to allocate to other right-of-way priorities, such as wider sidewalks.

Corner
bulb-out
Landscaping
with trees
Far side
bus stop
Median
El Camino Real
Alt 2
El Camino Real
Alt 1
El Camino Real
Existing
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Transitonly lane
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Wide
sidewalks
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
bus stop
Alt 2 Typical Intersection
Separated
bicycle
facilities
Landscaping
with trees
Left turn
pocket
Left turn
pocket
SEGMENT 4 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
57 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 58

CITY OF SAN MATEO
72 Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 4
5th Ave to 28th Ave
Segment 4 of El Camino has 100 feet of right-of-way with three vehicle lanes in each direction.

This segment accommodates left turn pockets and on-street parking and sidewalks on both sides, but does not include any landscaping. Sidewalks on this segment do not meet desired widths. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are low-density commercial areas. 6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’ 4’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Median
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit

5.5’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
5’
Bike
5’
Bike
2’

2’

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 3 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 100’
At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets.

Sidewalk widths for Alternative 3 do not consistently meet the minimum standards per Caltrans DIB 94 (8 feet) and would therefore require seeking a design exception from Caltrans and leveraging setback requirements for future developments for expanded sidewalk space.

Proposed Key Changes
Alternative 3 adds separated bicycle facilities which improves safety for all road users and enhances comfort for people biking. It also narrows left turn pockets, widens sidewalks on both sides, and relocates bus stops to the far side.

Alt 3
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
El Camino Real
Existing
El Camino Real Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

SEGMENT 4 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Separated
bicycle
facilities
Far side
bus stop
Corner
bulb-out
Pedestrian
refuge
Alt 3 Typical Intersection
59 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 60

CITY OF SAN MATEO
73 Vision for Central El Camino Real
8’
Sidewalk
8’
Sidewalk
5’

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle

16.5’
Median
5’

10.5’
Vehicle
Existing Face of Curb
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit
SEGMENT 5
36th Ave to 42nd Ave
Segment 5 of El Camino has 96 feet of right-of-way with three southbound vehicle lanes and two northbound vehicle lanes. This segment accommodates a center left turn lane and onstreet parking on both sides, but does not include any landscaping. This segment has only sidewalks on the west side that do not meet desired widths. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are low-density commercial areas, with greater land use intensity on the west side. 6’
Sidewalk
15’
Turn Lane
2’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
8’
Sidewalk
5’

8’
Sidewalk

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Bus Only Lane
Existing Face of Curb
5’

16.5’
Median
Alternative 1 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 96’
Alternative 2 Cross Section
At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Parking feasible on one side if sidewalks/median narrowed (trees removed).

At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Parking feasible if sidewalks/median narrowed (trees removed). Or, separated bikeways feasible if sidewalks and median narrowed (trees removed).

Alt 1 Typical Intersection
Proposed Key Changes
Alternative 1 converts one southbound vehicle lane to a transit-only lane. The conversion only applies to the southbound direction to maintain two vehicle lanes in each direction.

It also widens sidewalks on the east side. Alternative 2 widens sidewalks on both sides.

Both alternatives remove on-street parking on both sides, provide a planted median, pedestrian refuge, and landscaping with trees, and relocate bus stops to the far side. Both alternatives improve safety for all modes and enhances comfort for people walking.

El Camino Real
Alt 2
El Camino Real
Alt 1
El Camino Real
Existing
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Landscaping
with trees
Far side
bus stop
Median
Transitonly lane
Corner
bulb-out
Wide
sidewalks
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Alt 2 Typical Intersection
Landscaping
with trees
Far side
bus stop
Median
Corner
bulb-out
Wide
sidewalks
Left turn
pocket
Left turn
pocket
SEGMENT 5 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Pedestrian
refuge
61 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 62

CITY OF SAN MATEO
74 Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 5
36th Ave to 42nd Ave
Segment 5 of El Camino has 96 feet of right-of-way with three southbound vehicle lanes and two northbound vehicle lanes. This segment accommodates a center left turn lane and onstreet parking on both sides, but does not include any landscaping. This segment has only sidewalks on the west side that do not meet desired widths. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are low-density commercial areas, with greater land use intensity on the west side. 6’
Sidewalk
15’
Turn Lane
2’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 96’
6’
Bike
6’
Bike
2’
2’

10.5’
Median

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit
8’
Sidewalk
8’
Sidewalk
Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 3 Cross Section
At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets.

Proposed Key Changes
Alternative 3 removes on-street parking on both sides and provides separated bicycle facilities on both sides. It also widens sidewalks, provides a planted median, and provides landscaping on both sides. Bus stops are also relocated to the far side of the intersection. These changes improve safety for all modes and enhances comfort for people walking and biking.

Alt 3
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
El Camino Real
Existing
El Camino Real Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment. Alt 3 Typical Intersection Separated
bicycle
facilities
Far side
bus stop
Median
Corner
bulb-out
SEGMENT 5 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
63 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 64

CITY OF SAN MATEO
75 Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 6
42nd Ave to F St
Segment 6 of El Camino has 90 feet of right-of-way with two vehicle lanes in each direction. This segment accommodates a wide planted median with left turn pockets and on-street parking and sidewalks on both sides. Sidewalks on this segment do not meet desired widths. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are low-density mixed-use and commercial areas, with higher land use intensity on the west side. 6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
16’
Median
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit
5’
Sidewalk

8.5’
Sidewalk

10.5’
Median

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
3’ 11’ 2’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit
Existing Face of Curb
5’
Bike
8’
Parking
5’
Bike
Alternative 1, 2, & 3 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 90’
At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets.

Sidewalk widths for these alternatives do not consistently meet the minimum standards per Caltrans DIB 94 (8 feet) and would therefore require seeking an exception through Caltrans process.

Alt 1, 2, & 3 Typical Intersection
Proposed Key Changes
All alternatives prioritize safety and comfort for people biking by adding separated bicycle facilities on both sides. They also remove on-street parking on the east side, narrow the planted median, and relocate bus stops to the far side. All alteratives are the same as the bikeway aligns with all of the planning and policies in Belmont.

Separated
bicycle
facilities
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
bus stop
Median
El Camino Real
Alt 1, 2, & 3
El Camino Real
Existing
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Left turn
pocket
SEGMENT 6 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
65 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 66

CITY OF BELMONT
76 Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 7
F St to Edgewood Rd
Segment 7 of El Camino has 95 feet of right-of-way with three southbound vehicle lanes and two northbound vehicle lanes. This segment has a planted median with left turn pockets. On the west side, it has on-street parking and sidewalks. On the east-side, these are intermittent. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are currently low-to-medium density commercial and mixed-use areas. However, much of San Carlos’ future housing will take place along the corridor. 6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
15’
Median
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
6’ - 10.5’
Sidewalk
6’
Bike
6’
Bike

3.5’
Median

10.5’

3.5’ 6’ - 10.5’
Sidewalk

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Bus Only Lane
Existing Face of Curb
6’ - 9’
Sidewalk
6’ - 9’
Sidewalk
3’ 5’ 3’
Bike
8’
Parking

10.5’
Vehicle
10’
Median
3’
5’
Bike

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit
Existing Face of Curb
3’

Alternative 2 Cross Section
Alternative 1 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 95’
At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Sidewalk widths for Alternative 1 do not consistently meet the minimum standards per Caltrans DIB 94 (8 feet) and would therefore require seeking a design exception from Caltrans and leveraging setback requirements for future developments for expanded sidewalk space.

Alt 1 Typical Intersection
Proposed Key Changes
Alternatives 1 and 2 prioritize safety and comfort for people biking by providing separated bicycle facilities on both sides. Alternative 1 also prioritizes transit reliability by converting one southbound vehicle lane to a transit-only lane and removing on-street parking on the west side. The conversion only applies to the southbound direction to maintain two vehicle lanes in each direction. Alternative 2 removes one vehicle lane in the southbound direction.

Both alternatives narrow the planted median and relocate bus stops to the far side.

Transitonly lane
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
bus stop
Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
bus stop
Alt 2 Typical Intersection
El Camino Real
Existing
El Camino Real
Alt 1
El Camino Real
Alt 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Median
Separated
bicycle
facilities
Median
Corner
bulb-out
Separated
bicycle
facilities
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Left turn
pocket
Left turn
pocket
SEGMENT 7 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS

CITY OF SAN CARLOS AND REDWOOD CITY
67 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 6877 Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 8
Edgewood Rd to Brewster Ave
Segment 8 of El Camino has 100 feet of right-of-way with two vehicle lanes in each direction. This segment has a planted median with left turn pockets, on-street parking and sidewalks on both sides, and landscaping with trees on the east side. Per Redwood City zoning code, a 12-foot sidewalk is required and will be incorporated through developer setback requirements as adjacent properties are developed. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are low-density commercial areas.

At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Exact widths will be refined in future phases of design and will consider accommodating design vehicles.
7’
Sidewalk
7’
Sidewalk
15’
Median
5’

8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
13’
Vehicle & Transit
13’
Vehicle & Transit
7’
Sidewalk
6’
Bike

10.5’
Median
7’
Sidewalk

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
5’

5’

6’
Bike
11’
Bus Only Lane
11’
Vehicle & Transit
Existing Face of Curb

9.5’
Sidewalk

9.5’
Sidewalk
6’
Bike
6’
Bike
5’

11’
Median
5’

5’

11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle
Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 2 Cross Section
Alternative 1 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 100’ Alt 1 Typical Intersection Proposed Key Changes
Alternatives 1 and 2 prioritize safety and comfort for people biking by removing on-street parking and providing separated bicycle facilities on both sides. Alternative 1 also prioritizes transit reliability by converting one southbound vehicle lane to a transit-only lane. The conversion only applies to the southbound direction to maintain two vehicle lanes in each direction. Alternative 2 widens sidewalks on both sides. Both alternatives narrow the planted median and relocate bus stops to the far side.

Alt 2 Typical Intersection
El Camino Real
Existing
El Camino Real
Alt 1
El Camino Real
Alt 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Transitonly lane
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
bus stop
Separated Median
bicycle
facilities
Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
bus stop
Separated Median
bicycle
facilities
Wide
sidewalks
Corner
bulb-out
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Left turn
pocket
Left turn
pocket

REDWOOD CITY
SEGMENT 8 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
69 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 7078 Vision for Central El Camino Real
The three alternatives were developed with a
focus on improving bicycle connectivity while
balancing existing right-of-way constraints
and multimodal needs. The alternatives
are informed by the Caltrans District 4 Bike
Plan, which identifies El Camino Real as a
crucial corridor for prioritizing gap closure
in the local and regional bicycle network,
and recommends Class IV separated
bikeways on segments of El Camino Real
within the limits of the Central Cities.

All alternatives provide low-stress connections
to existing and proposed bicycle facilities
parallel to and crossing El Camino Real, creating
a complete network that provides a safe and
comfortable experience for people of varying
ages and abilities biking along the corridor.

The potential parallel low-stress bicycle routes
are located within a half mile of El Camino
Real. These routes will be further developed
and refined in coordination with each City
and Caltrans as part of the subsequent
Caltrans project development process.
42nd Ave
F St
Brittan Ave
Edgewood Rd
Ralston Ave
28th Ave
CA 92
5th Ave
Crystal Springs
Rd
Monte Diablo
Ave
Hillsdale Blvd

SAN MATEO BELMONT SAN CARLOS REDWOOD CITY
Pacific Blvd Delaware St

0.5 Miles
Existing Bicycle Facility
Proposed Bicycle Facility
Network Gap
Old County Rd Stafford St
El Camino Real
Bike Connectivity Existing
42nd Ave
F St
Brittan Ave
Edgewood Rd
Ralston Ave
28th Ave
CA 92
5th Ave
Crystal Springs
Rd
Monte Diablo
Ave
Hillsdale Blvd

SAN MATEO BELMONT SAN CARLOS REDWOOD CITY
El Camino Real

0.5 Miles
Pacific Blvd Delaware St
Existing Bicycle Facility
Proposed Bicycle Facility
Network Gap
42nd Ave
F St
Brittan Ave
Edgewood Rd
Ralston Ave
28th Ave
CA 92
5th Ave
Crystal Springs
Rd
Monte Diablo
Ave
Hillsdale Blvd

SAN MATEO BELMONT SAN CARLOS REDWOOD CITY
El Camino Real
Existing Bicycle Facility
Proposed Bicycle Facility
Network Gap

0.5 Miles
Alternatives 1 and 2 Alternative 3

BIKE CONNECTIVITY
71 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 7279 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Spot Improvements + Placemaking Opportunities
The Central El Camino Plan identifies
targeted spot improvements at critical
intersections and complementary
placemaking opportunities to enhance
safety, accessibility, and the overall public
realm experience for all corridor users.

Across all alternatives, these spot improvements
target intersections where safety, operational,
and multimodal deficiencies are most
pronounced. The Plan developed these
improvements from previous planning efforts
and an engineering-based assessment of
existing conditions. Treatments vary based
on site constraints, safety considerations, and
traffic operations, but the Plan may apply
several universal treatments at all identified
intersections, along with additional treatments
tailored to signalized intersections.

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
The Plan also considers ideas for future
discussion to enhance the public realm and
create a more welcoming, accessible corridor.

Placemaking priorities and strategies guide these
improvements to facilitate safety and comfort for
people walking, biking, and taking transit today
while catalyzing future investment—encouraging
denser development, making multimodal travel
more attractive, and improving quality of life
along the corridor. The Plan identifies several
opportunity sites within the right-of-way for pilot
activation projects. Site selection considered:
↘ City documents, including specific plans for
downtown, streetscape plans, mobility plans
↘ Project team-identified transportation
improvements and placemaking opportunities
↘ SamTrans equity priority studies
↘ Feedback from City staff
Mark all crosswalks with highvisibility crosswalks.

Shorten crossing distances with
median refuge islands or bulbouts,
where feasible on El Camino and side
streets. This may include narrowing
travel lanes on side streets.

Implement intersection
treatments for existing bicycle
facilities on cross streets.

Incorporate in-lane bus stops
(e.g., via bus boarding islands), and
follow SamTrans bus stop design
guidelines for bus stop design.

Restrict left turns in/out of driveways
and side streets from El Camino
unless signalized or otherwise noted.

Lighting improvements
corridor-wide.

Universal Treatments
Universal Treatments for Signalized Intersections
This icon indicates where the following universal signalized intersection treatments may be considered.
↘ Add directional curb ramps and advance stop bars.
↘ Modify signals to include protected lefts on El Camino, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian countdown and accessible pedestrian signals, ITS improvements, and signal equipment and visibility improvements. ↘ Consider protected lefts or split phase for side streets. Where side streets have permissive lefts, consider a left-turn yield-to-pedestrian sign or a flashing yellow arrow. ↘ Consider shorter cycle lengths. Lower walk speed to 2.8 feet per second near schools and senior centers. Alternatives with bicycle facilities on El Camino to include bike-related signal infrastructure. ↘ Assess lane configurations to look for opportunities to reduce lanes and turn pockets and tighten intersections. Mark crosswalks on all legs. ↘ Where parking exists on El Camino Real or intersecting streets, apply red curb on approach to the intersection in compliance with California Assembly Bill 413.

Placemaking Priorities

RECENTER PEDESTRIAN COMFORT
Fundamental streetscape
improvements that bring
back a sense of human scale
to this busy thoroughfare.

REINFORCE CENTERS OF GRAVITY
Improving wayfinding experiences
between El Camino Real and nearby
destinations by building upon existing
places where people want to be.

STRENGTHEN CONNECTIVITY
Highlight the distinct identities
of the four cities while increasing
the legibility of El Camino Real
as a cohesive corridor.

SHAPE WHAT GROWS HERE
Public realm improvements can help
set the stage for future partnership
opportunities, land use decisions,
and transit-oriented development.

Placemaking Strategies
MOVE + CONNECT
↘ Increase presence of benches,
lighting, and wayfinding signage near
bus stops and Caltrain platforms.
↘ Demonstrate first-class connections
to existing and new bike networks.

STORYTELLING CANVAS
↘ Implement distinctive
crosswalks and gateway signage
at major intersections.
↘ Add decorative lighting near
existing activity nodes.

LET’S GREEN
↘ Provide consistent tree canopy and
understory planting along sidewalks.
↘ Provide understory planting
alongside bike lanes and medians to
provide buffers and traffic calming.

ACTIVATE!
↘ Partner with local organizations
to promote temporary events/
programs that support
active programming.
73 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 74 80 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 1: Peninsula Ave to Monte Diablo Ave CITY OF
SAN MATEO Segment 2: Monte Diablo Ave to Crystal Springs Rd CITY OFSAN MATEO Add left-turn
pocket
Tighten
intersection

BARROILHET AVE
Add left-turn
pocket

HILLTOP RD
Tighten
intersection

WARREN RD
Relocate bus stops
to Santa Inez Ave

POPLAR AVE
Consider closing
access or convert
to right-in/
right-out only

CHESTERTON PL
Join both legs to
be one street that
“T” into El Camino

CLARK DR
Consider traffic
signal and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)
Realign Park Ave to
a “T” intersection
into Peninsula Ave

PENINSULA AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
Add crosswalk
across El Camino

STATE ST
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
Add crosswalk
on all legs

E SANTA INEZ AVE,

MONTE DIABLO AVE

E BELLEVUE AVE /

GRAND BLVD
Close Grand Blvd
right turn slip
lane and provide
continuous east
side sidewalk
500 ft N
Existing Bicycle Facility
Consider traffic
signal and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)
Add crosswalk
on all legs

MONTE DIABLO AVE
Coordinate signal
with De Sabla Rd
/ Baldwin Ave /
Baywood Ave

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD
Restrict left turns
from El Camino
Install protected
left-turn signal on
Baldwin Ave and
Baywood Ave
Reconfigure
intersection
to eliminate
five-legged
configuration

DE SABLA RD / BALDWIN

AVE / BAYWOOD AVE
Restrict left turns
from El Camino
Relocate
northbound
bus stop closer
to intersection
and relocate
southbound bus
stop to far side

TILTON AVE /

EL CERRITO AVE
200 ft N
75 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 76 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
81 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 3: Crystal Springs Rd to 5th Ave CITY OF

SAN MATEO
El Camino Real and Baldwin Ave (San Mateo)
Segment 3 North Section
Multifaceted San Mateo
El Camino Real / Baldwin-5th Ave
‘Multifaceted San Mateo’ provides downtown gateways
that increase vibrancy and access along El Camino Real
to San Mateo’s destinations: Central Park (including
Japanese Garden, recreational areas, and playground),
Public Library, and the historic downtown walk.

At the key intersections of Baldwin, 2nd, 3rd, 4th,
and 5th Avenues, proposed interventions include
various streetscape improvements such as increased
crossing safety, intuitive wayfinding and signage,
enhanced lighting, and public art opportunities—
elements that work together to elevate the
pedestrian and bike experience into the heart of
downtown. Refer to Appendix B for more details.

Integrating opportunities of storytelling
through art, San José, CA
Credit: Baunfire
Elevated streetscape design to signify
entry points to downtown, San José, CA

STORYTELLING CANVAS
ACTIVATE!
LET’S GREEN
Interpretive art
showcasing the creek
Crosswalks, curb
extensions, and signage
to Downtown
Consistent tree canopy
along sidewalk and
understory planting
in the median

KEY STRATEGIES
El Camino Real / 2nd Ave
El Camino Real / 3rd Ave
El Camino Real / 5th Ave

PRECEDENTS
1 2
3 4

1. Wayfinding signage
to Caltrain station;
Boro tree lighting

2. Interpretive art featuring
Creek and ecology

3. Downtown wayfinding
signage

4. Gateway sculpture/art,
lighting, and seating
Legend
Wayfinding signage highlighting
downtown destinations, Adelaide, AUS
Coordinate signal
with De Sabla Rd
/ Baldwin Ave /
Baywood Ave

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD
Relocate
northbound
bus stop closer
to intersection
and relocate
southbound bus
stop to far side
2ND AVE
Existing Bicycle Facility
300 ft N
3RD AVE, 4TH AVE, 5TH AVE
77 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 78 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
82 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 4: 5th Ave to 28th Ave CITY OF
SAN MATEO San Mateo Spurs
El Camino Real / 25th, 28th, and 31st Ave
‘San Mateo Spurs’ increase visibility and access along El Camino Real to some of San Mateo’s most active places:

Hillsdale Caltrain Station, 25th Avenue retail, Hillsdale Mall, and Bay Meadows transit-oriented development.

At three key intersections, proposed interventions include a corner pocket plaza, lush sidewalk tree canopy along the sidewalk and understory planting in curb extensions, and decorative crossings—elements that work together with transportation improvements to elevate the public realm experience to these important destinations. Refer to Appendix B for more details. El Camino Real / 31st Ave El Camino Real / 28th Ave
El Camino Real / 25th Ave
ACTIVATE! LET’S GREEN STORYTELLING CANVAS
Corner pocket plaza
with landscape and
seating with room for
pop-up programs
Tree canopy with
understory planting
Decorative crossing
for an enhanced
pedestrian experience
Key Strategies
Corner plaza
reclaims wide
paved space to
slow down vehicle
turning and direct
attention to 25th
Avenue retail
1 Tree canopy
and wayfinding
signage support
the journey to/
from Caltrain
2 Active corners
and pedestrian
crossings leading
into current and
future developments
3 Coordinated
streetscape and
corner plaza design,
Kirkland, WA
credit: Fora
Landscape Architects
Decorative sidewalk
treatment to signify
intersections at
key corridors, San
Francisco, CA
Unless otherwise mentioned, image credit: SITELAB Urban Studio El Camino Real
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
25th Ave
28th Ave
31st Ave

PRECEDENTS
Continuous tree
canopy and
understory, Long
Island, NY
5TH AVE, 9TH AVE
BOREL AVE, 17TH AVE
Consider traffic
signal and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)
Add crosswalk
on all legs

MISSION DR
SEVILLE WAY / 10TH AVE
Add left-turn
pocket

BARNESON AVE
Move northbound
bus stop closer
to intersection
20TH AVE
Move northbound
bus stop closer
to intersection
25TH AVE
Convert to
tight diamond
interchange
SR 92
Convert to sidestreet stop control
LODATO AVE, 24TH AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
Tighten intersection
(11th Ave only)
11TH AVE, 13TH AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
Add crosswalk
on all legs
16TH AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
22ND AVE, 23RD AVE
See Segment 3 (next page)
28TH AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
Add crosswalk
on all legs
Tighten intersection
Consider closing
school driveway
to the north

ARAGON BLVD /

HAYWARD AVE
HOBART AVE / 12TH

AVE, MADISON AVE,
14TH AVE, 15TH AVE
900 ft N
Existing Bicycle Facility
79 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 80 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
83 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 5: 36th Ave to 42nd Ave CITY OF Segment 3: 28th Ave to 36th Ave SAN MATEO

CITY OF

SAN MATEO
Segment 3 South Section
Existing Bicycle Facility
650 ft N
Install protected
intersection (if
bike facilities on
El Camino)
Provide wayfinding
to Caltrain station
28TH AVE
Close east
intersection
slip lanes
Provide wayfinding
to Caltrain station

HILLSDALE BLVD
Reduce number of
lanes on El Camino
at intersection
by pushing
transition to/from
undercrossing
further south
31ST AVE
Merge southbound
lanes upstream
of intersection
36TH AVE
El Camino and Hillsdale Blvd (San Mateo)
See the previous page for the placemaking opportunity.

Merge southbound
lanes upstream
of intersection
36TH AVE
37TH AVE
38TH AVE
41ST AVE
Consider traffic
signal and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)
39TH AVE
Evaluate reducing
cross street turn
lanes through
operations analysis
42ND AVE
350 ft N
81 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 82 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
84 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 6: 42nd Ave to F St CITY OF
BELMONT Belmont Switch
El Camino Real / Ralston Ave
‘Belmont Switch’ optimizes multimodal
connectivity at the crossroads of El Camino Real
and Ralston Avenue, linking the city’s primary
activity hubs: the Caltrain station, SamTrans ECR
route, and the Belmont Village retail district.

Focused on transforming this transit node, proposed
strategies introduce quick wins (continuous street
tree canopy) and long-term ambitions (dedicated
mobility hub and other amenities to support periodic
programming on Caltrain parking lot). These design
shifts work in tandem to soften the heavy infrastructure, creating a more human-scaled, inviting environment for
commuters switching between trains, buses, bikes, cars, and foot travel. Refer to Appendix B for more details.

MOVE AND CONNECT
ACTIVATE!
LET’S GREEN
Seamless multimodal
Caltrain, dedicated bike,
and SamTrans ECR route
Support activation of
Caltrain parking lot
(e.g. year-round weekly
farmer’s market)
Understory planting
along El Camino Real and
Ralston Ave underpass
El Camino Real / Ralston Avenue

PRECEDENTS
1 1
3 2

1. *Mobility hub/Kiosk

2. Underpass lighting and art

3. *Amenities in Caltrain parking lot (e.g.
year-round weekly farmer’s market)
Legend
El Camino Real
Old County Rd
Ralston Ave
Bay Trail
Welcome kiosk and movable furnishing
to support temporary programming
and activation, San Francisco, CA
Integrating art, lighting, landscaping
at underpass, San José, CA

KEY STRATEGIES
*Long-term ambition
Mobility hub integrated at key transit
node to support mode shifts
850 ft N
Consider traffic
signal and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)

RUTH AVE

DRIVEWAYS
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP

HILL ST

WALTERMIRE ST

HARBOR BLVD

ONEILL AVE, HARBOR BLVD

RALSTON AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
Facilitate bike
connection to
underpass on F
St (if bike facilities
on El Camino)
5TH AVE

NORTH RD, ANITA AVE,

BELMONT AVE
Allow U-Turn

DAVEY GLEN RD,

MIDDLE RD
Existing Bicycle Facility
Evaluate reducing
cross street turn
lanes through
operations analysis
42ND AVE
83 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 84 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
85 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 7: F St to Edgewood Rd CITIES OF

SAN CARLOS AND REDWOOD CITY

PRECEDENTS
1 2 3

1. Multimodal facilities and
protected bike lanes

2. Scramble decorative crossing

3. Gateway lighting
Legend El Camino Real
San Carlos Ave
Decorative crossing connecting
key destinations, San José, CA
Lighting art upon entry into
downtown, Santa Monica, CA
Unless otherwise mentioned, image credit: SITELAB Urban Studio Streetscape design
supportive of safe transition
between modes, Seattle, WA
credit: Green Lane Project
San Carlos Front Porch
El Camino Real / San Carlos Ave
‘San Carlos Front Porch’ creates a welcoming
connection across El Camino Real to the San
Carlos Caltrain Station through a highly visible,
decorative crosswalk, gateway lighting that
frames this critical intersection, and understory
planting that enlivens the median and provides
a buffer alongside separated bike lanes.

Collectively, these elements support pedestrian and
cyclist connections between nearby bus stops and the
Caltrain Station. Refer to Appendix B for more details. El Camino Real / San Carlos Ave Key Strategies
STORYTELLING CANVAS MOVE + CONNECT LET’S GREEN
Decorative crossing
and gateway lighting
Diagonal crossing and
bike infrastructure for
Caltrain connection
Understory planting in
median and bike buffer
Consider traffic
signal and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)
OAK ST
Coordinate signal
with Old County Rd

HOWARD AVE
Install protected
intersection (if
bike facilities on
El Camino)

SAN CARLOS AVE

OLIVE ST, MORSE BLVD

WHITE OAK WAY, CENTRAL

AVE, AVONDALE AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP

BELMONT AVE
Install crossing
with Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon

MIDBLOCK

SPRING ST

ARROYO AVE

BRITTAN AVE

HOLLY ST
900 ft N
Remove
southbound left
turn pocket

SPRING ST
City Boundary
Existing Bicycle Facility
Consider HighIntensity Activated
Crosswalk signal
or full traffic signal
and perform ISOAP

FINGER AVE, EDGEWOOD RD
85 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 86 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
86 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 8: Edgewood Rd to Brewster Ave REDWOOD CITY

PRECEDENTS
1 1
2 3

1. Active ground floors with gateway signage

2. Healthy tree canopy for shade and comfort

3. Multimodal facilities and protected bike lanes
Legend
Brewster Ave
El Camino Real
Perry St Active ground floor and vibrant
streetscape furnishings with
tree canopy, San Francisco, CA
Decorative art to enhance
multimodal experiences,
San Francisco, CA
credit: SFMTA
Unless otherwise mentioned, image credit: SITELAB Urban Studio Active retail along street
corners, Austin, TX
ACTIVATE!
Active ground floor retail
and gateway signage to
the new Caltrain Station
Redwood City Portal
El Camino Real / Brewster Ave
‘Redwood City Portal,’ located at El Camino Real and
Brewster Avenue, amplifies the sense of arrival to the
city’s new Transit District and elevated Caltrain station.

Given the potential for new development with active
ground floors on all corners of this intersection, proposed interventions focus on enhancing the sidewalk through
generous, continuous tree canopy. Gateway signage
and pedestrian lighting further highlight this important transit transfer point between SamTrans ECR and
Caltrain. Refer to Appendix B for more details. El Camino Real / Brewster Ave Key Strategies
MOVE + CONNECT LET’S GREEN
Seamless multimodal
Caltrain, dedicated
bike, and SamTrans
ECR route
Three rows of trees
and bike buffers for
shade and comfort
Consider HighIntensity Activated
Crosswalk signal
or full traffic signal
and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)

EDGEWOOD RD
Remove
parking bay

CLAREMONT AVE
300 ft N

WHIPPLE AVE

HOPKINS AVE

BREWSTER AVE
Existing Bicycle Facility
87 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 88 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
87 Next Steps
5 Next Steps
Caltrans Project
Development Process
All of the design concepts listed
in this Plan will be advanced into
the Caltrans project development
process. This process begins with
the Project Initiation Document,
which kicked off in 2026.

The vision for El Camino Real established
by the Central El Camino Real Plan will
serve as the foundation for designs that
will continue to be refined through the
Caltrans project development process. The
Grand Boulevard Initiative team will use the
outcomes of the Central El Camino Real Plan
to develop county-wide corridor alternatives.

All the design concepts listed in this Plan
will be advanced into the Caltrans project
development process, illustrated in Figure

5.1. This process begins with the Project
Initiation Document, which kicked off in 2026.

Following this study, SamTrans will continue to
lead GBI, coordinating across the fifteen local
jurisdictions along El Camino Real in San Mateo
County. SamTrans and SMCTA will coordinate
the countywide Caltrans project development
process, including creating a comprehensive
strategy for implementation, phasing, and
funding. Jointly, SamTrans and SMCTA will
consider sponsoring the future phases of work,
shown in Figure 5.2, to maintain momentum
and reduce the burden for local jurisdictions
in funding and implementing the project.

Throughout these future phases, GBI will
remain a forum to facilitate collaboration
between Caltrans, SamTrans, SMCTA, city
staff, and other stakeholders. This ongoing
collaboration will help resolve key questions
such as roles and responsibilities during
design and construction, development of
low-stress parallel facilities for bicyclists
where bike facilities are not provided on
El Camino Real to ensure a countywide
backbone network, approaches to optimizing
traffic operations, and developing standard
maintenance agreements that agencies
can use to advance transportation projects
more easily in partnership with Caltrans.

Extensive community engagement
will occur during Project Approval and
Environmental Document (PA&ED), which
is slated to occur in 2027-2028, as the
preferred alternative for each jurisdiction
will be determined during this phase.

City councils and other key stakeholders will
stay engaged through regular updates and will
weigh in at major decision points to make sure
the project balances local and regional goals.

Project Initiation
Document (PID)
Define scope, cost,
schedule, and analysis
approach
Project Approval
& Environmental
Document (PA&ED)
Preferred alternative,
environmental analysis,
and public engagement
Plans,
Specifications, &
Estimates (PS&E)
Design project
Construction
2026 2027-28 2030+
GBI Action Plan
& Local Corridor Studies
2028-29
Funding &
Phasing Strategy
Figure 5.1. Caltrans Project Development Process Timeline

CALTR ANS PROJEC T

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
El Camino Real and Ralston Ave (Belmont)
Build project
89 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 9088 Next Steps
Figure 5.2. Caltrans Process Approach
Project Initiation Document (PID)
2026–2027, CURRENT PHASE
The PID is the first formal phase of the Caltrans project development process.

It defines the scope of potential changes to be studied in later phases but does not settle on a final design. The main goals of this phase are to:
↘ Define the project’s purpose and need: identify the transportation problem to be solved (the need) and the goals for addressing it (the purpose). ↘ Define the study area, project scope, cost
estimate, schedule, and known risks.
↘ Identify the project alternatives to be carried forward for detailed study.

Project Approval & Environmental
Document (PA&ED)
2027–2028
Once the PID is approved, the alternatives move into detailed analysis and environmental review to select a preferred design alternative for each jurisdiction. Extensive community engagement will occur during Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED), which is slated to occur in 2027-2028, as the preferred alternative for each jurisdiction will be determined during this phase. This phase includes:
↘ Detailed analysis of how each alternative would affect traffic operations for all road users, and safety at intersections and along the corridor. ↘ Community and city council engagement to gather
feedback on the alternatives and analysis results, and
to gauge support for a preferred option.
↘ Environmental studies to assess potential impacts.
↘ Selection of a preferred design by Caltrans based
on the analysis and community input.

Plans, Specifications, & Estimate (PS&E)
2028–2029
The preferred design then moves into detailed engineering.

This phase is more technical, and includes developing:
↘ Preliminary layouts and roadway cross-sections, estimating quantities of materials needed, and coordinating with the teams responsible for structures, utilities, and property (right-of-way) needs. ↘ Detailed plans and construction specifications are combined into a complete set of construction documents.

Construction will follow this phase and is estimated to begin in 2030 or later.

Funding Sources
Beginning in late 2026, the SMCTA
will partner with SamTrans and the
broader GBI Task Force to develop
an implementation, phasing and
funding strategy that further analyzes
opportunities to fund countywide
El Camino Real improvements. As
documented in the GBI Action Plan,
funding from San Mateo County’s
Measure A and Measure W, which is
distributed by SMCTA, is anticipated
to be the main funding source for
improvements to El Camino Real. As
a project of countywide significance,
SMCTA may fund up to half of project
costs. SMCTA’s Highway Call for Projects
is expected to be the primary funding
source, however the agency’s Pedestrian
and Bicycle Program, Transportation
Demand Management Program, and
Regional Transit Connections Program
are possible funding sources for smallerscale, more focused projects. Other funding sources could include:
↘ Federal opportunities: 5307 Formula
funds, Capital Infrastructure Grants
(CIG) Small Starts Program, earmarks
↘ State opportunities: Local Partnership,
Solutions for Congested Corridors,
Active Transportation Programs (ATP)
↘ Regional opportunities: Regional
Measure 3, ATP Regional Share,
Bus Accelerated Infrastructure
Delivery (BusAID)
For more information on these funding
sources and applicability to the project,
please see the GBI Action Plan.

El Camino Real and Holly St (San Carlos)
91 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 9289 90 SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
Grand Boulevard Initiative &
Central El Camino Real Plan
City of Belmont City Council – September 8, 2026
SamTrans
Cassie Halls, Project Manager, SamTrans
Erin Ferguson, Fehr & Peers
Michaela Petrik, Government and Community Affairs, SamTrans City of Belmont
Josh Sun, Senior Civil Engineer
Carlos de Melo, Community Development Director
91 Request of City Council
Receive an informational presentation on the Central
El Camino Real Multimodal Plan
Adopt a resolution to continue to support SamTrans'
efforts in coordinating with Caltrans to implement
complete street improvements on El Camino Real
92 Agenda

1. Central El Camino Plan

2. Community Engagement

3. Belmont’s Conceptual
Alternative Cross Sections

4. Next Steps
3 93
Central El Camino Real
Multimodal Plan
94 The Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan:

Envisioning a Vibrant Corridor
Project Overview and Purpose
The Central El Camino Real Plan is working to create
a shared vision for El Camino Real across the cities of Belmont, San Carlos, San Mateo, and a small
portion of Redwood City
The goal of this project is to improve El Camino Real
to better serve people walking, biking, and taking
transit
The Plan will be advanced as part of a
countywide Caltrans project development process
facilitated by the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI)
5 95
We Are Here
Central El Camino Real Plan Timeline
6 Project Overview and Purpose
Needs Assessment Alternatives Development Community Input on Conceptual Alternatives
Narrowing
down alternatives to be
advanced
2025 2026
Community Engagement
Phase 1 (May – Aug) Phase 2 (Jan – Mar) Phase 3 (Aug – Sep) Online Survey
Virtual Listening Sessions
Pop-Ups
Virtual Workshop
CBO Outreach
City Council
Online Mapping Tool
Virtual Listening Sessions
Pop-Ups
Walk Audits
Community Based
Organization (CBO) Outreach
City Council
City Council
Stakeholder Engagement
Continuous Collaboration with City Staff and Caltrans
Preferred
corridor-wide
alternative
selected in
GBI/Caltrans
process
2027
96 The Central El Camino Plan is a part of the
larger "Grand Boulevard Initiative" or GBI
Every city in San Mateo County has been working on complete streets studies for El Camino.

In parallel, GBI serves as a forum for collaboration and continuity across these local studies.
7 Every city in San Mateo County
has been working on complete
streets studies for El Camino
Real.

In parallel, GBI serves as a
forum for collaboration and
continuity across these local
studies.

Community Based Organization
Meeting at Catholic Charities
Example of a completed corridor
study from Redwood City
97 GBI Funding Approach
Up to $1B
Rough order of magnitude cost for
up to 22 miles of streetscape redesign ($2025)
Up to $500M
Up to 50% of total project costs from
SMCTA Measure A & W Program
SMCTA considers
local requests to
sponsor projects
Up to $500M
Funding Need
Federal
Opportunities
8 State
Opportunities
Regional
Opportunities
Overall GBI Program
Funding Breakdown
Next Steps
Redesigning El Camino Real will be one of San Mateo County’s largest transportation projects.
98 Community Engagement
99 What Engagement
Looked Like
SamTrans led engagement in three phases for the entire
project area in partnership with the Central cities
Activities included:
• Pop-ups
• Virtual listening sessions
• Community Based Organization (CBO) meetings
• Online community survey
• Walk audits
• Stakeholder presentations (including Rotary)
• Virtual community workshop
10 Community Engagement
Peninsula Family Service CBO Meeting
Walk Audit Participants in San Mateo
100
Phase 1 Interactive Web
Map (830 responses)
Phase 2 Online
Survey (701 responses)
11 Community Engagement
Online Engagement Methods
101
Key takeaways for
whole study area
Key takeaways for
Belmont
• Congestion along El Camino Real at crossstreets leading to US-101 • Need for separated bike facilities
• Consensus on need for safer pedestrian
crossings with increased visibility
• Need for bus stop amenities, higher bus
frequencies and better infrastructure
• Desire for more trees to provide shade
Community Engagement
What We Heard from the Public
“Bike lanes on El
Camino Real would
be a big help here.”
“Give back the street
to the pedestrians
and people on bikes."
• Preference for bicycle alternative
and interest in improved bike
connectivity between cities
• Need for improved pedestrian
environment and safety
• Interest in bus and bike option
• Mixed opinions on parking
importance
12 “Please keep parking on both sides
of El Camino”
“Eliminate the
parking and give a
bus-only lane."
102
Conceptual Alternatives
103
Building Upon
Belmont’s Efforts
The Central El Camino Plan provides
an opportunity to incorporate input
from Belmont’s efforts related to El
Camino Real over the years: • Belmont Village Specific Plan (2017)
• Comprehensive Bike Ped Plan
(2016)
• SamTrans Bus Speed and
Reliability Study (2022)
14 Policy Context
104
Alignment with
Changing Land Uses
Most commercial zoning in Belmont is
centered on El Camino Real or east of US
101
Potential future mixed-commercial uses,
jobs and housing anticipated within
adjacent Harbor Industrial Area (HIA)
Additional higher-density residential
land uses anticipated along El Camino
Real
15 Policy Context
In the next 10 years, Belmont will potentially see
3K new residents

2.6k jobs created
within ½ mile of El Camino Real
105
Belmont Cross Sections: 42nd Avenue to F Street
Alternatives
16 106
Placemaking Opportunities:

El Camino Real/Ralston Ave
17 These placemaking concepts are for future discussion only. Specific design, costs, as well as roles/responsibilities for maintenance have not yet been determined.
107
Next Steps: Belmont
108
Project Milestones
19 Project Phase Proposed Timeline Topic of Discussion
Phase 1 EngagementCentral El Camino PlanMay – Aug 2025 Existing Conditions Phase 2 Engagement –
Central El Camino Plan
Jan – Feb 2026 Concept alternatives
Phase 3 Engagement –
Central El Camino Plan
Aug - Sept 2026 Narrowing
down alternatives
(minor mods for
Belmont with focus on
bike/ped improvements)
Project Initiation
Document (PID)
2026-2027 Minor refining of
alternatives
Project Approvals and
Environmental Document
(PA&ED)
2027-2028 Selecting a preferred
alternative
Project Specifications and
Estimates (PS&E)
2028-2029 Feedback on specific
19 design details 109
Upcoming Milestones
20 Project Phase Proposed Timeline Topic of Discussion
Phase 1 EngagementCentral El Camino PlanMay – Aug 2025 Existing Conditions Phase 2 Engagement –
Central El Camino Plan
Jan – Feb 2026 Concept alternatives
Phase 3 Engagement –
Central El Camino Plan
Aug - Sept 2026 Narrowing
down alternatives
Project Initiation
Document (PID)
2026-2027 Refining alternatives
Project Approvals and
Environmental
Document (PA&ED)
2027-2028 Selecting a preferred
alternative for the
corridor
Project Specifications and
Estimates (PS&E)
2028-2029 Feedback on specific
design details 20 110
Request of City Council
Receive an informational presentation on the Central
El Camino Real Multimodal Plan
Adopt a resolution to continue to support SamTrans'
efforts in coordinating with Caltrans to implement
complete street improvements on El Camino Real
21 111
Thank You!
Visit samtrans.com/CentralElCamino for more information. 112

Community Center Project - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT

Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Afshin Oskoui, City Manager, [email protected] Agenda Title: Community Center Project Authorization of Design-Build Procurement, Evaluation of Delivery Options, and Direction to Explore a Project Labor Agreement Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to establish a design-build delivery framework for the Community Center Project and to evaluate whether conventional design-build or progressive design-build provides the best delivery approach as the project definition, funding strategy, schedule, risk profile, and market conditions become clearer. 1) Authorize use of a design-build delivery method for the Community Center Project pursuant to applicable California Public Contract Code authority.
2) Authorize staff to evaluate conventional design-build and progressive design-build and recommend the approach that best serves the City's interests. 3) Authorize preparation of the applicable procurement documents, evaluation criteria, conflict-ofinterest guidelines, bonding, insurance, and contract requirements. 4) Authorize staff to begin evaluating and, if appropriate, negotiating a project-specific Project Labor Agreement (PLA) in connection with the selected design-build delivery method. 5) Require any proposed PLA and the final design-build procurement strategy to return to the City Council for approval at the appropriate stage before the City is contractually committed to construction.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
The City has been working toward addressing the long-term needs of its community center facilities, including deferred maintenance, aging infrastructure, functional limitations, and evolving community program needs.

The community has expressed a clear interest in addressing the condition and program needs of the existing center and determining a sustainable long-term solution. A citizen-led parcel tax measure is appearing on the November 2026 ballot that, if approved, will provide a funding source to invest in the community center.

The City should be prepared to act efficiently if the community provides the resources necessary to move forward. That means establishing the basic project delivery strategy and procurement framework before 113

Community Center Project - Staff Report
funding is available, rather than beginning that work after an election.

The proposed action is therefore intended as a preparatory and efficient step. It does not prejudge the final project scope, cost, financing, or construction decision. It establishes the tools and decision framework necessary to move from funding authorization to implementation in a disciplined manner.

The current project concept contemplates a new or substantially modernized Community Center that can safely and effectively serve Belmont residents for generations to come. The project is intended to address the facility's long-term infrastructure and safety needs, including bringing the facility into compliance with modern seismic, electrical, fire-life-safety, and accessibility standards, while incorporating resiliency features that would allow the Center to serve as a community resource and emergency response facility when needed. The final project scope and program will be subject to further development, funding availability, environmental review, and future City Council direction.

Analysis
Preparing Now to Deliver if Funding Becomes Available
The City's objective should be straightforward: if the community provides the funding necessary to address these long-standing needs, the City should be ready to execute.

A project of this magnitude will require significant planning before construction can begin. Procurement strategy, project requirements, site and facility planning, cost estimating, labor requirements, environmental review, financing, community engagement, and construction risk allocation all need to be addressed.

Beginning this work now does not commit the City to construction. It allows the City to establish the framework within which those decisions can be made.

The Community Center should address both deferred maintenance and current and future program needs.

The goal should not simply be to replace an aging facility, but to create a facility and operating model that is functional, flexible, sustainable, and capable of serving the community for decades.

The design-build delivery model provides a framework for integrating design and construction expertise.

Within that framework, the City has two potentially appropriate approaches: conventional design-build and progressive design-build.

Design-Build as the Overall Delivery Strategy
Under design-build, the City contracts with a single entity responsible for both design and construction.

This can provide greater integration between design, constructability, scheduling, and cost than traditional design-bid-build.

Staff believes design-build is worthy of consideration for the Community Center because of the project's anticipated size, complexity, multiple facility components, and need to coordinate site, building, program, schedule, and cost decisions.
114

Community Center Project - Staff Report
The proposed Council action intentionally does not select the precise form of design-build at this stage.

Staff recommends preserving flexibility to select either conventional design-build or progressive designbuild after further project definition and evaluation of the City's objectives.

Conventional Design-Build
Conventional design-build generally involves selecting a design-build entity through a procurement process based on established project requirements and then proceeding through design and construction under the resulting contract.
• It may provide a relatively straightforward procurement and contract structure once the City's program and performance requirements are sufficiently defined. • It may provide stronger price and schedule commitments earlier in the process. • It can be appropriate where the owner has a well-developed program, performance requirements, and scope before procurement.
• It may require the City to resolve more scope and program decisions before selecting the designbuild entity.

Progressive Design-Build
Progressive design-build selects the design-build entity at an earlier stage based primarily on qualifications. The City and selected team then work together through design and preconstruction to further develop the project and establish a Guaranteed Maximum Price. • It provides earlier construction expertise during design and project definition. • It allows the City and design-build team to evaluate scope, constructability, schedule, market conditions, and cost together.
• It can be particularly useful where project requirements or design solutions are still evolving. • It requires a more involved owner-side process and strong project management, cost estimating, and negotiation capabilities.
• The City retains an important decision point before proceeding to construction at the negotiated GMP.

The appropriate choice should be based on the level of project definition, the City's desired level of control, schedule, market conditions, risk allocation, anticipated competition, and the City's ability to administer the selected process.

State Law And SB 935
California law provides separate statutory authorities for design-build and progressive design-build procurement by qualifying local agencies. Staff will work with the City Attorney to identify the authority and procurement requirements applicable to the selected delivery method.

Public Contract Code Chapter 4.7 currently authorizes qualifying local agencies to use progressive designbuild for up to 10 public works projects in excess of $5 million each. The current Chapter 4.7 authority has a January 1, 2030, sunset under Section 22185.11.
115

Community Center Project - Staff Report
SB 935, signed in 2026, affects the City's broader design-build authority by removing the January 1, 2031, sunset applicable to the separate local-agency design-build authorization. It does not, by itself, remove the current sunset applicable to Chapter 4.7 progressive design-build authority.

Staff will continue to monitor legislative developments and will confirm the specific statutory pathway, required procurement process, and applicable thresholds with the City Attorney before the solicitation is released.

Project Labor Agreement Consideration
The City also has an opportunity to evaluate whether a project-specific PLA would provide sufficient value for the Community Center to justify its cost and administrative requirements.

A PLA is a project-specific pre-hire collective bargaining agreement establishing terms and conditions for construction labor. Depending on the negotiated agreement, it may address labor stability, dispute resolution, work rules, apprenticeship, workforce development, and no-strike/no-lockout provisions.

A PLA is not a prerequisite to selecting design-build generally. Its relationship to the selected delivery method, including any skilled-and-trained-workforce requirements applicable to the procurement, should be evaluated by staff in partnership with labor. Staff is therefore not recommending approval of a PLA at this time. Staff recommends beginning the evaluation early enough to understand potential terms, costs, contractor participation, workforce benefits, and administrative requirements before the procurement strategy is finalized.

PLA Parameters for Council Consideration
• Project-specific. Any PLA should apply only to the Community Center Project. • Labor stability. Evaluate no-strike/no-lockout and dispute-resolution provisions appropriate to the Project.
• Workforce development. Evaluate apprenticeship and training opportunities consistent with State law.
• Community benefits. Identify appropriate local or targeted workforce outcomes, define measurable objectives before procurement. PLAs also seek to establish and stabilize wages, hours, and working conditions for workers employed, thereby helping to improve the quality of work and safety on the project and increasing potential economic opportunities for residents throughout San Mateo County.
• Contractor participation. Assess the potential effect on the pool of prime contractors and subcontractors, including small and non-union firms.
• Cost transparency. Evaluate potential effects on labor costs, subcontractor pricing, competition, and total project cost.
• Administrative capacity. Identify compliance monitoring, reporting, labor relations, and contract administration requirements and determine how they would be resourced. • Council approval. Return any negotiated PLA to Council for final approval before it becomes part of the procurement or contract documents.
116

Community Center Project - Staff Report
Why Address These Issues Now
If the November parcel tax measure is approved, the City could move quickly from funding authorization into project implementation. Waiting until after the election to determine the procurement and labor strategy could add months to the schedule and create avoidable uncertainty.

Conversely, evaluating these issues now does not commit the City to a particular project scope, delivery method, PLA, or construction cost. It allows the City to do the planning work necessary to make those decisions deliberately.

This is consistent with the City's responsibility to be prepared to execute. If the community provides the resources to address long-standing deferred maintenance and program needs, the City should have a clear path to move forward efficiently, transparently, and responsibly.

There is no direct construction expenditure or construction appropriation associated with this authorization. There will be project development costs for procurement preparation, legal review, Owner's Representative services, and potentially specialized labor counsel or compliance support.

Those costs are appropriately viewed as preparatory project development costs necessary to position the City to proceed efficiently if funding becomes available. The City Council will retain future decision points concerning project scope, funding, design-build selection, negotiated price or GMP, PLA approval, construction authorization, and associated appropriations.

Environmental Review
Authorization of a procurement framework and evaluation of delivery methods do not themselves approve construction or commit the City to a definite course of action affecting the physical environment. Projectlevel environmental review will be completed in accordance with applicable law before an action requiring such review is taken.

Next Steps
• Finalize the project delivery strategy and criteria for selecting conventional and progressive design-build.
• Prepare the applicable RFQ/RFP and procurement documents. • Develop the required evaluation criteria, conflict-of-interest guidelines, bonding, insurance, and contract requirements.
• Evaluate project schedule, scope definition, cost estimating, market conditions, risk allocation, and anticipated contractor competition.
• Initiate consultation with the City's financial advisor and bond counsel to evaluate potential financing and bond issuance strategies, establish preliminary fiscal parameters, and develop a funding framework that aligns the anticipated project scope with potential future revenues. • Begin discussions regarding a potential project-specific PLA. • Evaluate the PLA's potential cost, contractor participation, administrative requirements, labor stability, and workforce benefits.
• Return to Council with the recommended design-build delivery method and proposed procurement 117

Community Center Project - Staff Report
documents before release.
• Continue project planning, program development, community engagement, environmental review, and funding strategy so the City is positioned to proceed efficiently if the November funding measure is approved.
• Return any proposed PLA to Council for final consideration and approval.

The Community Center represents a significant long-term investment in the City's facilities and in the services the City provides to the community.

The immediate question before Council is not whether to build the Project or commit the City to a particular construction cost. It is whether the City should put the appropriate delivery framework in place now so it can move efficiently if the community provides the necessary funding. Staff believes designbuild provides a strong overall delivery framework for consideration. Whether conventional design-build or progressive design-build is ultimately the better fit should be determined after further project definition and evaluation of cost, schedule, risk, market conditions, competition, and the City's administrative capacity.

Similarly, staff believes it is appropriate to evaluate a project-specific PLA now, while there is sufficient time to understand its potential benefits, costs, administrative requirements, and effect on contractor participation.

The proposed action positions the City to be ready. If the community approves the funding measure in November, the City should be able to move from funding to implementation with a clear strategy rather than spending the first several months determining how to organize the project.

The purpose of today's action is not to commit the City to construction. It is to make sure the City is prepared to deliver when and if the community provides the resources to do so.

Alternatives

1. Take No Action

2. Provide direction to evaluate other options
Attachments
A. Resolution
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact authorizing staff to establish a delivery framework for the Community Center Project. This action positions the City to be ready to execute, if the community provides the funding necessary to address the longstanding needs of the community center. ☐ Funding Source Confirmed:
118

Community Center Project - Staff Report
Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Council Vision/Priority Posting of Agenda
119

RESOLUTION NO. 2026 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

AUTHORIZING DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY

CENTER PROJECT, AUTHORIZING STAFF TO EVALUATE THE APPROPRIATE

DESIGN-BUILD DELIVERY METHOD, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO EVALUATE A

PROJECT-SPECIFIC PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Belmont ("City") is a general law city organized and existing under the laws of the State of California; and,
WHEREAS, the City has been evaluating the long-term needs of its community center facilities, including deferred maintenance, aging infrastructure, functional limitations, and evolving community program needs; and,
WHEREAS, the City is developing a capital project that may include a Community Center, Aquatics Facility, Gymnasium, and associated site improvements, subject to final program development, funding availability, environmental review, and future City Council action (the “Project”); and,
WHEREAS, a citizen-led parcel tax measure is presented to Belmont voters in November 2026 that, if approved, may provide a funding source for major community investments for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City desires to establish an efficient project delivery and procurement framework in advance so that, if funding becomes available, the City can proceed efficiently from funding authorization to project development, procurement, design, and construction; and, WHEREAS, California law authorizes qualifying local agencies to use design-build procurement for eligible public works projects, subject to applicable statutory requirements; and, WHEREAS, California Public Contract Code Chapter 4.7 separately authorizes qualifying local agencies to use progressive design-build for up to 10 public works projects in excess of $5 million each, subject to the requirements of that chapter; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to preserve flexibility to select conventional design-build or progressive design-build based on the final project requirements, funding strategy, schedule, risk allocation, market conditions, anticipated competition, and the City's administrative capacity; and,
WHEREAS, any proposed Project Labor Agreement would be subject to separate review and approval by the City Council before becoming part of the Project procurement or contract documents; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council understands that this authorization does not approve construction, a Guaranteed Maximum Price, a Project Labor Agreement, an appropriation of construction funding, or a final Project scope; and,
120

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 935 (2026) affects the City's broader design-build authority but does not eliminate the current statutory sunset applicable to progressive design-build under Public Contract Code Chapter 4.7; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize staff to proceed with the preparatory procurement and project-delivery actions necessary to position the City to move efficiently should funding for the Project become available.

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

SECTION 1. Design-Build Delivery Framework. The City Council authorizes staff to establish a design-build delivery framework for the Project pursuant to applicable California Public Contract Code authority, subject to all applicable statutory requirements.

SECTION 2. Evaluation of Delivery Method. The City Manager, or designee, in consultation with City Attorney, is authorized to evaluate conventional design-build and progressive design-build and recommend the delivery method that best serves the City's interests based on project definition, cost, schedule, risk allocation, market conditions, anticipated competition, funding, and administrative capacity.

SECTION 3. Procurement Documents. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to prepare the procurement documents applicable to the recommended design-build delivery method, including evaluation criteria, qualifications requirements, conflict-of-interest guidelines, bonding, insurance, and contract requirements. The proposed solicitation and evaluation framework shall return to the City Council for review and approval before release.

SECTION 4. Project Labor Agreement Evaluation. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to engage in discussions with appropriate building and construction trades representatives and labor counsel regarding the potential terms and feasibility of a projectspecific Project Labor Agreement (PLA).

SECTION 5. PLA Evaluation Criteria. The evaluation of a potential PLA shall consider, as appropriate, labor stability, dispute resolution, apprenticeship and workforce development, community workforce objectives, contractor and subcontractor participation, project cost, administrative requirements, compliance monitoring, and other factors affecting the City's best interests.

SECTION 6. No Approval of PLA. Nothing in this Resolution constitutes approval of a Project Labor Agreement. Any proposed PLA shall return to the City Council for separate consideration and approval before it is incorporated into the Project procurement or contract documents.

SECTION 7. No Construction Authorization. Nothing in this Resolution constitutes approval of a construction contract, Guaranteed Maximum Price, final Project scope, appropriation of construction funding, or authorization to commence construction. 121

SECTION 8. Future Council Actions. Selection of a design-build entity, approval of a negotiated price or Guaranteed Maximum Price, approval of any PLA, authorization of construction, and any associated appropriation or funding authorization shall be presented to the City Council for separate consideration as required.

SECTION 9. Legislative Monitoring. Staff is directed to monitor legislative developments affecting design-build and progressive design-build procurement and to advise the City Council of material changes affecting the Project procurement strategy.

SECTION 10. CEQA. This Resolution authorizes a procurement framework and preparatory project-delivery actions and does not itself approve construction or commit the City to a definite course of action affecting the physical environment. The City shall complete any environmental review required by applicable law before taking an action that constitutes approval of the Project or otherwise requires environmental review. * * *
ADOPTED September 8, 2026 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
122

COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT
Afshin Oskoui
City Manager
September 8, 2026
Design-Build Procurement Framework & Project Labor Agreement Evaluation 123
Community Center Project
Preparing Belmont to Move from Community Investment to Project Delivery • The existing Community Center has significant deferred maintenance, aging infrastructure, and program limitations.
• The community has expressed a desire to address these needs and ensure the facility can safely serve Belmont for generations to come.
• A future project should address seismic, electrical, fire-life-safety, and accessibility requirements, while incorporating resiliency features that allow the facility to support the community during emergencies.
• If the November 2026 Measure Y is approved, the City should be positioned to move efficiently from funding authorization to project implementation.

What is before Council today
 Establish the framework now so the City is ready to move forward if the community provides the resources to do so. 124
Why Act Now
The citizen-led Measure Y on the November 2026 ballot could fund the Community Center. Establishing the delivery framework now — before an election — lets the City move efficiently if voters approve.

TODAY
Sept 8, 2026
Council authorizes delivery framework &
PLA evaluation
→

ELECTION
Nov 2026
Voters decide on the parcel tax funding
measure
→

IF APPROVED
Early 2027
City moves directly from funding to
procurement — no delay
This action does not commit the City to construction, scope, or cost — it prepares the tools to decide efficiently.

Community Center Project | City Council | September 8, 2026 3 125
Design-Bid-Build (DBB) Design-Build (DB) Progressive Design-Build (PDB)
Basic Model Design first → bid → construct One team designs + constructs Design-build team selected
early, scope & price developed
progressively
Contract Structure 2 contracts: Designer +
Contractor 1 contract: Design-Builder 1 contract: Design-Builder, with progressive pricing
Designer / Contractor
Relationship Separate Integrated Integrated from the outset Price Certainty High at bid, but changes can
occur during construction
Established earlier, but design
assumptions may drive risk
Developed collaboratively as
design advances
Owner Control Highest during design Less direct design control High early involvement and decision control
Risk Allocation Owner retains more
design/interface risk
More risk transferred to
Design-Builder
Risk identified and allocated
collaboratively
Collaboration Sequential / limited High Very high / continuous Speed to Construction Typically slower Faster
Can accelerate while
maintaining owner
involvement
Flexibility / Innovation Lower High High
Best Fit Well-defined, conventional
projects
Projects where speed and
single-point responsibility are
priorities
Complex projects where scope,
risks and solutions need to
evolve
Design-Build as the Delivery Strategy
Project Delivery Methods: At a Glance
126
Bottom-line message
 DBB: “Design it. Bid it. Build it.”
 DB: “One team. One contract. Faster delivery.”
 PDB: “Select the team early. Collaborate on the solution. Establish the price with greater certainty.”
For a complex public project: Progressive Design-Build can provide a useful middle ground, combining early contractor expertise and collaboration with owner involvement, design development, and progressive cost/risk validation.

Design-Build as the Delivery Strategy
Project Delivery Methods: At a Glance
127
Two Paths Forward
Staff recommends preserving flexibility to choose the better fit after further evaluation.

Conventional Design-Build
Select after requirements are defined
Straightforward procurement once
program is defined
Stronger price & schedule commitments
earlier
Best where scope is already well
developed
Requires more decisions resolved before
selection
Progressive Design-Build
Select early, develop together
Construction expertise engaged earlier in
design
Team evaluates scope, cost & schedule
together
Well suited when requirements are still
evolving
Requires strong owner-side project
management
Community Center Project | City Council | September 8, 2026 5 128
Project Labor Agreement: Evaluate & Return to Council
Staff is recommending only authorization to begin evaluating a project-specific agreement alongside the design-build decision. Any negotiated PLA returns to Council for approval.

Project-specific
Applies only to the
Community Center
Project
Labor stability
No-strike / no-lockout &
dispute-resolution
provisions
Workforce
development
Apprenticeship &
training opportunities
Community benefits
Measurable local &
targeted workforce
outcomes
Contractor
participation
Effect on prime &
subcontractor pool, incl.
non-union firms
Cost transparency
Effect on labor costs,
pricing & competition
Administrative capacity
Compliance monitoring
& contract
administration needs
Council approval
Any negotiated PLA
returns for final approval
Community Center Project | City Council | September 8, 2026 6 129
Develop evaluation criteria, bonding & insurance
requirements
Fiscal Impact & Next Steps – Upon Voter Approval

NO CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION
This action authorizes preparatory project
development costs only — procurement
preparation, legal review, Owner's Representative
services, and potential labor counsel or
compliance support.

Council retains future decision points on:

Project scope • Funding • Design-build selection
• Negotiated price / GMP • PLA approval •
Construction authorization
Next Steps
1 Finalize delivery strategy & selection criteria
2 Prepare RFQ/RFP program and procurement documents
3 4 Consult financial advisor & bond counsel on financing strategy
5 Begin PLA discussions & evaluate cost, terms, workforce benefits
6 Return to Council with recommended delivery method & PLA Community Center Project | City Council | September 8, 2026 7 130
The Recommendation
Adopt a resolution authorizing staff to establish a design-build framework and evaluate a Project Labor Agreement — so the City is ready to act if November funding is approved. 1 Authorize design-build Use design-build delivery for the Community Center Project under Public Contract Code authority.
2 Evaluate both approaches Assess conventional vs. progressive design-build and recommend the best fit.
3 Prepare procurement strategies Develop evaluation criteria, conflict-of-interest rules, bonding, insurance, and contract terms.
4 Explore a Project Labor Agreement Begin evaluating — not approving — a project-specific PLA alongside the delivery method.
5 Return to Council before commitment Final PLA terms and procurement strategy come back for approval before any construction contract.

Community Center Project | City Council | September 8, 2026 2 131
Be Ready to Deliver
This action doesn't commit Belmont to construction — it ensures the City can move efficiently from funding to implementation if voters approve the November measure.

Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution. 132
Thank you!
belmont.gov
Questions & Discussion
133