RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD TO APPROVE GRANTS FROM THE FY 2025-26
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT
OF $129,500; AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER OR
DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE GRANT
PROGRAM, AS NEEDED
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2002, citizens voted in a general election to amend Ordinance No. 707, Chapter 5.04 of the municipal code, changing the business license tax from a flat rate to a gross receipts tax structure; and WHEREAS, as part of the 2002 ballot measure to restructure the City’s business license tax, the voters also approved the creation of a Business License Tax Program (“Program”) that would allocate 20% of total business license tax revenues to grants awarded to projects that support marketing, promotion, and economic development within Brentwood; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, the City Council approved a Priority Events Category for funding through the Economic Development Grant Program; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2014, the City Council approved the continued funding of the designated Priority Events; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2016, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2016- 27, to continue funding the designated Priority Events from the Economic Development Grant Program in the amount of $54,000, and also approved a scoring system to streamline the approval process; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2016, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2016-165, for the continued funding of the Priority Events Category for the 2017- 2018 Economic Development Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2018, by Resolution No. 2018-03, the City Council approved the continued funding of the Priority Events category funding for the Economic Development Grant Program for fiscal years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2018, by Resolution No. 2018-20, the City Council approved the addition of Harvest Time in Brentwood to the Economic Development Grant Program’s Priority Events category to fund the annual Harvest Time Trail Map and Mobile App for fiscal years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2018, by Resolution No. 2018-73, the City Council approved grant funding in the amount of $124,721 for fiscal year 2018-2019, and
also approved the removal the Brentwood Arts Society (Art, Wine and Jazz Festival) from the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 Priority Events category; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2020, by Resolution No. 2020-02, the City Council approved funding of the Priority Events category for fiscal years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. This approval included a 3% annual inflationary increase for all projects under this category; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-08, the City Council approved Priority Projects funded by the Economic Development Grant Program for fiscal years 2022/23 and 2023/24 in the amount of $77,617 per year. The funding approval did not include a 3% inflationary increase for the 2022/23 and 2023/24 fiscal years; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2023, by Resolution No. 2023-30, the City Council approved an update to the Economic Development Grant Program and Grant Application and allow staff to make minor changes to the guidelines as needed; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-24, the City Council approved the continued funding of the Priority Events Category for the Economic Development Grant Program for Fiscal Years 2024-25 and 2025-26.
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-25, the City Council approved an update to the Economic Development Grant Program Guidelines and Grant Application; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-63, the City Council approved a grant from the fiscal year 2024-2025 Economic Development Grant Program for Brentwood on Ice in the amount of $22,500; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-65, the City Council approved grants from the fiscal year 2024-2025 economic development grant program in the amount of $117,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby resolve as follows: approve grants from the FY 2024-25 Economic Development Grant Program in the amount of $129,500 to local organizations in the amounts listed in the attached “Exhibit A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein, subject to the terms and conditions of the Economic Development Grant Program; and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute documents related to the grant program, as needed.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of June 2025 by the following vote:
Exhibit “A”
FY 2025-26 Economic Development Grant Program Awards Summary Project/Event Organization
FY 24/25
Funding
Award
Requested
Funding
LUD’s
Recommended
Funding
Annual Father’s Day
Tournament & Festival
Chosen Sports
Leagues, Inc. $0 $25,000 $6,000
Banner Up! Art Guild of the Delta
Inc. $5,000 $13,000 $5,000
BowBow Fest Doggy Mama’s Kitchen $0 $24,814 $0
Brentwood Security Job
Placement Program
Affiliated Martial Arts
promoter’s Association
(AMAPA)
$0 $21,900 $0
Brentwood Turkey Trot
Brentwood Elementary
& Liberty High School
Districts
$11,000 $33,000 $10,000
Community Impact
Through Inclusive
Events & Education
Support
Chill Tea and Coffee $0 $8,000 $4,000
Delta Quilters Guild
2026 Quilt Show Delta Quilters Guild $3,800 $3,800 $3,800 Dia De Los Muertos Azucar Candies and
More $18,000 $18,000 $18,000
Dream Team After
School Program
Dream House: A
Center for Family
Development
$0 $97,000 $0
East Bay Business
Expo and Job Fair
2026
Brentwood Chamber
of Commerce $9,000 $9,000 $14,000
Exception Day Be Exceptional $0 $5,000 $2,500
Festival 10 4.0 Ghostlight Theater
Ensemble $0 $16,000 $8,000
La Gran Fiesta Brentwood Chamber
of Commerce $6,000 $10,000 $10,000
Lunar Year Festival Chinese Cultural Club $1,000 $1,200 $1,200 Merchandise Tailored Spinola Farms & Co. $0 $5,000 $0
Novacon Lovely Nova Arts $0 $5,000 $3,000
Oktoberfest Brentwood Downtown
Coalition $44,000 $44,000 $44,000
Total $339,714 $129,500
5 Year Program History
Economic Development Grant Program
Competitive Grant Cycle
Fiscal Year # of Priority
Events
Priority Events
Amount
# of Funded
Grantee
Events/Projects
Competitive Award
Amount
Total Priority Event
and Competitive
Grant Amount
Actual Spend Per FY
2023-24 5 $ 77,671 17 $ 176,744 $ 254,415 $ 243,663
2022-23 5 $ 77,671 12 $ 162,752 $ 240,423 $ 220,168
2021-22 5 $ 83,429 14 $ 132,000 $ 215,429 $ 140,351
2020-21 5 $ 80,998 9 $ 191,500 $ 272,498 $ 160,814
2019-20 6 $ 63,655 12 $ 177,365 $ 241,020 $ 155,809
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.4
06/24/2025
SUBJECT: Approve Dolphin Park Strategies and Operating Hours DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
STAFF: Vatsal Patel, Acting Parks and Recreation Director Aaron Wanden, Park Maintenance Manager
TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and approve the operating hours for Dolphin Park.
Staff requests the City Council discuss and approve new water feature operating hours at the Dolphin Park.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be minimal costs associated with changes to the existing park operating hours signage.
BACKGROUND
In March 2022, the City Council discussed the hours and operations of Dolphin Park (the “Park”) due to concerns brought forward by residents of the surrounding neighborhood. The City Council directed staff to make the following changes at the Park to mitigate concerns of the neighborhood:
Increase the frequency of trash pick-up,
Increase signage with simpler messaging,
Review the feasibility of strategically placed fencing, Operate the water feature weekdays from 11:00 am -7:00 pm, and on weekends from 11:00 am - 2:00 pm and again from 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm, Create general education social media posts on bounce houses, large outdoor play structures, grills, barbeques, canopy tents, and alcohol use at parks, along with the process to get a permit for such items, to be posted both on the Parks and Recreation webpage, as well as the Police Department webpage, Create a park matrix with a column related to bounce houses with marks indicating the parks that bounce houses where are prohibited and a mark to indicate which parks allow bounce houses by permit,
Initiate the process to assess the placement of speed bumps around the Park,
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.4
06/24/2025
Authorize the City Manager to close the water feature intermittently as needed in the event of ongoing problems.
Residents near the Park continue to express concerns about the hours of operation for the Park’s water feature. The Park continues to draw large crowds leaving litter, bringing amplified music, and driving erratically throughout the neighborhood. Due to these recent disruptive activities, residents requested the City consider limiting hours of operations of the water feature, including turning off the water feature during weekends and holidays. Staff has identified the following three options for City Council consideration; additional direction is also possible.
1. Status quo. Keep existing hours of operation of the water feature in place.
2. Amend the current hours. Turn off the water feature on weekends and holidays.
3. Eliminate the water feature. Turn off the water feature until such time that funds can be allocated to demo the water feature (currently no funds are available).
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.
PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.
DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.
ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
Alternative Options:
1. Adopt one of the three options list in the staff report.
2. Implement another option not discussed above.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Previous Action
PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.
On March 22, 2022, the City Council approved to: increase the frequency of trash pick-up, increase signage with simpler messaging, review the feasibility of strategically placed fencing, operate the water feature hours for weekdays from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and on weekends from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 pm, create general education social media posts on bounce houses, large outdoor play structures, grills, barbeques, canopy tents, and alcohol use at parks, along with the process to get a permit for those different items, to be posted both on the Parks and Recreation page and the Police Departments pages, create a park matrix with a column related to bounce houses with marks indicating the parks that bounce houses are prohibited and a mark to indicate which parks allow bounce houses by permit, initiate the process to assess the placement of speed bumps around the park, and authorize the city manager to close the water feature intermittently as needed due to ongoing problems.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.5
06/24/2025
SUBJECT: Adopt the City of Brentwood Local Roadway Safety Plan DEPARTMENT: Engineering
STAFF: Allen Baquilar, Director of Engineering/City Engineer Anju Pillai, Engineering Manager
TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution adopting the City of Brentwood (“City”) Local Roadway Safety Plan.
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (“LRSP”) prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., was $47,950. The cost of the LRSP is included in the 2024/25 General Fund Operating Budget.
BACKGROUND
Federal regulations require that each state have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (“SHSP”). A SHSP is a statewide data-driven traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of a wide range of organizations to reduce traffic accident fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. In coordination with federal, state, local, and private sector safety stakeholders, the SHSP establishes goals, objectives, and challenge areas of traffic safety.
While the SHSP is used as a statewide approach for improving roadway safety, a LRSP is a means for providing local and rural road owners with an opportunity to identify and address unique highway safety needs in their jurisdictions, while contributing to the success of the SHSP. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to address safety needs and demonstrates the City’s responsiveness to safety challenges.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.5
06/24/2025
Along with all of the other cities in Contra Costa County, staff has prepared an LRSP (Attachment 2) to establish a framework and process for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on City streets. The LRSP is a localized data-driven plan that provides opportunities to address unique roadway safety needs and reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions on roadways within the City of Brentwood. The LRSP also provides a toolbox of countermeasures to address the safety patterns to improve safety at key locations. These countermeasures can be incorporated in future projects to address traffic safety.
The LRSP or its equivalent must be updated and validated at least every five (5) years. The City will then go through the similar process to review crash data, engage with stakeholders and identify new traffic challenge areas and develop recommendations.
Adoption of an LRSP (or equivalent document) is a minimum requirement to be eligible for multiple transportation grants, such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program and the Safe Streets and Roads for All, that fund projects that reduce or eliminate roadway fatalities and injuries. Eligible projects include those that provide safety improvements at both signalized and non-signalized intersections, pedestrian/bike projects and other roadway safety improvements.
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (“CCTA”) has prepared a Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Safety Action Plan (“CCTSAP”). The CCTSAP is intended to support scoping and multi-jurisdiction bundled applications for competitive grant funding application opportunities. The CCTSAP incorporates the LRSPs of each of the jurisdictions throughout Contra Costa County. After review by its Planning Committee on December 5, 2024, the CCTA Board approved the CCTSAP on December 18, 2024 (Attachment 3), with an ability to incorporate revisions thereafter.
CCTA has a contract with Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the funding grantor, to incorporate the countywide LRSPs into the CCTSAP by June 30, 2025, which will also include the City’s adopted LRSP. This incorporation of the City’s LRSP into the CCTSAP will ensure that the City’s efforts to promote road safety are recognized on a regional level and will give the City an advantage when applying for grant funding to implement local and cross-jurisdictional safety projects.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.5
06/24/2025
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Focus Area 1: Public Works, Goal 1 Transportation: Proactively engage and collaborate with regional transportation agencies and stakeholders to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods
PREVIOUS ACTION
Not Applicable.
DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project involves a planning study for possible future actions, which the City has not approved, adopted, or funded and does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report or negative declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors. Therefore, the City finds that the project is exempt from the CEQA in accordance with CEQA Section 15262.
ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
1. Do not approve staff’s recommendation.
2. Request staff to return
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Previous Action
2. Resolution
3. City of Brentwood Local Roadway Safety Plan Final Report
4. CCTA Resolution 21-40-G, as amended
PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.
On June 25, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-73, the City Council adopted a Resolution adopting the 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating Budget, which includes funding for the Local Roadway Safety Plan of $47,950.
On June 10, 2025, the City Council passed a motion for this item to be continued to the June 24, 2025 City Council meeting.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD ADOPTING THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD LOCAL
ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN.
WHEREAS, Federal regulations require that each State have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (“SHSP”); and
WHEREAS, a SHSP is a statewide data-driven traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of a wide range of organizations to reduce traffic accident fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads; and WHEREAS, in coordination with federal, state, local, and private sector safety stakeholders, the SHSP establishes goals, objectives, and challenge areas of traffic safety; and
WHEREAS, while the SHSP is used as a statewide approach for improving roadway safety, a Local Road Safety Plan (“LRSP”) is a means for providing local and rural road owners with an opportunity to address unique highway safety needs in their jurisdictions while contributing to the success of the SHSP; and WHEREAS, along with all of the other cities in Contra Costa County, City of Brentwood staff has prepared an LRSP to establish a framework and process for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on City streets; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP is a localized data-driven traffic safety plan that provides opportunities to address unique roadway safety needs and reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions on roadways within the City of Brentwood (“City”); and
WHEREAS, the LRSP also provides a toolbox of countermeasures to address the safety patterns to improve safety at key locations and these countermeasures can be incorporated in future projects to address traffic safety; and WHEREAS, the LRSP or its equivalent must be updated and validated at least every five years; and
WHEREAS, adoption of LRSP (or equivalent document) is a minimum requirement to be eligible for multiple transportation grants such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program and the Safe Streets and Roads for All, that targets
projects intended to reducing and eliminating roadway fatalities and injuries, including but not limited to safety improvements at signalized and non-signalized intersections, pedestrian/bike projects and roadway safety improvements; and WHEREAS, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (“CCTA”) has prepared a Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Safety Action Plan (“CCTSAP”); and WHEREAS, the CCTSAP is intended to support scoping and multi-jurisdiction bundled applications for competitive grant funding application opportunities to efficiently apply a Safe Systems Approach to achieve the Countywide Vision Zero policy of achieving zero fatal and severe injuries due to traffic collisions; and WHEREAS, the CCTSAP incorporates the LRSPs of each of the jurisdictions throughout Contra Costa County; and
WHEREAS, after review by its Planning Committee on December 5, 2024, the CCTA Board approved the CCTSAP on December 18, 2024, with an ability to incorporate revisions thereafter; and
WHEREAS, CCTA has a contract with Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the funding grantor, to incorporate the countywide LRSPs by June 30, 2025, which will also include the City’s adopted LRSP; and WHEREAS, this incorporation of the City’s LRSP into the CCTSAP will ensure that the City’s efforts to promote road safety are recognized on a regional level and will give the City an advantage when applying for grant funding to implement local and cross-jurisdictional safety projects; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the LRSP prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., was $47,950; and
WHEREAS, the cost of the LRSP is included in the 2024/25 General Fund Operating Budget; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP involves a planning study for possible future actions which the City has not approved, adopted, or funded and does not require the preparation of an EIR or negative declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors. Therefore, the City finds that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby adopt the City of Brentwood Local Roadway Safety Plan, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit ‘A.’
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of June 2025 by the following vote:
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Prepared for:
City of
Brentwood
Prepared by:
City of Brentwood LRSP ii May 2025
FINAL REPORT
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
Prepared for:
City of Brentwood
Engineering Department
150 City Park Way,
Brentwood, California 94513
(925) 516-5420
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 858-5800
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
May 2025
City of Brentwood LRSP iii May 2025
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of Brentwood’s employees and partners were instrumental in the development, review, and refinement of this LRSP. The City of Brentwood and Kimley-Horn would like to express their appreciation to the supporting staff and partners for their participation and contributions.
City of Brentwood
Anju Pillai (Engineering Manager)
Allen Baquilar (Director of Engineering/City Engineer)
Aman Grewal (Associate Engineer)
Michael Maanao (Police Sergeant)
External Agency Stakeholders
Aaron McAlister (Deputy Fire Chief)
Kristen Jobb (Director, Student Services)
Ron Alderman (Lead Electrician – Traffic Signals)
Community Stakeholders
Norm Cohen (Brentwood Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee (BPAC))
Consultant Team (Kimley-Horn)
Robert Paderna, P.E., RSP1
Zachary Ramalingam, EIT
Zander Dally, AICP
STATUTORY NOTICE
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code - Section 409: Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway- highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.
City of Brentwood LRSP iv May 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................10
1.1. Document Organization ...............................................................................................10
2. VISION, GOAL, AND OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................................12
3. PROCESS .............................................................................................................................14
3.1. Guiding Manuals..........................................................................................................14
3.1.1. Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners ..................14
3.1.2. Highway Safety Manual .....................................................................................15
3.2. Analysis Techniques ....................................................................................................16
4. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT...................................................................................................17
5. PUBLIC OUTREACH................................................................................................................18
6. REVIEW OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS..........................................................................................23
7. DATA SOURCES.....................................................................................................................24
7.1. Roadway Network........................................................................................................24
7.2. Intersections ...............................................................................................................24
7.3. Crashes.......................................................................................................................24
8. SAFETY TRENDS ....................................................................................................................25
8.1. Brentwood KSI Crashes Compared to Statewide KA Crashes.........................................25
8.2. California OTS Rankings for Brentwood.........................................................................26
8.3. Severity Level...............................................................................................................26
8.4. Annual Crashes ...........................................................................................................31
8.5. Crash Causes ..............................................................................................................32
8.6. Crash Types.................................................................................................................33
8.7. Lane Departure Crashes ..............................................................................................35
8.8. Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes......................................................................35
8.8.1. Aggressive Driving Crashes................................................................................36
8.8.2. Impaired Driving Crashes ..................................................................................37
8.9. Non-Motorized Crashes ...............................................................................................40
8.9.1. Bicycle Crashes ................................................................................................40
8.9.2. Pedestrian Crashes ...........................................................................................40
9. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT...................................................................43
9.1. Framework ..................................................................................................................43
9.1.1. Federal Policies.................................................................................................43
9.1.2. State Policies ....................................................................................................43
9.2. Methodology................................................................................................................44
9.2.1. Underserved Communities................................................................................44
9.3. Demographic and Socioeconomic Assessment ............................................................47
9.4. Crash Data Equity Review ............................................................................................53
10. RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................................55
10.1. Engineering Countermeasures ..................................................................................55
City of Brentwood LRSP v May 2025
10.1.1. Crash Modification Factors .............................................................................55
10.1.2. Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox ...........................................................55
10.1.3. High-Severity Crash Locations ........................................................................59
10.2. Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures .......................................................................61
11. EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION..........................................................................................63
11.1. Evaluation ................................................................................................................63
11.2. Implementation........................................................................................................63
11.2.1. Near- and Mid-Term Focus Areas ....................................................................63
11.3. Funding....................................................................................................................64
11.3.1. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)..................................................64
11.3.2. Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)...............................................................64
11.3.3. Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP)..................................................64
11.3.4. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)...........................................65
11.3.5. California SB 1................................................................................................65
11.3.6. California OTS Grants .....................................................................................65
11.3.7. ABAG Regional Funding Programs ...................................................................66
12. NEXT STEPS..........................................................................................................................67
City of Brentwood LRSP vi May 2025
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Intersection Network Screening Results
Appendix B Segment Network Screening Results
Appendix C Public Comments
Appendix D Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for the City of Brentwood
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 — Brentwood LRSP Stakeholder Meeting........................................................................17 Figure 2 — Social Pinpoint Public Comments..............................................................................19 Figure 3 — Summary of Feedback Received via Social Pinpoint....................................................20 Figure 4 — Safety Issues Survey (East Sub-Region)......................................................................21 Figure 5 — Crashes by Severity (2019 - 2023)...............................................................................27 Figure 6 — Citywide KSI Crashes (2019-2023) .............................................................................29 Figure 7 — Citywide Crashes (2019-2023)...................................................................................30 Figure 8 — Annual Crashes (2019 – 2023)....................................................................................31 Figure 9 — Annual KSI Crashes (2019 – 2023)..............................................................................31 Figure 10 — Total Crashes by Cause (2019 – 2023) ......................................................................32 Figure 11 — KSI Crashes by Cause (2019 – 2023).........................................................................33 Figure 12 — Crashes by Type (2019– 2023)..................................................................................34 Figure 13 — KSI Crashes by Type (2019 – 2023)............................................................................35 Figure 14 — Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes .................................................................36 Figure 15 — Aggressive Driving Crash Map ..................................................................................38 Figure 16 — Impaired Driving Crash Map.....................................................................................39 Figure 17 — Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes...............................................................................40 Figure 18 — Non-Motorized Crash Map.......................................................................................42 Figure 19 — City of Brentwood 2020 Population by Age and Sex ...................................................44 Figure 20 — Brentwood Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) Census Tracts ...............................46 Figure 21 — Collision Victim Demographics by Race/Ethnicity in the City of Brentwood................47 Figure 22 — Types of Disabilities.................................................................................................48
City of Brentwood LRSP vii May 2025
Figure 23 — Mode Share in Brentwood........................................................................................49 Figure 24 — Severe and Fatal Crashes in the City of Brentwood ...................................................50 Figure 25 — Bike and Pedestrian Collisions in the City of Brentwood............................................51 Figure 26 — All Collisions in the City of Brentwood ......................................................................52 Figure 27 — Crash Victims by Gender .........................................................................................53 Figure 28 — Crash Victims by Gender and Age ............................................................................53 Figure 29 — Vulnerable Road User Crashes by Type of Violation ..................................................54 Figure 30 — CMF Calculation .....................................................................................................55
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 — Historical Trends: Brentwood KSI Crashes Compared to Statewide KSI Crashes...........25 Table 2 — Brentwood OTS Ranking (2022)...................................................................................26 Table 3 — KSI Crashes by Facility Type........................................................................................27 Table 4 — Crashes by Severity (2019 – 2023) ...............................................................................28 Table 5 — Brentwood Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox .....................................................56 Table 6 – High-Severity Crash Locations......................................................................................59 Table 7 - Countermeasures for Selected Case Study Locations....................................................60 Table 8 — Brentwood Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox ...........................................62
City of Brentwood LRSP viii May 2025
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ATP Active Transportation Program
ARIDE Advance Roadside Impaired Enforcement
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEJST Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool
CMAQ California Mitigation and Air Quality
CMF Crash Modification Factor
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
CTC California Transportation Commission
DAC Disadvantaged Communities
DEV Daily Entering Volume
DRE Drug Recognition Expert
EO Executive Order
EPDO Equivalent Property Damage Only
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information System
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HFST High Friction Surface Treatment
HSM Highway Safety Manual
IIP Interregional Improvement Program
ITIP Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
KSI Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes
LRSP Local Roadway Safety Plan
LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual
City of Brentwood LRSP ix May 2025
MEV Million Entering Vehicles
NEV Neighborhood Electric Vehicle
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
PD Police Department
PDO Property Damage Only
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
RIP Regional Improvement Program
RSTP Rural Surface Transportation Program
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
R/W Right-of-Way
SARC School Accountability Report Card
SB Senate Bill
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SRTS Safe Routes to School
SS4A Safe Streets and Roads for All
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TCAS Traffic Collision Analysis System (Draft)
TDM Transportation Demand Model
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System
US ACS United States Census American Community Survey
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
City of Brentwood LRSP 10 May 2025
1. INTRODUCTION
This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies factors associated with the most prevalent vehicle crashes occurring in the City and proposes matching countermeasures to reduce or eliminate those crashes. This report identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include the type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for the following opportunities:
Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for roadway users of all modes of travel.
Improve safety at high-crash locations and locations which experience a disproportionately high number of fatal and severe injury crashes.
Develop safety measures aligning with the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Five Es of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies, to encourage safer driver behavior and more favorable severity outcomes.
The process and analysis performed for the City’s LRSP includes a summary of vision and goals, crash history analysis, the establishment of emphasis areas, an equity assessment, a countermeasure toolbox, and a set of policy recommendations. The information compiled will provide a foundation for decision making and prioritization of safety countermeasures and projects that enhance safety equitably for all modes of travel within the City. The expanded implementation section will provide guidance to the City on applying for grant funding from various safety programs.
The intent of the LRSP is to:
Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes
Develop lasting partnerships
Provide support for grant funding opportunities
Aid in the prioritization of investments in traffic safety
1.1. Document Organization
The LRSP is organized into the following sections:
Section 1 presents an introduction to the LRSP.
Section 2 presents the vision, goal, and objectives for the LRSP. Section 3 presents the LRSP development process including guidance documents and analysis techniques.
Section 4 presents the project stakeholders.
Section 5 reviews City planning documents and policies. Section 6 contains the LRSP data sources.
Section 7 provides a summary of safety trends.
Section 8 includes the City’s crash data equity analysis. Section 9 includes recommended engineering and non-infrastructure countermeasures.
City of Brentwood LRSP 11 May 2025
Section 10 summarizes the evaluation and implementation of the safety countermeasures. Section 11 identifies next steps.
Appendices
City of Brentwood LRSP 12 May 2025
2. VISION, GOAL, AND OBJECTIVES
The Brentwood LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non-infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers and passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. This effort utilizes historical data to identify trends and develop a toolbox of countermeasures applicable to conditions in the City that can be used for proactive identification and implementation of opportunities, without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains a list of Proven Safety Countermeasures. The list currently has 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures, and LRSPs are included on the list of 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures. Implementation of LRSPs has improved safety in local jurisdictions across the country by providing a guide for local jurisdictions to systematically address the conditions that lead to fatal and severe-injury crashes. They provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. Following discussions with Brentwood staff and a review of existing plans and policies for the area, the following Vision, Goals, and Objectives have been established for this project.
Vision: Support the California vision of moving towards significantly reducing fatalities and severe injuries for all road users.
Goal Objectives
Goal 1: Identify areas with a high risk for
crashes.
• Evaluate the City’s roadway network for
crash activity.
• Identify intersections and segments in
need of mitigation.
• Identify areas of interest with respect to
safety concerns for pedestrians and
bicycles.
Goal 2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive
safety program and the systematic process.
• Demonstrate the systematic process’
ability to identify locations with higher
risk for crashes based on present
characteristics closely associated with
severe crashes.
• Demonstrate, through the systematic
process, the gaps and data collection
activities that can be improved upon.
City of Brentwood LRSP 13 May 2025
Goal 3: Define safety improvements for the
near-, mid- and long-term, including projects
for HSIP, SS4A and other programs with
funding consideration.
• Create the outline for a prioritization
process that can be used in forthcoming funding cycles. • Demonstrate the correlation between
the proposed safety countermeasures
with the Vision Zero Initiative and the
California State Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP).
Goal 4: Identify emphasis areas to prioritize
countermeasure application.
• Use systematic crash analysis to
identify emphasis areas.
• Prioritize emphasis areas for
countermeasure development.
• Align emphasis areas with City goals &
objectives.
• Align emphasis areas with current City
areas of concern.
Goal 5: Proposed List of Conceptual Priority
Projects for Implementation of
Countermeasures.
• Identify conceptual priority projects for
implementation.
• Identify similar areas where
countermeasures can be
implemented.
• Prioritize these countermeasures for
implementation based on cost, effort,
and timeline.
City of Brentwood LRSP 14 May 2025
3. PROCESS
The primary goal for the City of Brentwood and their safety partners is to provide safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for their residents and visitors. Through the development and implementation of this LRSP, the City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community.
Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level, and both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations for an LRSP.
The FHWA encourages:
The establishment of a working group (Stakeholders) to participate in developing a LRSP The review of crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern The establishment of goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively
Caltrans guidance follows a similar outline with the following steps:
1. Establish leadership
2. Analyze the safety data
3. Determine emphasis areas
4. Identify strategies
5. Prioritize and incorporate strategies
6. Evaluate and update the LRSP
This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the vision, goals, and objectives for the LRSP; existing safety efforts; crash analyses; emphasis areas; the City’s existing countermeasure toolbox; and potential countermeasures for select priority locations. The development of the LRSP recommendations considers the Five Es of traffic safety defined by the California SHSP: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies throughout its process.
3.1. Guiding Manuals
The following section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within the City at a systemic level. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements were identified. Using historic crash data, crash risk factors for the entire network are derived. The outcomes will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety countermeasures that address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes as well as active transportation users.
This process uses the latest national and state best practices for statistical roadway analysis described in the following sections.
3.1.1. Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners The purpose of Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.7, April 2024) (LRSM) is to encourage local agencies to pursue a proactive approach to identifying and analyzing safety issues, while positioning themselves to be eligible for competitive federal, state,
City of Brentwood LRSP 15 May 2025
and local grant programs for project implementation funding opportunities. A proactive approach is defined as analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network through either a one-time, network wide analysis, or by routine analyses of the roadway network.
According to the LRSM, “The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements.”
To provide the most benefit and to be competitive for grant funding, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and be considerate of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should be a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from the implementation of cost-effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The LRSM suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations that consider both crash frequency and crash rates. These findings should then be screened for patterns such as crash types and severity to aid in the determination of issues causing higher numbers of crashes and the potential countermeasures that could be most effective. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess what conditions may increase safety risk at the site and systematic level.
Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). These factors are the peer reviewed product of before-and-after research that quantifies the expected rate of crash reduction that can be expected from a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on how to apply CMFs appropriately.
3.1.2. Highway Safety Manual
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations. This four-part manual is divided into Parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, and D) Crash Modification Factors.
Chapter 4 of Part B of the HSM discusses the network screening process. The network screening process is a tool for an agency to analyze their entire network as well as identify and rank locations that (based on the implementation of a countermeasure) are most to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.
The HSM identifies five steps in this process:
1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening process. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the screening method that can be applied.
2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e. segments, intersections, or geometrics) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities.
3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available.
City of Brentwood LRSP 16 May 2025
4. Select Screening Method: There are three screening methods described in this chapter:
ranking, sliding window, and peak searching. Each method has advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected.
5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the results.
The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks to identify high risk locations based on overall crash histories.
3.2. Analysis Techniques
Intersections and roadways were analyzed using four crash metrics:
Number of Crashes
Equivalent Property Damage Only (HSM Ch. 4)
The initial steps of the crash analysis established sub-populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this LRSP, intersections were grouped by their control type (signalized and unsignalized) and segments by their roadway category (arterial, collector, minor collector, and local). Individual crash rates were calculated for each subpopulation. The sub-population level crash rates were then used to assess whether a specific location has more or fewer crashes than expected. These sub-populations were also used to determine typical crash patterns to help identify locations where unusual numbers of specific crash types are occurring.
The network screening process ranks intersections and roadway segments by the number of crashes that occurred at each one over the analysis period and then identifies areas that had more of a given type of crash than would be expected for that type of location. The crash type factors were:
Crash severity - fatal, severe injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, and property damage only (PDO)
Crash type - broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, and other
Environmental factors – lighting and wet roads
Driver behavior - impaired, aggressive, and distracted driving From the results of the network screening analyses, a short-list of locations was chosen based on crash activity, crash severity, crash patterns, location type, and area within the City to provide the greatest variety of locations covering the widest range of safety opportunities for countermeasure toolbox development. The intent is to populate the safety countermeasure toolbox with mitigation measures that will be applicable to most of the crash activity in the City.
The EPDO method is described in the Highway Safety Manual. This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level to develop a property damage only score. In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location based on the latest Caltrans injury costs. This value is then divided by the injury cost for a property damage only crash. The resulting number is the equivalent number of property damage only crashes at each site. This value allows all locations to be compared based on injury crash costs. (HSM, Chapter 4).
The results of the network screening analysis for both intersections and roadway segments is presented in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.
City of Brentwood LRSP 17 May 2025
4. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
As part of the LRSP development, project stakeholders were identified and included in the process to ensure the local perspective was kept at the forefront of this planning effort. A stakeholder group comprised of staff from various City and County departments as well as key community members was formed. A complete list is available in the acknowledgements on page iii.
These stakeholders were called together to offer insight on the safety issues present in the City’s transportation network. The stakeholder group met on April 22, 2025 to review the results of the network screening and crash data analysis, provide comments, and ask questions.
Figure 1 — Brentwood LRSP Stakeholder Meeting
City of Brentwood LRSP 18 May 2025
5. PUBLIC OUTREACH
Figure 2 presents a map of the public comments received on the interactive map via Social Pinpoint.
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is preparing a Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Safety Action Plan (CCTSAP). As part of this plan, CCTA received public comments through Social Pinpoint for the East County subregion. The CCTSAP project also held a tabling event at a Farmers’ Market in Brentwood in late September 2022 that encouraged residents to provide comments along with a discussion with the project team of common issues in Brentwood. In total, 41 comments on the interactive map and 33 survey responses were collected through Social Pinpoint.
City of Brentwood LRSP 19 May 2025
Figure 2 — Social Pinpoint Public Comments
City of Brentwood LRSP 20 May 2025
Figure 3 — Summary of Feedback Received via Social Pinpoint
City of Brentwood LRSP 21 May 2025
Most of the East Sub-Region survey responses and comments focused on walking and transit as a main topic, with some comments surrounding other related issues. There was a large concern related to schools and crossings/crosswalks. Figure 4 presents some of the safety issues identified in the survey responses for the East sub-region. The top five safety issues that the Eastern sub-region mentioned were pedestrian safety, speeding drivers, intersection safety, unsafe routes to school, and bicycle safety.
Figure 4 — Safety Issues Survey (East Sub-Region)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Large Trucks
Street Sideshows
Lighting
Not Enough Separation Between Modes
Pavement Conditions
Unsafe Hazard
Stop Sign/Red Light Violations
Visibility
Bicycle Safety
Unsafe Route to School
Intersection Safety
Speeding Drivers
Pedestrian Safety
What are some of the safety issues you face in this area?
City of Brentwood LRSP 22 May 2025
Online Social Pinpoint comments received within the East Sub-region were largely focused within Brentwood. Some of the most popular comments heard within the East Sub-region can be found below. A list of all the comments received in the City of Brentwood are found in Appendix C.
Top East Sub-Region Comments
1. “I feel like this intersection should have a light that once a cycle all cars stop and it lets all 4 crosswalks go at the same time. This would seriously cut down on who gets to go when. It so frustrating as a pedestrian but even more so as a driver.” 3 upvotes. [McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln]
2. “The cross walk to go to Brentwood Elementary school is extremely dangerous during drop off every single morning. Need a cross guard and cops. Everyone is always running stop signs and in a rush. Only a matter of time when someone is severely injured.” 3 upvotes. [Brentwood Elementary School]
3. “Trail is on both sides of Lone Tree, but with a stop light only down the way without good path access to the light and too little protection for bikes and pedestrians from such a busy road.” 2 upvotes. [Lone Tree Way and Trail Xing West of Anderson Ln]
4. “4-way crosswalk, only 2 ways protected by a crossing guard during school hours. Heavy traffic at all 4 corners. I have personally almost been hit while walking with my children on the unprotected side of the crosswalk and have witnessed children, walking on their own, almost being hit. The drivers are paying most of their attention to the crossing guard, so the unprotected crosswalks drivers rush through. I have also witnessed the crossing guard while stopping traffic, almost be hit by cars.” 2 upvotes. [McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln]
5. “4-way crossing for students walking/biking to school unsafe from all corners.” 2 upvotes. [McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln]
City of Brentwood LRSP 23 May 2025
6. REVIEW OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or are on-going within the City were compiled at the start of the LRSP process in order to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the City. High-level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topics were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP. The following plans and documents were reviewed:
Capital Improvement Programs, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 City of Brentwood General Plan, 2014
Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan, 2002
Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan Update, 2019 City of Brentwood Emergency Operations Plan, 2013
Contra Costa Countywide Vision Zero Action Plan, 2022
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP): East County Action Plan, 2023
Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan
The City of Brentwood seeks to improve roadway safety by implementing the Safe System Approach. The Safe System Approach, as defined in the Caltrans SHSP, is built upon the following principles1
:
• Death and serious injuries are unacceptable
• Humans make mistakes
• Humans are vulnerable
• Responsibility is shared
• Safety is proactive
• Redundancy is crucial
While engineering countermeasures are a critical part of preventing fatal and severe injury crashes, the City also recognizes that policy plays a key role in safety as well. The city performed a literature review of relevant policies and programs to identify other means by which the Safe System Approach and road safety could be further established.
Appendix C presents a summary of local programs, policies, and practices as well as considerations of how they can be improved or enhanced to further support and prioritize road safety.
1 2020-2024 SHSP – Jan 2023 (PDF), Caltrans. January 2023. dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/safety-programs/documents/shsp/2023-shsp-full-report-2020-2024-a11y.pdf Source: What Is a Safe System
Approach? USDOT 2022.
City of Brentwood LRSP 24 May 2025
7. DATA SOURCES
The following data was obtained from the City for use in crash data analysis.
7.1. Roadway Network
The crash analysis, which is described in detail in Section 3, requires each corridor within the City to be classified. The City’s roadway network obtained directly from the City was categorized using FHWA’s roadway classification system provided in the roadway network. The roadway network classification was assigned to each corridor roadway segment as either a major arterial, minor arterial, collector, or local road. This was done in order to compare the functional design and capacity to better stratify analysis results, only comparing roadway segment safety performance with similar peer roadways (i.e., only arterials are compared to arterials, etc.) within the City.
7.2. Intersections
The crash analysis also requires each intersection within the City to be classified by control type.
Intersections throughout the City were classified by control type as either signalized or unsignalized (including roundabouts). The safety analysis also only compares intersection safety performance with similar control types (i.e., signalized intersections are only compared to signalized intersections, etc.) within the City.
7.3. Crashes
Injury collision data for the most recent five-year period (January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2023) was used for the collision analysis. Using data from the past five-year period is sufficient to identify potential trends in crashes by location and types, while not being so long as to have data that would include long-term technology and cultural changes. The collision data was obtained from UC Berkeley’s SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System. Collision records were allocated to intersection and the roadway network segments.
Knowing the impacts of the crash (the injuries or type of damage which occurred) is a key part of assessing the environment and safety factors around the site of the crash. The TIMS dataset used for this analysis categorizes crashes in the following categories:
• 1 – Fatality
2 – Severe injury
3 – Other Visible Injury
4 – Complaint of Pain
Property damage only or “fender bender” crashes that did not result in any forms of injury are not included in this dataset. This LRSP includes crashes which occurred on the City’s roadway network (including intersections which border City limits). However, crashes along Highway 4 were not included as these belong to Caltrans right-of-way and are outside the jurisdiction of the City of Brentwood. It should be noted that though crashes along Highway 4 are not included in this study, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) is a key stakeholder in the development of this LRSP and is responsible for responding to incidents along Highway 4. CCCFPD’s ability to respond to crashes on Highway 4 is dependent upon the City’s local roadway network and can be impacted by congestion or crashes on local roads.
City of Brentwood LRSP 25 May 2025
8. SAFETY TRENDS
The following sections contain the results of the analysis process which included evaluation of Brentwood fatal and severe injury (KSI) crashes compared to statewide levels, among other evaluations including crashes by severity level, cause, pedestrian, and bicycle crashes.
8.1. Brentwood KSI Crashes Compared to Statewide KA Crashes The California SHSP focuses on 16 challenge areas identified by the SHSP Executive Leadership and Steering Committees after an in-depth analysis of California KSI crash data as well as an extensive statewide outreach process that involved hundreds of diverse traffic safety partners around the state. Collisions can be attributed to 13 of the 16 challenge areas. Table 1 presents a summary of City’s historic challenge areas (2013-2022) by comparing KSI crashes to the statewide KSI crashes.
The City of Brentwood was higher than the statewide average in the following eight areas: Aggressive Driving, Impaired Driving, Intersections, Lane Departure, Young Drivers (15-20), Aging Drivers (≥65), Distracted Driving, and Occupant Protection.
Table 1 — Historical Trends: Brentwood KSI Crashes Compared to Statewide KSI Crashes California SHSP Challenge
Area
Brentwood
Comparison to
Statewide
Percentages
Percent of Fatal and Severe Injury
Crashes (2013-2022)
Differential
Brentwood
Percentages
Statewide
Percentages
Aggressive Driving Higher 51.2% 33.4% 17.8%
Impaired Driving Higher 33.1% 23.9% 9.1%
Intersections Higher 32.2% 24.3% 7.9%
Lane Departure Higher 49.6% 42.1% 7.5%
Young Drivers Higher 17.4% 12.1% 5.2%
Aging Drivers Higher 16.5% 12.8% 3.7%
Distracted Driving Higher 5.8% 4.4% 1.4%
Occupant Protection Higher 13.2% 13.1% 0.1%
Bicyclists Lower 6.6% 7.3% -0.7%
Work Zones Lower 0.8% 1.6% -0.7%
Commercial Vehicles Lower 4.1% 6.7% -2.5%
Motorcyclists Lower 14.0% 20.8% -6.7%
Pedestrians Lower 6.6% 18.9% -12.3%
Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (2013 – 2022).
Driver Licensing is based on crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting Service (FARS) (2013 – 2022).
Note: Percentages will not add up to 100%, as a fatality or severe injury could have involved multiple Challenge Areas (i.e., a young driver that was impaired and unrestrained).
City of Brentwood LRSP 26 May 2025
8.2. California OTS Rankings for Brentwood
The California OTS publishes annual reports ranking agencies of similar population by their crash profile. Table 2 presents the City of Brentwood’s 2022 (the most recent) OTS rankings. OTS notes that “Number 1 in the rankings is the highest, or ‘worst’” 2 . Compared to other cities of similar
population, Brentwood ranks among the top 50 in Total Fatal and Injury Crashes. Additionally, Brentwood ranks among the Top 50 for crashes involving Drivers under the Influence (< 35), Bicyclists, Composite crashes, Speed Related crashes, Nighttime crashes (9PM-2:59AM), Hit and Run crashes, and DUI Arrests.
Table 2 — Brentwood OTS Ranking (2022)
Crash Category Victims Killed or Injured OTS Ranking
Total Fatal and Injury 167 26/104
Alcohol Involved 14 59/104
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 1 48/104
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 8 44/104
Motorcycles 7 54/104
Pedestrians 8 85/104
Pedestrians < 15 1 70/104
Pedestrians 65+ 0 98/104
Bicycle 16 23/104
Bicyclist < 15 4 28/104
Composite 93 29/104
Crash Category Fatal or Injury Crashes OTS Ranking
Speed Related 38 10/104
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 19 27/104
Hit and Run 13 42/104
Type Of Arrests Arrests OTS Ranking
DUI Arrests 76 49/104
8.3. Severity Level
Over the observed five-year time period, there were a total of 636 crashes, 8 of which were fatal and 60 of which resulted in severe injuries, as shown in Figure 5. Nearly two-thirds of all crashes (63.1%) resulted in other visible injuries.
2 City of Brentwood OTS Crash Rankings Results, California Office of Traffic Safety. Accessed March 2025. https://www.ots.ca.gov/rankings/brentwood-2022/
City of Brentwood LRSP 27 May 2025
Figure 5 — Crashes by Severity (2019 - 2023)
UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 Eighty-three percent of crashes in the City occurred at intersections, with nearly half of all crashes (43%) occurring at signalized intersections. Table 3 presents the distribution of all crashes, and especially KSI crashes across the City’s various facility types (signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments). Fifty-one percent of all KSI crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections, followed by 33.8% signalized intersections and 14.7% at roadway segments.
Table 3 — KSI Crashes by Facility Type
Facility Type Total Crashes Percentage KSI Crashes Percentage Signalized
Intersections 276 43.40% 23 33.82%
Unsignalized
Intersections 255 40.09% 35 51.47%
Roadway
Segments 105 16.51% 10 14.71%
Total 636 100% 68 100%
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 Total: 8
Total: 60
Total: 401
Total: 167
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections Roadway Segments
City of Brentwood LRSP 28 May 2025
Table 4 presents the distribution of all crashes by severity across the City’s facility types. Crashes were more common at signalized intersections, followed by unsignalized intersections and roadway segments.
Table 4 — Crashes by Severity (2019 – 2023)
Severity
Signalized
Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersections
Roadway
Segments Total
Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes %
Fatal 2 0.3% 4 0.6% 2 0.3% 8 1.3%
Severe 21 3.3% 31 4.9% 8 1.3% 60 9.4%
Other Visible Injury 166 26.1% 165 25.9% 70 11.0% 401 63.1% Complaint of Pain 87 13.7% 55 8.6% 25 3.9% 167 26.3%
Total 276 43.4% 255 40.1% 105 16.5% 636 100.0%
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023
City of Brentwood LRSP 29 May 2025
Figure 6 — Citywide KSI Crashes (2019-2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023
City of Brentwood LRSP 30 May 2025
Figure 7 — Citywide Crashes (2019-2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023
City of Brentwood LRSP 31 May 2025
8.4. Annual Crashes
Figure 8 presents the number of annual crashes on roads in the City of Brentwood beginning in 2019.
The year with the most crashes was 2019, with a total of 150 crashes. Annual crashes trended downwards in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, with 2020 having the least number of crashes. Annual crashes have generally trended upwards since 2020.
It is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic influenced crash trends in 2020 and 2021. In 2020, the number of daily household trips decreased due to widespread shelter-in-place orders; fewer vehicles on the road could be connected to fewer vehicle conflicts and thus fewer crashes. However, reduced roadway volumes and congestion could also be connected to increased vehicle speeds, a phenomenon that numerous law enforcement agencies have reported. As volumes returned to “prepandemic” levels in 2021, law enforcement agencies in California anecdotally noted that vehicle speeds remained high; it is theorized that this pandemic-era aggressive driving behavior has persisted and is partially contributing to the increase in annual crashes than can be seen since 2020.
Figure 8 — Annual Crashes (2019 – 2023)
Figure 9 — Annual KSI Crashes (2019 – 2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 150
101
126 126 133
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Total Linear (Total)
14 11
14 10
19 0
5 10
15 20
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Total Linear (Total)
City of Brentwood LRSP 32 May 2025
8.5. Crash Causes
As shown in Figure 10, the most frequently identified crash causes were Unsafe Speeds, Improper Turning, and Traffic Signals and Signs. Crash causes that accounted for less than two percent are not pictured in the figure.
Figure 10 — Total Crashes by Cause (2019 – 2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 Unsafe Speed,
186, 29%
Improper Turning,
140, 22%
Traffic Signals and
Signs, 98, 15%
Automobile Right
of Way, 72, 11%
Driving or Bicycling
Under the Influence of
Alcohol or Drug, 41, 6%
Unknown, 20, 3%
Pedestrian Right of Way, 17, 3%
Pedestrian Violation, 11, 2% Other, 51, 8%
City of Brentwood LRSP 33 May 2025
The most common crash causes for KSI crashes include improper turning, unsafe speed and DUIs as show in Figure 11. Crash causes which accounted for more than one crash are presented in Figure 11. Improper turning is related to vehicles turning when or where it is unsafe to do so; these crashes mostly included hit-object crashes, bicycles, broadsides and sideswipes.
Figure 11 — KSI Crashes by Cause (2019 – 2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023
8.6. Crash Types
According to reported data, approximately 636 injury crashes occurred within the City during the fiveyear study period on city owned and maintained roadways. Figure 12 indicates that broadsides and rear ends were the most common crash type within the City, followed by hit-object crashes. A large proportion of rear ends occurred at signalized intersections, while broadsides occurred most commonly at unsignalized intersections. The most common crash type along roadway segments was rear ends.
Improper Turning,
16, 25%
Unsafe Speed, 12,
19%
DUI, 10, 16%
Traffic Signals and
Signs, 9, 14%
Pedestrian
Violation, 5, 8%
Automobile Right
of Way, 4, 6%
Pedestrian Right of Way, 4, 6%
Other Hazardous Violation, 2, 3% Unknown, 2, 3%
City of Brentwood LRSP 34 May 2025
Figure 12 — Crashes by Type (2019– 2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 The most common crash types which resulted in fatal and severe injuries were broadsides and hitobject crashes, followed by crashes involving vulnerable road users (Figure 13). Though crashes involving vulnerable road users (bicycles and pedestrians) accounted for 15% of all crashes, they accounted for a disproportionately higher percentage (29%) of all KSI crashes. 13 34 24 11 11 6 2
Total: 7 Total: 5 Total: 2
77 92
22 22 21 22
16 70
34 35
30 27 26
27 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
180
Broadside Rear End Hit Object Sideswipe Head On Bike Ped Other Overturned Not Stated Segment Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections
City of Brentwood LRSP 35 May 2025
Figure 13 — KSI Crashes by Type (2019 – 2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 Note: The crash marked as “Other” involved a single-vehicle incident where a motorcyclist lost control and crashed.
8.7. Lane Departure Crashes
Caltrans defines crashes involving lane departure as those with crash types listed as ‘Head-On’, ‘HitObject’, or ‘Overturned’. This also includes instances where a vehicle runs off the road or crosses into the opposing lane prior to the crash. There were 145 lane departure crashes over the study period in the City, with an average of approximately 29 lane departure crashes per year. Of the 145 lane departure crashes, 4 were fatal, 19 were reported with severe injuries, 95 with other visible injuries, and 27 with complaints of pain.
8.8. Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes
Figure 14 summarizes aggressive and impaired driving crashes by intersections and segments.
Additional information is included in the following sections. 2 4
1 2
1 8 4
2 4
2 3
5 7
8 5
5 4
1 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
Broadside Hit Object Ped Bike Head On Rear End Sideswipe Overturned Other Segment Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections
City of Brentwood LRSP 36 May 2025
Figure 14 — Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023
8.8.1. Aggressive Driving Crashes
Aggressive driving includes primary collision factors such as unsafe speed, following too closely and violations related to traffic signals and signs. There were 291 aggressive driving crashes between 2019-2023. One of the crashes resulted in fatalities and twenty-one resulted in severe injuries.
Figure 15 illustrates the aggressive driving crashes within the City. A list of intersection segments of in order of the highest to lowest number of crashes due to aggressive driving is shown below:
• Balfour Rd & Summerset Dr to Fairview Ave
• O’Hare Ave & Sand Creek Rd to Town Center Terrace
A list of the intersections in order ofthe highest to lowest number of crashes due to aggressive driving is shown below:
• Sand Creek Rd and O'Hara Ave
• Balfour Rd and Cortona Way/Eagle Rock Way
• Sand Creek Rd and Shady Willow Ln
• Balfour Rd and Claremont Dr
Balfour Rd and Sellers Ave
41 11
171
10 79
20 Total: 291
Total: 41
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Aggressive Impaired
Segment Signalized Unsignalized
City of Brentwood LRSP 37 May 2025
8.8.2. Impaired Driving Crashes
Impaired driving crashes include all crashes where there was evidence of drug or alcohol use by the driver. Drivers do not need to exceed the legally defined threshold of intoxication to be counted, as Caltrans considers any level of alcohol consumption to have the potential to impact driver responsiveness and decision making. There were 41 impaired driving crashes between 2019-2023, three of which resulted in a fatality and seven of which resulted in severe injuries. Figure 16 depicts the impaired driving crashes within the City. The intersection segment Sand Creek Rd & Fairview Ave to Sandstone Dr was the one segment with a crash due to impaired driving. A list of the intersections in order of the highest to lowest number of crashes due to impaired driving is shown below:
• Lone Tree Way & Brentwood Blvd
• Grant St & Empire Ave
• Grant St & Fairview Ave
• Balfour Rd & Armstrong Way
• Balfour Rd & Rosegate Ave
• Remington St & Walnut Blvd
• Walnut Blvd & McClaren Rd
• Spruce St & Garin Pkwy
City of Brentwood LRSP 38 May 2025
Figure 15 — Aggressive Driving Crash Map
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023
City of Brentwood LRSP 39 May 2025
Figure 16 — Impaired Driving Crash Map
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023
City of Brentwood LRSP 40 May 2025
8.9. Non-Motorized Crashes
There were a total of 54 crashes involving bicycles and 45 crashes involving pedestrians, as shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18, respectively. Bicycle and pedestrian crashes were most common at intersections, particularly at unsignalized intersections.
Figure 17 — Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 Figure 18 illustrates the locations of pedestrian and bicycle crashes at intersections within the City.
Additional information on pedestrian and bicycle crashes is in the following sections.
8.9.1. Bicycle Crashes
There were 48 bicycle-involved crashes in the City over the study period. Of the bicycle-involved crashes, 9 were reported with severe injuries, 35 with visible injuries, and 10 with complaints of pain.
The severe injury bicycle crashes occurred at the following locations:
• Sand Creek Rd & Las Montanas St
• Sand Creek Rd and Minnesota Ave
• Minnesota Ave & Valley Green Dr
• Brentwood Blvd & Central Ave
• Lone Tree Way & Ohara Ave (2)
• Lone Tree Way & Double K Rd
• Medallion Dr & Europena Dr
• Spyglass Dr between Augusta Dr and Monterey Ct
8.9.2. Pedestrian Crashes
Over the study period of 2019-2023, a total of 42 pedestrian-involved crashes occurred in the City.
Of the pedestrian-involved injury crashes, 2 crashes were fatal, 9 were reported with severe injuries, 26 were reported with other visible injuries, and 5 with complaints of pain. 2 5
15 18
25 25
Total: 42
Total: 48
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Pedestrian Bicycle
Segment Signalized Unsignalized
City of Brentwood LRSP 41 May 2025
The fatal pedestrian crashes occurred at the following intersections:
• Brentwood Blvd & Harvest Dr
• Vineyards Pkwy & Solera St
The severe injury pedestrian crashes occurred at the following locations:
• Brentwood Blvd & Maple St
• Griffith Ln & Continente Ave
• Sand Creek Rd & Brentwood Blvd
• Griffith Ln & Shannon Dr
• Blue Bird Ln & Ohara Ave
• Brentwood Blvd & Fir St
• Lone Tree Way & Empire Ave
• Rutherford Circle & Garland Way
• Jennifer St & Garin Pkwy
City of Brentwood LRSP 42 May 2025
Figure 18 — Non-Motorized Crash Map
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023
City of Brentwood LRSP 43 May 2025
9. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
This LRSP includes a citywide demographic and socioeconomic analysis to better understand how different population groups in the City of Brentwood are impacted by road safety. The framework used to guide the analysis is followed by a summary of the methodology. The equity analysis considers demographics and collisions, followed by general takeaways related to the equity and safety data. The analysis seeks to inform policy and program recommendations for the City in accordance with state and federal equity goals, with the objective of promoting equitable infrastructure investments which will enhance road safety for all road users.
9.1. Framework
This section applies a socioeconomic and demographic approach to the safety analysis conducted for the LRSP to supplement the technical collision data analysis by identifying any correlations between equity and safety data, in accordance with federal and state guidelines. This ensures that vulnerable and disadvantaged populations can benefit from additional safety considerations.
Meeting the needs of equity populations is a critical step in equitable distribution of resources and outcomes. As such, the equity analysis aims to summarize key safety and equity findings.
9.1.1. Federal Policies
Equity analysis in transportation planning became solidified by two key federal policies: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order (EO) 12898 in 1994. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. EO 12898 directs all federal agencies to develop an Environmental Justice Strategy that, “identifies and addresses the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” Both policies mandate transportation agencies to identify, address, and serve disadvantaged communities through their work.
More recently in 2021, EO 14008 was signed establishing Justice40 with the goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution. Previously published Justice40 tract maps and tools, specifically the recently archived US DOT Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer, were utilized in the equity analysis to identify disadvantaged communities. Although the US DOT ETC Explorer has been recently archived, the dataset is critical in identifying historically disadvantaged communities.
9.1.2. State Policies
California SB 535 (2012) directs investments of cap-and-trade funds towards “Disadvantaged Communities” (DACs). The SB 535 DAC Map (2022) was established to identify DACs throughout the state of California.
The equity analysis conducted as part of the LRSP initiated with an analysis of the 2022 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) SB 535 DAC Map, a 2022 Justice40 tract map, the US DOT ETC Explorer, and the CEJST to determine if any tracts within the city were considered disadvantaged. The equity analysis identified four disadvantaged communities outlined in the
City of Brentwood LRSP 44 May 2025
recently archived US DOT ETC Explorer. See Figure 20 for Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) Census Tracts in the City of Brentwood.
9.2. Methodology
Equity demographics were analyzed to better understand the population. The equity analysis builds on the crash data analysis from the LRSP and forms the basis for the equity policy and program recommendations provided.
Demographic data for the city’s population was collected from the United States Census American Community Survey (US ACS) 5-year estimates for 2023 for total population by race/ethnicity, age, and income to identify equity communities within the city. Age was included in the demographic data to capture the city’s young and aging populations.
9.2.1. Underserved Communities
Brentwood is located within an urbanized area with a population of approximately 64,2923 as of 2020. Figure 19 displays the 2020 population in the City of Brentwood broken down by age and sex.
Figure 19 — City of Brentwood 2020 Population by Age and Sex Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 DEC Demographic Profile for the City of Brentwood, Accessed April 2025 The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) has developed a list of SS4A Underserved Communities Census Tracts (historically disadvantaged communities). The disadvantaged census tracts identified in this list exceeded the 50th percentile (75th for resilience) across at least four of the following six transportation disadvantaged indicators. Each of the six disadvantage indicators are assembled at the census tract level using data from the Centre for Disease Control and 3 U.S. Census Bureau, Table DP1 Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics 2020 DEC Demographic Profile, Available at
https://data.census.gov/table/DECENNIALDP2020.DP1?q=profile+brentwood+city&g=160XX00US0608142.
City of Brentwood LRSP 45 May 2025
Prevention (CDC) Social Vulnerability Index, Census American Community Survey, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Smart Location Map, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Location Affordability Index, EPA Environmental Justice Screen, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Resilience Analysis & Planning Tool, and FEMA National Risk Index.
1. Transportation Access disadvantage identifies communities and places that spend more, and longer, to get where they need to go (CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, EPA Smart Location Map, HUD Location Affordability Index).
2. Health disadvantage identifies communities based on variables associated with adverse health outcomes, disability, as well as environmental exposures (CDC Social Vulnerability Index).
3. Environmental disadvantage identifies communities with disproportionate pollution burden and inferior environmental quality (EPA EJ Screen).
4. Economic disadvantage identifies areas and populations with high poverty, low wealth, lack of local jobs, low homeownership, low educational attainment, and high inequality (CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, FEMA Resilience Analysis & Planning Tool).
5. Resilience disadvantage identifies communities vulnerable to hazards caused by climate change (FEMA National Risk Index).
6. Equity disadvantage identifies communities with a high percentile of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well" (CDC Social Vulnerability Index).
City of Brentwood 2025 LRSP 46 May 2025
Figure 20 — Brentwood Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) Census Tracts Source: USDOT ETC Explorer, Accessed August 2024.
City of Brentwood LRSP 47 May 2025
9.3. Demographic and Socioeconomic Assessment
The City of Brentwood is home to a diverse population. This section reports on the demographics data of road users in Brentwood as collected from the US Census Bureau and processed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Bay Area Vision Zero (BayVIZ) System. In terms of race and ethnicity, white people make up the largest population of crash victims by race/ethnicity in Brentwood at 48.8% and Hispanic or Latino origin account for 17.4% of crash victims. Persons of black heritage and other/unknown are overrepresented in fatal and severe injury crashes, accounting for 10.8% and 19.7% of fatal and severe injury crashes though they only account for 9% and 6.6% of the population, respectively. Figure 21 below provides a breakdown of populations by race and ethnicity and crash victims by race and ethnicity in Brentwood.
Figure 21 — Collision Victim Demographics by Race/Ethnicity in the City of Brentwood Source: Bay Area Vision Zero (BayVIZ) System, Fall 2023, Accessed April 2025 According to the 2023 American Community Survey, 29.2% of households in Brentwood speak a language other than English at home. Spanish is spoken in 13.0% of households; other IndoEuropean languages and Asian and Pacific Islander languages are spoken in 5.8% and 9.0% of households, respectively4
. In terms of age, approximately 15.1% of the population in Brentwood is 4 United States Census Bureau, Table S1601 Language Spoken at Home 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Available at
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S1601?q=Language+Spoken+at+Home&g=010XX00US_160XX 00US0608142.
City of Brentwood LRSP 48 May 2025
65 years and older, and 26.1% of the population is under 18 years old5. Approximately 10.6% of the population in Brentwood is disabled6
. Figure 22 presents a breakdown of the types of disabilities (there is overlap between categories).
Figure 22 — Types of Disabilities
Source: 2023 American Community Survey, City of Brentwood According to 2023 American Community Survey, approximately 2.1% of workers in Brentwood walk to work and 0.2% commute by bike7
. However, cyclist and pedestrians account for 29.5% of fatal and severe injury crashes recorded during the study period. Figure 23 presents the mode share of trips in Brentwood.
5 United States Census Bureau, Table S0101 Age and Sex 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Available at https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S0101?g=160XX00US0608142. 6 United States Census Bureau, Table S1810 Disability Characteristics 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Available at https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S1810?q=disability&g=160XX00US0608142. 7 United States Census Bureau, Table S0801 Commuting Characteristics by Sex 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Available at https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S0801?q=commuting&g=160XX00US0608142.
City of Brentwood LRSP 49 May 2025
Figure 23 — Mode Share in Brentwood
Source: BayVIZ 2025 and U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year 2019-2023 The City aims to increase the mode share for these active modes of transportation by making the City’s roadway network safer through infrastructure improvements, education, and community engagement. The options available to the City to improve its roadway network identified in the LRSP countermeasure toolbox will benefit residents, students, and individuals who travel across the City to access destinations. Implementing safety improvements will serve to mitigate disparity by increasing the safety for residents that commute via active transportation.
Approximately 19.1% of the total severe and fatal crashes in the City from 2019-2023 occurred within the disadvantaged communities. Figure 24 presents severe and fatal crashes citywide and within disadvantaged communities. Pedestrian and bicycle collisions in the disadvantaged communities account for approximately 35.7% of all citywide pedestrian and bicycle collisions. Figure 25 presents pedestrian and bicycle collisions citywide and within the disadvantaged communities from 2019-2023. Approximately 29.4% of all citywide injury collisions were located within disadvantaged communities from 2019-2023. Figure 26 presents all citywide collisions by severity and identifies the disadvantaged communities. The disadvantaged community census tracts account for approximately 22.7% of the land area within the City (approximately 2,155 acres of land is designated as a disadvantaged community within approximately 9,510 acres of city area) yet disproportionately experience more overall collisions and more pedestrian and bicycle collisions than the rest of the city.
City of Brentwood LRSP 50 May 2025
Figure 24 — Severe and Fatal Crashes in the City of Brentwood Source: TIMS Crash Data (2019 – 2023).
City of Brentwood LRSP 51 May 2025
Figure 25 — Bike and Pedestrian Collisions in the City of Brentwood Source: TIMS Crash Data (2019 – 2023).
City of Brentwood LRSP 52 May 2025
Figure 26 — All Collisions in the City of Brentwood
Source: TIMS Crash Data (2019 – 2023).
City of Brentwood LRSP 53 May 2025
9.4. Crash Data Equity Review
Crash victim demographics from the TIMS dataset were reviewed, particularly gender and age.
Figure 27 presents a breakdown of crashes by gender. From 2019-2023, approximately 48% of crash victims were female, 51% were male, and 1.1% were not stated.
Figure 27 — Crash Victims by Gender
Source: TIMS Crash Data, 2019-2023
Figure 28 presents a breakdown of crash victims by age. There were 87 crash victims of age 14 or younger, and 126 crashes where the victim(s) were ages 15-19. There were 213 crashes involving young drivers (age 19 or less). Over the study period, there were approximately 105 crashes where the crash victim was 65 years old or older.
Figure 28 — Crash Victims by Gender and Age
Source: TIMS Crash Data, 2019-2023
City of Brentwood LRSP 54 May 2025
Crash data from TIMS ranging from 2019-2023 was reviewed to determine the parties at fault in vehicle-pedestrian/bicycle crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists and is presented in Figure
29. Approximately 82.8% of crashes involving vulnerable road users were due to driver violations.
The most common driver violations were improper turning (turning at a distance unnecessarily far from a curb, turning without using turn signals, or making a type of turn prohibited by signage) and pedestrian right of way violations (making a maneuver from a motor vehicle without respecting the right-of-way of a pedestrian) each account for approximately 17% of vulnerable user collisions.
Followed by traffic signals and signs (collision was caused by inadequate, inconsistent, and/or confusing signage) at 16% and automobile right of way (making a maneuver without respecting the right-of-way of another driver) at 14%. Six percent of crashes involving vulnerable road users were due to pedestrian violations, and 9% were not assigned fault. Pedestrian violations included the following: pedestrian failure to cross at crosswalks between adjacent traffic signal controlled intersections (1%), pedestrian failure to yield ROW when crossing outside of marked and unmarked crossings (4%), and pedestrian failure to follow “WALK” or “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” signals (1%).
Figure 29 — Vulnerable Road User Crashes by Type of Violation Source: TIMS Crash Data, 2019-2023
Improper Turning
17%
Pedestrian Right of
Way, 17%
Traffic SIgnals and Signs
16%
Automobile Right of
Way 14%
Unknown
9%
Unsafe Speed
7%
Pedestrian Violation
7%
Wrong Side of
Road 4%
Other Improper Driving, 3%
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence, 2%
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian), 2%
Brakes, 1% Other Hazardous
Violation, 1%
City of Brentwood LRSP 55 May 2025
10. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections provide more information on potential engineering and non-infrastructure safety countermeasures that might address conditions that were observed to contribute to crash activity in the City.
10.1. Engineering Countermeasures
The following sections contain a description of Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) associated with the engineering countermeasures toolbox.
10.1.1. Crash Modification Factors
When identifying potential systemic safety improvements, it is important to look at CMFs for the proposed improvements. The CMF Method is found in Part D of the HSM. CMFs are defined as the ratio of effectiveness of one condition in comparison to another condition and represent the relative change in crash frequency due to a change in one specific condition. Countermeasures with CMFs less than one are expected to reduce crashes if applied, while those countermeasures with CMFs greater than one are expected to increase crashes. Figure 30 illustrates the definition of CMFs.
Figure 30 — CMF Calculation
A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is similar to a CMF but stated in different terms. A CRF is defined as a percentage of crash reduction that might be expected after the implementation of a given countermeasure at a specific site. In application, the higher a CRF value is, the more effective the countermeasure is at preventing crashes. The countermeasures proposed in this LRSP were chosen because of their effectiveness in reducing crashes, especially those most commonly occurring in the City.
10.1.2. Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox
The systemic improvements identified as most likely effective to be for Brentwood are listed in Table 5, and include a wide range of countermeasures that can be implemented in phases where appropriate. Many of these proposed countermeasures have already been implemented in the City, including but not limited to pedestrian countdown signal heads, conversion of stop-controlled intersections to roundabouts, and installation of retro-reflective backplates on traffic signal heads.
The CMF indicates how effective the countermeasure is at reducing crashes. CMFs and CRFs have been provided for reference to aid the City of Brentwood in understanding potential reductions from crashes by different countermeasures. Caltrans funding levels for each countermeasure are also provided to aid the City in determining what the local match would likely be if the City were to pursue grant funding. Most countermeasures are eligible for Caltrans funding up to 90%, though some are lower.
City of Brentwood LRSP 56 May 2025
Table 5 — Brentwood Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox Countermeasure
Also Addresses
Crash Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CRF Applies to
Caltrans Funding Cost to Implement
Pedestrian Bicycle All Nighttime Pedestrian and
Bicycle
Signalized Intersections
Modify signal to provide a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) X 0.4 60% X 90% $ Install Left Turn Lane, Add Left Turn Phase 0.45 55% X 90% $$$ Install High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) 0.45 55% X 90% $$$ Install intersection lighting 0.6 40% X 90% $$
Pedestrian scramble X 0.6 40% X 90% $$
Curb extensions X 0.63 37% X N/A $$
Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Protected left turn phase 0.7 30% X 90% $$
Convert signal from pedestal-mounted to mast arm 0.7 30% X 90% $$$ Install signs with LED borders as advanced warning 0.7 30% X 90% $$ Install raised median on approaches 0.75 25% X 90% $$
Pedestrian countdown signal heads X 0.75 25% X 90% $
Signal ahead warning signs 0.85 15% X N/A $
Retroreflective backplates 0.85 15% X 90% $
Improve signal timing (coordination) 0.85 15% X 50% $$
Advanced stop bar before crosswalk and bicycle box X X 0.85 15% X 90% $ Install raised pavement markers and striping 0.9 10% X 90% $ Flashing yellow arrow 0.94 6% X N/A $
Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) Varies Varies X 90% $$$ Convert intersection to mini/compact roundabout (from
signal) Varies Varies X 90% $$
Install a raised intersection X Not Available Not Available X N/A $$ Unsignalized Intersections
Install High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) 0.55 55% X 90% $$$ Pedestrian Signal or Pedestrian High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) X 0.45 55% X 90%
$$$
Install all-way STOP control 0.5 50% X 90% $
Directional median openings to restrict turning movements 0.5 50% X 90% $$ Reduced Left-Turn Conflict (R-CUT) intersections 0.5 50% X 90% $$$ Pedestrian refuge island X 0.55 45% X 90% $$
$$$ Requires design and construction of extensive infrastructure improvements $$ Requires procurement and/or minor construction activities $ Requires limited staff resources and can be implemented in-house with current engineering and/or maintenance staff
City of Brentwood LRSP 57 May 2025
Countermeasure
Also Addresses
Crash Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CRF Applies to
Caltrans Funding Cost to Implement
Pedestrian Bicycle All Nighttime Pedestrian and
Bicycle
Install splitter-islands on minor road approaches 0.6 40% X 90% $$ Crosswalk lighting X 0.6 40% X X 90% $$
Install splitter-islands on minor road approaches 0.6 40% X 90% $$ Add intersection lighting 0.6 40% X 90% $$
Colored bicycle lanes X 0.61 39% X 90% $
Curb extensions X 0.63 37% X N/A $$$
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing with enhanced safety X 0.65 35% X 90% $$$ Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Install left-turn lane 0.65 35% X 90% $$
Install flashing beacons as advanced warning 0.7 30% X 90% (if beacons are utilized)
$$
Upgrade pavement markings 0.75 25% X 90% $
Install raised median on approaches 0.75 25% X 90% $$
Clear sight triangles 0.8 20% X 90% $
Install right-turn lane 0.8 20% X 90% $$
Install/upgrade intersection warning/regulatory signs 0.85 15% X 90% $ Install flashing beacons at stop-controlled intersections 0.85 15% X 90% $$ Convert intersection to roundabout Varies Varies X 90% $$$ Retroreflective strips on sign posts Not Available Not Available X 90% $ Install a raised intersection X Not Available Not Available X N/A $$$ Partial street closure or diagonal diverter Not Available Not Available X N/A $$ Full street closure X X Not Available Not Available X X N/A $$ Roadway Segments
Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatment) 0.45 55% X 90% $$$ Install chevron signs on horizontal curves 0.60 40% X 90% $ Remove or relocate fixed object outside of Clear Recovery Zone
0.65 35% X 90% $$$
Install pedestrian median fencing X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Install bike lanes X X 0.65 35% X 90% $
Add segment lighting 0.65 35% X 90% $$
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) X X 0.65 35% X 90%
$$
Install raised pedestrian crossing X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ $$$ Requires design and construction of extensive infrastructure improvements $$ Requires procurement and/or minor construction activities $ Requires limited staff resources and can be implemented in-house with current engineering and/or maintenance staff
City of Brentwood LRSP 58 May 2025
Countermeasure
Also Addresses
Crash Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CRF Applies to
Caltrans Funding Cost to Implement
Pedestrian Bicycle All Nighttime Pedestrian and
Bicycle
Install rectangular rapid flashing beacon X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) 0.70 30% X 90% $$ Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 0.70 30% X 90% $$ Install curve advance warning signs 0.75 25% X 90% $
Install impact attenuators 0.75 25% X 90% $$
Install centerline rumble strips/stripes 0.80 20% X 90% $$ Install edge line rumble strips/stripes 0.85 15% X 90% $$ Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory/warning) 0.85 15% X 90% $
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 0.85 15% X 90% $ Speed feedback signs (mobile or fixed) X X Not Available Not Available X Opportunity for OTS funding
$$
Install lane narrowing treatments (extend curb inward/extend median) X Not Available Not Available X N/A $$
Install a chicane, deviation, or angled slow point Not Available Not Available X N/A $$$ Install speed hump Not Available Not Available X N/A $$ $$$ Requires design and construction of extensive infrastructure improvements $$ Requires procurement and/or minor construction activities $ Requires limited staff resources and can be implemented in-house with current engineering and/or maintenance staff
City of Brentwood LRSP 59 May 2025
10.1.3. High-Severity Crash Locations
The City identified high-severity crash locations as a result of the network screening analysis. Table 6 presents the locations and contains notes for why these locations were prioritized.
Table 6 – High-Severity Crash Locations
Priority Location Crashes EPDO Notes
Sand Creek Rd and Brentwood
Blvd 14 469
3 Severe Injury crashes, 3
Pedestrian crashes, 1 Bike crash, 9
Dark
Balfour Rd and Cortona
Way/Eagle Rock Way 10 431
3 Severe Injury crashes, 6
Broadsides, 7 Aggressive driving
crashes
Lone Tree Way and O'Hara Ave 10 431 3 Severe Injury crashes (2 involved bicycles)
Brentwood Blvd and Sims Rd 5 363 2 Severe Injury crashes. Most crashes related to Improper turning
Brentwood Blvd from Sims Rd to
Lone Tree Way 4 352 2 Severe Injury crashes (study with intersection above) Balfour Rd from City limits to
American Ave 3 342 1 Fatality, 1 Severe Injury crash, adjacent to Heritage High School 1 Existing signal modification project.
Six project case study locations were selected for further analysis and recommendations. For each of these locations, recommended countermeasures were developed to provide a case study to organize projects when applying for funding. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, the observed crash patterns, and their differing characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits. The countermeasures are listed in Table 7.
An additional set of low-cost countermeasures is also recommended for systemic implementation across the City. These improvements include installing retroreflective signage and traffic signal backplates, as well as a recommendation to follow the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 413 to restrict parking within 20 feet of crosswalks on the vehicle approach side with the goal of improving visibility for all road users (also known as daylighting)8 . AB 413 was signed into law on October 10,
2023, with ticketed enforcement being permitted following January 1, 2025. While daylighting may be conducted with low-cost treatments such as signage, painted curbs, or raised delineators, it is recommended that the City also conduct outreach to inform the public about this new law and its impact in removing parking spaces.
8 AB-413 Vehicles: stopping, standing, and parking. October 10, 2023. Available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB413
City of Brentwood LRSP 60 May 2025
Table 7 - Countermeasures for Selected Case Study Locations Countermeasure
Crash
Reduction
Factor
(CRF)
Cost
Sand Creek Rd and Brentwood Blvd
Upgrade to high-visibility crosswalks 25% $$
Upgrade signal heads to incorporate
retroreflective backplates 15% $
Upgrade pedestrian push buttons 25% $
Refresh limit lines 10% $
Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 60% $
Balfour Rd and Cortona Way/Eagle Rock Way
Upgrade to high-visibility crosswalks 25% $$
Upgrade signal heads to incorporate
retroreflective backplates 15% $
Install advanced warning beacons on
approaches 30% $$
Upgrade pedestrian push buttons 25% $
Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 60% $
Increased enforcement of speeding and
aggressive driving 5% $
Lone Tree Way and O'Hara Ave
Install colored bicycle lanes through
intersection 39% $
Upgrade signal heads to incorporate
retroreflective backplates 15% $
Install high-visibility crosswalks on all four
approaches 25% $$
Reduce number of receiving lanes on west
side (road diet) 35% $$$
Upgrade pedestrian push buttons 25% $
Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 60% $
Brentwood Blvd and Sims Rd
Install left turn lane along Brentwood Blvd 35% $$$
Refresh limit line 25% $
Upgrade lighting near intersection 40% $$
Refresh center lines and edge lines 25% $
City of Brentwood LRSP 61 May 2025
Countermeasure
Crash
Reduction
Factor
(CRF)
Cost
Brentwood Blvd from Sims Rd to Lone Tree Way
Install speed feedback signage along
Brentwood Blvd 30% $$
Install center left turn lane 30% $$$
Refresh limit lines and center lines 25% $
Improve lighting along segment 35% $$
Balfour Rd from City limits to American Ave
Increased enforcement during school arrival
and dismissal 5% $
Road diet (reduce to one lane in each
direction) 35% $$$
Install retroreflective backplates 15% $
Implement leading pedestrian interval 60% $
Install speed feedback signage 30% $$
Install colored bike lanes 35% $
Consider reducing the number of receiving
lanes on west side (Road Diet) 35% $$
Citywide Systemic Improvements
Install retroreflective backplates on signal
heads 15% $
Implement intersection daylighting per AB 413 11% $
Install retro-reflective signage and strips at
unsignalized intersections 15% $
10.2. Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Countermeasures that Work, Ninth Edition, is a reference to assist safety stakeholders in selecting effective, science-based noninfrastructure traffic safety countermeasures for major highway safety problem areas. While many of the countermeasures are more appropriate to apply at the state-level or require legislative modifications to implement, Table 8 contains countermeasures that have demonstrated effectiveness and could be applied at the City level. Note that while there are several other noninfrastructure countermeasures available, only those which have an effectiveness rating of four stars or higher are presented. Access to Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) and Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training for law enforcement is not included in the document but are countermeasures that could also be considered for the City.
City of Brentwood LRSP 62 May 2025
Table 8 — Brentwood Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost to
Implement Use Time to Implement
Aggressive Driving
Automated enforcement systems (red
light camera systems)
*****
Effective $$$† Medium Medium
Impaired Driving
Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints *****
Effective $$$ Medium Short
High-Visibility Saturation Patrols
(large number of law enforcement
officers patrolling a specific area)
****
Situational $$ High Short
Occupant Protection (Seat Belts, Helmets, Child Seats)
Short-term high visibility enforcement *****
Effective $$$ Medium Medium
Integrated nighttime seat belt
enforcement
(night time seat belt enforcement in
conjunction with High-Visibility
Saturation Patrols for impaired
driving)
****
Situational $$$ Unknown Medium
Distracted Driving
High visibility cellphone/text
messaging enforcement
****
Situational $$$ Low Medium
Effectiveness:
***** Demonstrated to be effective by several high quality evaluations with consistent results **** Demonstrated to be effective in certain situations Cost to Implement:
$$$ Requires extensive new facilities, staff, equipment, or publicity, or makes heavy demands on current resources $$ Requires some additional staff time, equipment, facilities, and/or publicity $ Can be implemented with current staff, perhaps with training; limited costs for equipment, facilities, and publicity †
Can be covered by income from citations
Use:
High: More than two-thirds of states, or a substantial majority of communities Medium: Between one-third and two-thirds of states or communities Low: Less than one-third of states or communities
Unknown: Data not available
Time to Implement:
Long: More than 1 year
Medium: More than 3 months but less than 1 year
Short: 3 months or less
City of Brentwood LRSP 63 May 2025
11. EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
11.1. Evaluation
The success of the LRSP can be evaluated using the general process outlined below. This process can be useful to monitor progress towards implementation of safety improvement projects and strategies, and to determine when updates to the LRSP should be considered. Law enforcement continues monitoring and recording of traffic incidents on local roadways. Conduct frequent progress meetings (annually or quarterly) betweenCity staff and a working group (i.e. traffic safety committee) to review the latest crash data, including assessing the effectiveness of safety countermeasures implemented, discussing ongoing traffic safety challenges, and tracking progress on plan implementation. Maintain a list of focus/priority areas where there are transportation safety concerns based on review of crash data. The list of priority and/or top crash locations can be updated as an outcome of review of updated crash data and trends.
Perform an update to the plan after no more than five years. It is recommended that updates to the LRSP be approved by City Council and made available to the public in accordance with Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Plan guidance.
11.2. Implementation
Implementation of the LRSP can be accomplished through development and implementation of safety improvement projects and strategies, the establishment of new/updated policies and programs, and development/strengthening of relationships with stakeholders.
With regard to projects, the following section identifies potential focus areas for the City in the nearto-mid-term.
11.2.1. Near- and Mid-Term Focus Areas
The opportunities identified in this LRSP provide more of the systemic countermeasures that can be applied within the City. Over the next three to five years, it is recommended that the City concentrate its efforts on the following emphasis areas:
1. Aggressive Driving
2. Speeding
3. Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists)
4. Intersections with Unconventional Geometries
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to crashes within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this report for both systemic and project-specific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would be of the most benefit. Projects that address these focused areas can be developed with a high benefit-to-cost ratio (by applying City-wide crash rates), allowing competitive projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct crash history, but with conditions that might contribute to future crashes.
City of Brentwood LRSP 64 May 2025
11.3. Funding
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in Brentwood. The City should continue to seek available funding and grant opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement safety improvements throughout Brentwood. The following is a high-level introduction into some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply.
11.3.1. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The HSIP is a Federal program housed under Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. This program apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for nonmotorized transportation, and other project types. Safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
New or upgraded traffic signals
Upgraded guard rails
Pedestrian warning flashing beacons
Marked crosswalks
California’s local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.
Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California specific HSIP information – including dates for upcoming call for projects - can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html.
11.3.2. Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
The SS4A Grant Program is a federal program established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. A total of $5 billion are available from 2022-2026 in the form of planning grants and implementation grants. Grant applications for projects that implement the Safe Systems Approach, such as those related to speed management, improvements in underserved communities, and vulnerable road users, are encouraged. Implementation grant projects must be identified in an applicant’s qualifying Safety Action Plan. The SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet describes the required elements of an Action Plan and can be accessed at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024- 02/SS4A-FY24-Self-Certification-Worksheet.pdf
Additional information about implementation grants can be found at:
https://www.transportation.gov/grants/ss4a/implementation-grants
11.3.3. Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP)
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non-motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include:
Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
City of Brentwood LRSP 65 May 2025
Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g. safe routes to school) Non-infrastructure programs (education and enforcement) This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring.
Information on this program and cycles can be found online at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/
11.3.4. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) provides state and federal gas tax money for improvements both on and off the state highway system. STIP programming occurs every two years.
The programming cycle begins with the release of a proposed fund estimate, followed by California Transportation Commission (CTC) adoption of the fund estimate. The fund estimate serves to identify the amount of new funds available for the programming of transportation projects. Once the fund estimate is adopted, Caltrans and the regional planning agencies prepare transportation improvement plans for submittal. Caltrans prepares the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) using Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds, and regional agencies prepare Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) using Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. The STIP is then adopted by the CTC.
11.3.5. California SB 1
SB 1 is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways, and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements.
California’s state-maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue:
$26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies, and an expansion of the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including:
Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
o This will go to cities, counties and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths, crosswalks and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in funding for these projects through the ATP.
Local Planning Grants: $25 million
11.3.6. California OTS Grants
This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grants applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this LRSP) and must relate to the following priority program areas:
Alcohol Impaired Driving
Distracted Driving
Drug-Impaired Emergency Medical Services
Motorcycle Safety
Occupant Protection
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
Police Traffic Services
Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program
City of Brentwood LRSP 66 May 2025
Roadway Safety and Traffic Records
11.3.7. ABAG Regional Funding Programs
ABAG provides funding allocation for various multi-modal transportation projects in the Bay Area.
Projects that are considered for this regional funding program must be eligible for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Rural Surface Transportation Program (RSTP), or STIP funds.
Performance outcomes which are considered for selection include those which:
Reduce regional VMT per capita
Reduce regional congest VMT per capita
Increase multi-modal or alternative travel choices
Provide long term benefits, sustaining both rural and urban economies Improve movement of goods, in and through the region
Improve safety and security
Maintain and improve upon the existing transportation system
City of Brentwood LRSP 67 May 2025
12. NEXT STEPS
The City has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. In addition to the actions identified in the Implementation Plan, the City can perform the following to guide the success of this LRSP and its overall safety efforts. • Develop investment program to help achieve the City’s crash reduction goals. • Work with state and partner agencies on implementation of large-scale programs and policies.
• Incorporate safety analysis findings in future updates of safety programs. • Monitor statewide safety priorities, guidance, and funding opportunities.
City of Brentwood LRSP 68 May 2025
APPENDIX A
INTERSECTION NETWORK SCREENING RESULTS
Intersection
Injury Crashes
EPDO*
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Case Study Location
Sand Creek Rd and Brentwood Blvd 14 469 0 3 9 2 1 4 3 0 1 0 1 3 1 4 0 9 1 X Lone Tree Way and Shady Willow Ln 12 92 0 0 4 8 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 1 6 0 2 1 Balfour Rd and Fairview Ave 12 124 0 0 11 1 5 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 4 1 Sand Creek Rd and Fairview Ave 12 110 0 0 8 4 0 0 6 2 2 0 0 2 0 6 0 4 0 Sand Creek Rd and O'Hara Ave 12 110 0 0 8 4 1 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 1 8 1 3 2 Balfour Rd and Cortona Way/Eagle Rock Way 10 431 0 3 6 1 6 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 3 2 X Lone Tree Way and O'Hara Ave 10 431 0 3 6 1 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 3 5 1 4 0 X Sand Creek Rd and Sand Creek Xing 9 83 0 0 6 3 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 0 3 0 Sand Creek Rd and Shady Willow Ln 8 186 0 1 5 2 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 1 Central Blvd and Fairview Ave 8 72 0 0 5 3 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 Lone Tree Way and Canada Valley Rd 7 166 0 1 2 4 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 0 Central Blvd and Minnesota Ave 7 66 0 0 5 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 Balfour Rd and Claremont Dr 7 70 0 0 6 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 1 Sand Creek Rd and Minnesota Ave 7 285 0 2 3 2 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 1 0 Brentwood Blvd and 2nd Ave 7 70 0 0 6 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 Walnut Blvd and Balfour Rd 7 171 0 1 3 3 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 Brentwood Blvd and Balfour Rd 7 66 0 0 5 2 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 1 2 0 Lone Tree Way and Jeffery Way 6 151 0 1 0 5 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 Balfour Rd and Griffith Ln 6 64 0 0 6 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 Central Blvd and Brentwood Blvd 6 169 0 1 4 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 1 0 Lone Tree Way and Heidorn Ranch Rd 5 31 0 0 0 5 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Lone Tree Way and Empire Ave 5 145 0 1 0 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 Lone Tree Way and Anderson Ln/Adams Ln 5 49 0 0 4 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 Brentwood Blvd and Grant St/Sunset Rd 5 158 1 0 3 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Balfour Rd and John Muir Pkwy 4 34 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 City of Brentwood Crash Summary
Signalized Intersections
Intersection
Injury Crashes
EPDO*
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Case Study Location
City of Brentwood Crash Summary
Empire Ave and Shady Willow Ln Signalized Intersections 4 143 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 Lone Tree Way and Fairview Ave 4 38 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 Central Blvd and Griffith Ln 4 43 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 Lone Tree Way and Brentwood Blvd 4 143 0 1 1 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 Balfour Rd and Hudson Dr 4 34 0 0 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Balfour Rd and American Ave 3 28 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 Grant St and Empire Ave 3 32 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 Grant St and Fairview Ave 3 142 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 Central Blvd and 2nd St 3 32 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 Brentwood Blvd and Oak St 3 28 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 Pine St and 2nd St 3 32 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 Balfour Rd and McViking Way 3 28 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Unsignalized Intersections
Balfour Rd and Sellers Ave 11 109 0 0 9 2 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 3 0 Balfour Rd and Garin Pkwy 7 221 0 1 4 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 Balfour Rd and Armstrong Way 6 55 0 0 4 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Balfour Rd and Rosegate Ave 5 54 0 0 5 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Brentwood Blvd and E Sims Rd 5 363 0 2 3 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 X Balfour Rd and Guise Way 5 208 0 1 4 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 Lone Tree Way and Double K Rd 4 198 0 1 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 O'Hara Ave and Grant St 4 38 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 Brentwood Blvd and Sunrise Rd 4 43 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Balfour Rd and Heritage High School Driveway 3 342 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 X Lone Tree Way and Windy Spring Ln 3 28 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Neroly Rd and Lavender Way 3 23 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
Intersection
Injury Crashes
EPDO*
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Case Study Location
City of Brentwood Crash Summary
Central Pkwy and Peachwillow Dr Signalized Intersections 3 32 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Dainty Ave and Walnut Blvd 3 23 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brentwood Blvd and Spruce St 3 178 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 Remington St and Walnut Blvd 3 187 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 Brentwood Blvd and Havenwood Ave 3 28 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Walnut Blvd and McClaren Rd 3 32 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Spruce St and Garin Pkwy 3 28 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 *Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes
City of Brentwood LRSP 69 May 2025
APPENDIX B
SEGMENT NETWORK SCREENING RESULTS
Facility Limits
Injury Crashes
EPDO
2 Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
BroadsideSideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Priority Location
O'Hara Ave Sand Creek Rd to Town Center Terrace 5 204 0 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 Sand Creek Rd Shady Willow Ln to CA-4 Ramps 3 28 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Brentwood Blvd Lone Tree Way to E Sims Rd 4 352 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 X Brentwood Blvd Pine St to Diablo Way 4 43 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 Brentwood Blvd E Sims Rd to Neroly Rd/Delta Rd 4 43 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Minor Arterial
Major Arterial
City of Brentwood Crash Summary
2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes
1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential
City of Brentwood LRSP 70 May 2025
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC COMMENTS
City of Brentwood LRSP May 2025
No. Location Comment Up Votes
1 Adams Ln and Grant St
Cars always block bike lane or ignore crosswalk pedestrians. I’ve witnessed three close calls to kids on bike or walking getting hit by vehicle when they attempt to make a right turn on grant from adams.
0 2 Amber Ln and Salice Way We need to have a safety crosswalk between Salice Way and Amber Lane to allow kids to cross and attend Pioneer Elementary School safely. 0
3 American Ave and Heritage
High School North Driveway
This should be at the top of the list to fix. 0
4 American Ave and Heritage
High School South Driveway
There is only one way in and out of the access road to Adam’s MS and Heritage HS. During drop off and pick up times traffic is really bad. Creating an alternate entrance/exit would be extreme beneficial.
1 5 Anderson Ln North of
Kenwood Dr
After you leave the Brentwood Park there are no side walks or bike lanes as you approach Lone Tree. It very dangerous to walk or ride your bike on Anderson to Brownstone as well. 0 6 Armstrong Way S of Nunn St
People treat armstrong way like their personal drag race strip at all times of day. The noise is a nuisance and obviously safety is a concern as well. Some sort of traffic calming is in order!
0 7 Ascot Pl West of Dover Ct Many car speed thru Brentwood park around each exit/entrance 0 8 Balfour Rd and Brentwood
Blvd
Only one crossing guard and its a 4 way intersection, the guard stays on one corner by Jamba Juice only. I always see cars running lights and on top of that some kids crossing on foot or on bikes don't look and I've seen some close calls. 0 9 Balfour Rd and Tradition Way History of pedestrians hit by cars here. Needs a stop sign 1 10 Brentwood Blvd and Birch St
Children of all ages cross the street here and there is no crosswalk. The city is well aware that kids cross here with no safety measures in place and has done nothing about it. They are going to continue to cross here because it is simply the only route 2 11 Brentwood Blvd and Birch St Seriously need an over the road pedestrian bridge. 0 12 Brentwood Elementary
School
The cross walk to go to Brentwood Elementary school is extremely dangerous during drop off every single morning. Need a cross guard and cops. Everyone always running stop signs and in a rush. Only a matter of time when someone is severely injured. 3 13 Brentwood Elementary
School
I agree, and the people who park at the church and cross there instead of walking to the crosswalk is a problem. I know the principal goes out there to direct traffic, but it is a nightmare for those of us who live in the area and have to drop kids off. 0 14 Brentwood Elementary
School
The area is a big problem. I walked with my kids to school and drive them to school also.
The problems are drivers parking at the side of the street, parking at bike lanes and at the bus stop and leaving their vehicles unattended. Drivers not stopping, r 2
City of Brentwood LRSP May 2025
No. Location Comment Up Votes
15 Chestnut St and 3rd St This is a very busy intersection during school hours. My daughter was hit on her bicycle in the crosswalk. 0
16 Foothill Dr and E Country
Club Dr
In Brentwood red lights still mean you can go, this is a huge problem out here. Will not allow my kids to cross the street to walk to school, which doesn’t help with the traffic to the schools that only have one way in and one way out.
0 17 Larkspur Ln
Speeding on Larkspur Lane is out of control. Nearly every car that drives down this street is at least 10 miles over the speed limit, some people drive down this street at 60mph. The city sent out a survey for speed bumps and ‘did not receive enough re 0 18 Lone Tree Way and Trail Xing
West id Anderson Ln
This path is used by neighborhood families to get to Marsh Creek School but there isn’t a safe convenient way to cross Lone Tree Way. This problem will only worsen when the new elementary school construction is complete. We need a safe route for Rose 1 19 Lone Tree Way and Trail Xing
West id Anderson Ln
Trail is on both sides of Lone Tree, but wit a stop light only down the way without good path access to the light and too little protection for bikes and pedestrians from such a busy road. 2 20 McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln 4 way crossing for students walking/biking to school unsafe from all corners 2 21 McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln
4 way crosswalk, only 2 ways protected by a crossing guard during school hours. Heavy traffic at all 4 corners. I have personally almost been hit while walking with my children on the unprotected side of the crosswalk and have witnessed children, walking 2 22 McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln
I see cars driving through crosswalks while children have not cleared the crosswalk completely, daily. Have almost been hit several times. Crossing guard only crosses two of the 4 crosswalks. The crosswalk linking the new development, Villagio, is unmanned 1 23 McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln
I feel like this intersection should have a light that once a cycle all cars stop and it lets all 4 crosswalks go at the same time. This would seriously cut down on who gets to go when. It so frustrating as a pedestrian but even more so as a driver. 3 24 Mendota St and Garin Pkwy Traffic and walking safety mostly during school release hours 0 25 Minnesota Ave and Sand
Creek Trail
The crossing during school hours needs better signs and lights to make the driver aware of the crossing 1
26 Minnesota Ave and Trail
Hi This road could use a cross walk or a speed bump as it a spot to cross to get to the trail on the other side. We use it often as does many people I see. Its a blind corner as well with the curve....
0 27 Minnesota Ave by Bristow
Middle School
Too many cars park along the school side of the street. Suv, trucks, and cars are in the red zone/yellow zone area preventing visibility for children in crosswalks and along the school sidewalks. Automobiles are trying pull out of the school driveways ha 0
City of Brentwood LRSP May 2025
No. Location Comment Up Votes
28 Oak St and Garin Pkwy Busy intersection with teens crossing without looking. Challenging for vehicles to get through intersection. 0
29 Oak St and Garin Pkwy
Worry about pedestrians first. It’s the drivers responsibility to be on alert for pedestrians.
People speed up and down Larkspur at speeds up to 60 mph. The city is well aware of this problem and has done nothing.
0 30 Oak St East of 4th St Speed bump only 0
31 O'Hara Ave and O'Hara Ln No crosswalk or sidewalk going towards lone tree way. 0 32 Rose Brook Terrace and Ron
Nunn Elementary School
driveway
At this location there is a walking gate to the private gated community, Apple Hill. Parents and students use this gate to enter/exit during drop off and pick up. During pick up after school, parents and students walk straight from this gate across the s 0 33 San Jose Ave and Wildcat Ln Speed bumps or other ways to reduce speed at this intersection. Too many speeders driving way above posted speed limit endangering pedestrians and bikers. 1 34 San Jose Ave between Mill
Creek Way and Wildcat Ln
Need speed bumps or other safety measures on San Jose Ave between Fairview and Hwy 4 underpass. Too many speeders rushing through this street, disregarding crosswalks and children walking to school.
1 35 Shady Willow Ln and Grant St
My daughter and I walk to and from school and we have almost been hit several times while crossing the street (we cross over Shady Willow on Grant). There is no crossing guard before or after school. Cars will turn right from the left hand turn lane due 0 36 Walnut Blvd
Homeless Encampment
History of crime and unlawful drug use near this encampment. Safety hazard for pedestrians walking near by.
1 37 Walnut Rd and Indiana Ave
The real problem is that there is no provided bus service. Every parent in Brentwood is driving their kids to school at the same time. It is a NIGHTMARE. It would be much simpler to have a few neighborhood meetup areas for school bus pick up. I would 0
City of Brentwood LRSP May 2025
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES FOR THE
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (i) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Complete Streets Policy
The City of Brentwood
adopted a Resolution
adopting a Complete Streets
Policy9
. The City of Brentwood
General Plan Circulation
Chapter includes Action CIR
1d encouraging complete
streets to support City
circulation goals10.
It is recommended that the City of
Brentwood continue implementing
Action CIR 1d to promote the
City’s Complete Streets Policy.
Traffic Impact Fees
The City levies traffic impact
fees outlined in the City’s
Cost Allocation Plan11.
Consider dedicating a percentage
of fees for traffic safety
improvements.
Safe Routes to School
Funding
The City does not have a SRTS
program. Contra Costa
Transportation Authority
(CCTA) has a Safe Routes to
School (SR2S) program12.
Seek grant funding opportunities
to create a SRTS plan for the
elementary/middle/high schools
in Brentwood.
Traffic Safety Education The City has a traffic safety
webpage with resources13.
Work with education and PD to
develop traffic safety education
programs in public areas and
schools, including bicycle/
pedestrian components. It is also
recommended that the City
provide opportunities for residents
to request traffic infrastructure
improvements with the Public
Works Department.
9 City of Brentwood, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD ADOPTING A “COMPLETE STREETS POLICY” FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD (“CITY”), Available at https://pubbrentwood.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=4282. 10 City of Brentwood, 2014, City of Brentwood General Plan, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3428/637806072129300000 11 City of Brentwood, 2025, Cost Allocation Plans, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/finance-information-systems/financialdocuments/cost-allocation-plans. 12 Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2025, Safe Routes to School (SR2S), Available at https://ccta.net/projects/safe-routes-to-school-sr2s/ 13 City of Brentwood, 2025, Traffic Safety Unit (TSU), Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/police/traffic-safety-unit-tsu.
City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (ii) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Program for Reviewing
Crash Activity
The City is responsive to
safety incidents and
coordinates with PD.
Set up formal program for
reviewing crash activity at a fixed
time interval; Update database for
future LRSP analyses & updates.
Crossroads Database
Updates
City of Brentwood PD
maintains an incident log.
Consider integrating the existing
PD crash database with the
crossroads system (or similar) to
ensure accurate geocoding of
crashes and recoding of crash
party and victim information.
City Enforcement on
Bicycle Rules
The City of Brentwood
Municipal Code Chapter
10.12 outlines areas in which
bicycling is prohibited14. The
City of Brentwood PD is also
actively engaging with the
public about bicycle safety15.
City transportation division should
engage with PD in enforcement
and education at strategic
locations based on collision
patterns, community events, and
safety priorities.
Sobriety / Seatbelt
Checks
The City conducts sobriety
checkpoints16.
City Traffic and Transportation
division should engage with PD in
planning and implementing
sobriety and & seatbelt checks
based on collision patterns,
community events, and safety
priorities.
Coordination between
City Law Enforcement
and Adjacent
Jurisdictions
The City has coordinated with
adjacent jurisdictions
regarding investigations of
elder and dependent adult
abuse. No concurrent
jurisdiction responsibility and
agreements are listed in the
Brentwood Police
Department Policy Manual17.
Consider coordination with
adjacent jurisdictions regarding
OTS grants for seatbelt/ DUI
checkpoints or other safety
initiatives.
14 City of Brentwood, 2024, Chapter 10.12: Bicycles, Skateboards, Roller Skates, Motorcycles and Toy Vehicles, Available at https://ecode360.com/43614653.
15 City of Brentwood, 2024, Brentwood PD Bike Rodeo, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/police/community-youth-outreach/brentwood-pd-bikerodeo#ad-image-0. 16 City of Brentwood Police Department, 2024, Brentwood Police Department DUI/Driver’s License Checkpoint Planned Social Media Post, Available at:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DDX58gyS02I/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link. 17 Brentwood Police Department, 2025, Brentwood Police Department Policy Manual, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10472/638771994281330000
City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (iii) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Speed Surveys The City conducts speed
surveys18 19
Continue to implement regular
surveying as required by California
Vehicle Code; Review new
guidance from Assembly Bill 43.
Speed Limits
Speed Limits are set using
regularly conducted speed
surveys10 11
Continue to update as required by
California Vehicle Code; Exercise
context-based flexibility offered
under Assembly Bill 43.
Traffic Calming Policies
The City General Plan
includes Policy CIR 3-8
outlining traffic management
and calming techniques to
control speeds on residential
streets and collector streets
with residential
developments. The City does
have a Traffic Calming
Program to implement traffic
calming devices if initial
enforcement and engineering
do not resolve speeding
issues20.
Continue implementation of the
traffic calming program to reduce
aggressive driving on local roads.
Transit Vehicles
Accommodation of
Bicycles
Bikes are permitted on Tri
Delta Transit21
Continue to accommodate
bicycles on transit to promote
multi-modal trips.
Coordination of Transit
Providers and City Staff Yes.
Continue coordination; Work to
identify areas for improvements
particularly with first and last mile
connections.
18 City of Brentwood, 2025, Determining Speed Limits, Available at:
https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/engineering/traffic-transportation/determining-speed-limits. 19 City of Brentwood, 2023, Speed Surveys by Street, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3290/638239722663470000. 20 City of Brentwood, 2025, Traffic Calming, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/engineering/traffic-transportation/traffic-calming. 21 Tri Delta Transit, 2024, Bikes on Buses, Available at https://www.trideltatransit.com/fares-guides/appstools-to-ride/bikes-on-buses/.
City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (iv) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plans
The City of Brentwood has a
Parks, Trails and Recreation
Master Plan22 and Parks,
Trails and Recreation Master
Plan Update23.
Develop a Bike and Pedestrian
Master Plan. The plan can include
an assessment of existing
conditions, bike/ped crash data,
and potential projects. Consider
tracking bike and pedestrian
crashes, and implementing
identified projects with high need
and high feasibility.
General Plan Addresses
Multimodal Traffic Safety
The General Plan has multiple
policies pertaining to
multimodal transportation
included in the Circulation
Chapter2
.
Continue to implement
recommendations under General
Plan; Regularly assess progress
and areas for improvement; Avoid
projects that prioritize operational
improvements over multimodal
safety.
Inventory of Bicycle,
Pedestrian, Parking, and
other facilities
The City of Brentwood has a
Master Plan Trail Map which
provides an inventory of Class
I Bike Paths24. The City of
Brentwood also indicates that
they keep an inventory of
Class II Bike Lanes25. The City
Public Works Department
Street Maintenance Division
monitors sidewalk
maintenance26.
Continue to provide an inventory
of bicycle facilities but consider
providing a map classifying all
bicycle facilities (Class I, II, III, and
IV) citywide. Consider publishing
an inventory of pedestrian,
parking, and other facilities.
Consider performing annual
monitoring of bicycle, pedestrian,
parking, and other facilities.
22 City of Brentwood, 2002, Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan, Available at:
https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8139/638321025674830000 23 City of Brentwood, Parks, Trails & Recreation Master Plan Update, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3768/637812746114400000 24 City of Brentwood, 2018, Master Plan Trail Map: Trail Connectivity and Circulation Network Diagram, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3762/637812055093170000. 25 City of Brentwood, 2025, Trails - Bike Trails/Lanes, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/parks-recreation/parks-and-trails/trails. 26 City of Brentwood, 2025, Street Maintenance, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/public-works/street-maintenance.
City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (v) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Traffic Safety Audit
Program
The City has not published
evidence of a formal program,
however, the Traffic and
Transportation Section of the
Engineering Department
oversees responsibility of the
City of Brentwood’s streets,
highways, and transit
systems. The City’s Traffic
Safety Unit (TSU) within the
Police Department
investigates collisions and
participates in traffic
education programs27.
Implement a traffic safety audit
program to regularly review
collision data and respond to
community feedback regarding
traffic safety challenges.
Coordination between
Emergency Response
and City Transportation
Planning
The City Traffic Engineer
serves as the Transportation
Planning staff and is a
member of the Emergency
Management Team as
outlined in the City of
Brentwood Emergency
Operations Plan28 to ensure
proper emergency responses.
Continue engaging emergency
response in transportation
planning processes; Include
membership in project technical
advisory committees where
appropriate.
Coordination between
Local Health Agencies
and City Transportation
Planning
None posted online.
Consider engaging local health
agencies in transportation
planning processes; Include
membership in project technical
advisory committees where
appropriate.
Resident Feedback
Community members can
leave comments using
Brentwood Connect 24/7 to
issue a service request29.
Continue to seek out resident
feedback; Review comments for
trends and patterns that may
suggest opportunities for systemic
safety improvements.
27 City of Brentwood, 2025, Traffic Safety Unit (TSU), Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/police/traffic-safety-unit-tsu. 28 City of Brentwood, 2013, City of Brentwood Emergency Operations Plan, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8454/638368726787530000. 29 City of Brentwood, 2025, Brentwood Connect 24/7, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/public-works/service-request
City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (vi) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Maintenance of Roadway
Surfaces
The City of Brentwood Public
Works Department Street
Maintenance Division
maintains local roadways 30.
Continue regular maintenance of
roadway surfaces; integrate safety
improvements such as bike lanes
and advanced stop bars into
roadway resurfacing projects.
Transportation Demand
Management
Policies/Programs
The City General Plan lists
Policy CIR I-16 pertaining to
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM).
Coordinate with the Contra Costa
County Transportation Authority to
review strategies to
implement/improve local TDM
programs.
Use of overlays, specific
plans, redevelopment
areas to encourage infill
development to reduce
VMT
City follows direction in SB
743 regarding VMT31.
Identify areas where infill
development will require safety
improvements; Coordinate with
County to ensure connectivity and
continuation of safety amenities
with other municipalities.
Regular Collection of
Traffic / Bicycle /
Pedestrian Volumes
On a case-by-case basis32.
Require bicycle and pedestrian
counts as part of routine traffic
counting policies for the City when
traffic impact studies or
environmental documents are
being developed.
Program for Installing
Wayfinding Signage Yes (On a project basis).
Utilize solar-powered digital
bulletin boards to advertise traffic
safety best practices or
wayfinding. Coordinate with
Contra Costa County to
implement branded wayfinding
program; Identify key City
destinations and access route.
Warrants for Traffic
Control Devices Uses CA MUTCD10warrants.
Continue to use CA MUTCD
warrants; Where frequent citizen
requests are not covered by
existing warrants, consider
developing local warrants to
facilitate decision making.
30 City of Brentwood, 2025, Street Maintenance, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/public-works/street-maintenance 31 City of Brentwood, 2024, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. I.2 10/22/2024 - Planning Commission request regarding standards and methodology for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Available at https://pubbrentwood.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=23472 32 City of Brentwood, 2024, Traffic Volumes, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/engineering/traffic-transportation/traffic-volumes
City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (vii) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
School Zone Safety Enforced by PD33.
Continue enforcement of road
safety in school zones; Seek grant
funding opportunities for
additional personnel in school
zones.
Crosswalk Safety
Crossing guard program is
overseen by the City but
managed by a crossing guard
contractor company.
Increase the deployment of
crossing guards at critical
locations along school routes;
review the public comments
received regarding school safety.
Create a webpage on the City
website regarding the City’s
crossing guard program. Increase
enforcement of safe driving and
active transportation behaviors
near busy crosswalk locations;
Update pedestrian crossing design
standards in accordance with
latest best practices. Seek grant
funding for additional
enforcement near high pedestrian
activity locations.
33 City of Brentwood, 2025, School Resource Officer, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/police/community-youth-outreach/school-resource-officer
RESOLUTION 21-40-G (Rev 2)
RE: ADOPTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY POLICY
AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE (GUIDE) FOR LOCAL AGENCIES
WHEREAS, walking, rolling (e.g., micromobility devices such as electric scooters and neighborhood electric vehicles), and bicycling can benefit air quality by reducing traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air pollutants, and energy use from vehicles, and can provide a safe, convenient, healthy, active, and affordable alternative to the Single-Occupant Vehicle (SOV), serving as first and last multi-mile multimodal physically protected connections, that increase transit ridership, that should be more effectively encouraged locally and prioritized given that the majority of the average household’s total trips traveled are shorter distance; and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2018, the Authority Board adopted Resolution 18-45-G and the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP), including Appendices such as a List of Locally Sponsored Projects (Appendix D) which, as amended, will be publicly accessible via the agency website and considered as part of the Safe Streets and Roads for All (Fiscal Year 2025) Program’s Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (checklist certification) as it accompanies this Guide, along with Community-Based Transportation Plans (CBTPs), subregional Action Plans, and the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Safety Action Plan (CCTSAP); and WHEREAS, human life and health are paramount and should take priority, e.g., when addressing objectives of the publicly accessible transportation system and prioritizing uses of the publicly accessible Right-of-Way (ROW); and
WHEREAS, the intent of the Guide, along with the CBPP, and this agency’s work, is to be consistent with the Core Elements of Vision Zero, speed management, and the Safe Systems Approach, including prioritizing human safety over speed (and over movement of vehicular volume / throughput) providing adequate (distracted driver) reaction time and visibility, and accommodating inevitable mistakes; and
WHEREAS, transportation systems, policies, and projects should be designed and implemented first to protect people, health and human life, and the collective greater good in maximizing public benefit in the public ROW, first through redundancies and shared responsibilities before private interests so that no traffic incident will result in a fatal or severe injury; and
Resolution 21-40-G (Rev 2)
December 18, 2024
WHEREAS, a multimodal hierarchical pyramid, in order from the widest point to the narrowest, should be prioritized by pedestrians, bicyclists, micromobility, middle modalism, transit, and vehicle occupants; and
WHEREAS, investments within the Safe Systems hierarchical pyramid should be focused in order from the widest point to the narrowest: the built environment, latent safety strategies, active safety strategies, and education; and
WHEREAS, the Countywide Vision Zero Working Group (VZWG) was convened in December 2019, February and October 2020, and May 2021 to steer development of the Guide, under the CBPP, and in November 2023 and December 2024 to steer development of the CCTSAP and CBPP project list prioritization; and
WHEREAS, actions to make Contra Costa County’s streets, pathways, and trails safer for all user types, particularly those who are most physically vulnerable, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, people using personal mobility devices, seniors, youth, and people with disabilities, will further encourage people of all ages and abilities to walk, bicycle, roll, and ride transit; and WHEREAS, the key goals identified in the CBPP include: 1) increasing safety and security for pedestrians and bicyclists; 2) create a safe, connected, and comfortable network of bikeways and walkways for all ages and abilities; 3) equitably serve all of Contra Costa County communities while ensuring that public investments are focused on projects with the greatest benefits; and 4) expand safe, convenient, and affordable alternatives to SOVs; and WHEREAS, the key objectives indicated in the CBPP are as follows: 1) reduce the rate of pedestrian and bicyclist fatal and severe injuries; 2) increase the number of miles of low-stress bikeways in Contra Costa County; and 3) integrate Complete Streets principles and best practices into Authority funding and design guidance; and WHEREAS, the priorities indicated in the CBPP (Table 7-1) include the following: emphasis on selecting projects of countywide significance; taking into account project alternatives and cost effectiveness in achieving project objectives; weighing network expansion versus existing network completion or maintenance; gap closures and improved connectivity (to, from, and between residential, parks and recreational destinations or routes, outdoor open spaces, transit, shopping, schools, and employment locations); range and number of users (all ages and abilities, transit riders); increased transit ridership; latent demand; local community and policy support; deliverability, readiness, and feasibility; and leveraging matching fund sources; and WHEREAS, the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee prioritizes building out long-distance travel routes with a focus on establishing and maintaining a safer, contiguous
Resolution 21-40-G (Rev 2)
December 18, 2024
countywide Low-Traffic-Stress Network (mainly Class I and Class IV bicycle facilities) per the CBPP; and
WHEREAS, the first implementation action in the CBPP was to develop a countywide Vision Zero and a systematic safety approach for Contra Costa County to a countywide Vision Zero Policy, and systematic pedestrian and bicyclist safety analyses, using a data-informed and systemic assessment of the common patterns of fatal and severe traffic injuries in Contra Costa County. In addition, the Authority would support its partners in identifying efficient and costeffective engineering and non-engineering strategies, including implementing proven countermeasures to assist jurisdictions to more efficiently address the public health crisis; and WHEREAS, the countywide Vision Zero and Safety Policy Statement in Resolution No. 4400, adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on June 12, 2020, is to work together with partner agencies, with a goal to move toward Vision Zero, to encourage and support equitable and data-informed actions toward eliminating fatal and serious (severe, lifealtering, and traumatic) traffic injuries for the Bay Area region, by which the adoption and use of the Guide is anticipated to make Contra Costa County jurisdictions more competitive when competing for federal, State, and regional funding; and WHEREAS, the Guide for local agencies provides a consistent countywide framework, with a hybrid reactive and increasingly proactive Safe Systems Approach to address safety, exposure, and risk management; and
WHEREAS, the nine-county regional MTC, cities of San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Fremont, Alameda, and counties of Sonoma and Contra Costa (unincorporated communities) are among the first 52 jurisdictions in the United States working toward Vision Zero; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which guides safety funding and strategy for the state of California, is in support of Vision Zero and the Safe Systems Approach that includes a system-wide method of project development for transportation infrastructure such as intersections, sidewalks, bike lanes, and trail crossings where common characteristics that cause fatal or severe injury collisions exist at multiple locations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Authority Board hereby:
1) Adopts the CBPP, subregional Action Plans, CBTPs, CCTSAP, and Guide collectively as a Vision Zero Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.
2) Affirms its commitment to urgently implement travel independence and peoplePage 1076 of 1087 Resolution 21-40-G (Rev 2)
December 18, 2024
centered policies and the core elements of Vision Zero and the data-informed Safe Systems Approach (which, among other preventive strategies, focuses on other locations that have similar characteristics of street or public ROW infrastructure, or driver behavior, when/as compared to higher collision rate locations) as a priority, eliminating preventable fatal and severe injuries, and adopts a target date of December 31, 2034, after first achieving a 50 percent reduction no later than December 31, 2029.
3) Formalizes the existing Ad-Hoc multi-disciplinary VZWG as the advisor to Vision Zero planning and implementation, plan monitoring, priorities, and communications.
This resolution was entered into at a meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board held December 18, 2024 in Walnut Creek, California by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair Arnerich and Commissioners Carlson, Glover, Kelley, Meadows, Noack, and Commissioner Alts. Gee and Xavier
None
Commissioner Alts. Obringer and Stepper
None
__________________________________
Newell Arnerich, Chair
Attest: ___________________________________
Tarienne Grover, Clerk of the Board
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.6
06/24/2025
SUBJECT: Informational report on Proposition 4 and Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
STAFF: Vatsal Patel, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation Aaron Wanden, Park Maintenance Manager
Tammy Homan, Management Analyst
TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Accept report from staff on Proposition 4 and Land and Water Conservation Fund grant opportunities.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with acceptance of this informational report. However, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (“LWCF”) grant would require a 50% match of funding from the City. The maximum grant is $6 million and the required match could be up to $3 million. Phase II of the Sand Creek Sports Complex is not currently funded and has no future funding source identified. The application would require that a funding source for the match be identified by the August 5, 2025 application deadline.
BACKGROUND
On February 20, 2025, Vice Mayor Pierson submitted an email requesting an update on Proposition 4 grant opportunities. On March 11, 2025, Vice Mayor Pierson made a motion that “staff spend time and money reviewing Proposition 4 funds available and any projects, whether they’re Council generated, staff generated, or even something that you guys have thought about and never brought forward that we could consider applying for grant dollars to move those projects forward.” Proposition 4 is the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024 and was approved by California voters in November 2024.
The passage of Proposition 4 authorizes up to $10 billion in bonds to help the state become more climate resilient. The investments in state parks will include $175 million to address deferred maintenance, $50 million in sea level rise adaptation
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.6
06/24/2025
projects, and $200 million to build parks and recreational facilities in local communities. Proposition 4 is intended to prepare communities for extreme heat, with investments in planting shade trees, creating more green space, and building community cooling centers. Key provisions of this program include that at least 40% of total funds go to projects that benefit vulnerable populations or disadvantaged communities and at least 10% of total funds must go to projects that benefit severely disadvantaged communities. Grant guidelines for this program have not yet been published; however, staff will continue to monitor this grant program as information becomes available.
In the meantime, staff would like to mention the recently announced cycle of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (“LWCF”) grant. The LWCF is a federal program provided by the National Park Services and administered by the State. Staff has attended the workshop for this grant program and key highlights and milestones include:
Approximately $36.5 million will be available.
Grants can be used for land acquisition or development for public outdoor recreation.
Local agencies can apply for up to $6 million per project, with a 50% matching requirement. Matching funds must be identified at time of application. City provides all funding upfront and awarded grant monies are reimbursed. A City Council resolution approving of the application is required prior to submission of the grant application.
The application deadline for local agencies is August 5, 2025. CEQA is required to be completed within 60 days of the application deadline. Award decisions will be made in Spring 2026.
The time from application until funds are fully obligated is 2-3 years. Groundbreaking cannot take place until the Federal requirements are met/approved.
Overall process from application to project completion is approximately 5 years.
A possible project to consider applying for this LWCF grant is Phase 1B of the Sand Creek Sports Complex, as CEQA has already been completed. This would require 1) staff to bring back a Resolution to City Council for approval to apply for the grant, 2) staff would need to pursue an updated cost estimate for Phase 1B in order to determine amount of funding to request, and 3) City Council to earmark matching funding for the Phase 1B project prior to August 5, 2025. The City does not have available funds to earmark for this project to meet the matching requirement.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.6
06/24/2025
Parks and Recreation staff will continue to look for grant opportunities and will bring forward those for which the City may qualify as they are identified.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.
PREVIOUS ACTION
Not Applicable.
DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.
ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
Not Applicable.
ATTACHMENT(S)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.7
06/24/2025
SUBJECT: Purchase replacement automatic external defibrillator (AED) units, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute any necessary associated documents; and amend the 2024/25
Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund
DEPARTMENT: Human Resources
STAFF: Ashley Sosa, Human Resources Analyst II
Teresa Fairbanks, Acting Human Resources Director
TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement and necessary documents with Avive in the amount of $143,383.53, plus an additional $10,000 for contingencies, for a total not to exceed amount of $153,383.53 for the purchase of automatic external defibrillator (AED) units for City facilities and Police vehicles; and amend the 2024/25 Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund in the amount of $87,251.
FISCAL IMPACT
Year to date, the City has spent $45,972.26 with Avive for AED units, training cartridges, and portable batteries. If approved, additional purchases are estimated to be $97,411.27 and the cost will be allocated between the General Fund and Vehicle and Equipment Replacement (VERF) Fund. An amount for contingencies of $10,000 is included in the not to exceed total contract amount of $153,383.53 to allow City staff the ability to add additional AED units, cabinets, or required accessories, as needed.
The total cost of the Agreement would be as follows:
Year-to-date purchases:
Fund Amount
General Fund $45,667.80
Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Fund $304.46
Subtotal Year-to-Date Purchases $45,972.26
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.7
06/24/2025
Additional Purchases:
General Fund $20,160.65
Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Fund $77,250.62
Total Estimated Purchases $143,383.53
Contingency:
Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Fund $10,000.00
Total Proposed Purchases with Contingency $153,383.53
Of the $153,383.53 proposed total cost, $66,132.91 is included in the 2024/25 General Fund Operating Budget and 2024/25 VERF Fund Operating Budget.
The additional purchases and contingency amount proposed to be funded by the VERF would require an $87,251 increase in the 2024/25 VERF Operating Budget.
The Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund has sufficient funds for this purchase, with a projected cash balance on June 30, 2025 of $7.6 million, after the proposed budget amendment.
The VERF receives annual contributions from City funds in order to ensure sufficient resources are available when replacement is needed. Annual funding in the operating budget comes from the Enterprise Funds (57%), General Fund (38%), and Other Funds (5%).
BACKGROUND
The Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-7, Purchasing Policy, requires City Council approval for purchases of goods or services over $50,000 per vendor, per fiscal year.
Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) are critical life-saving devices deployed throughout City facilities and in police vehicles to provide immediate response in the event of sudden cardiac arrest. Ensuring these devices are always operational and compliant with medical and legal standards is a priority for public safety and emergency readiness. However, the current AED units in use require frequent manual inspections, battery replacements, and do not offer remote monitoring or real-time data connectivity.
To address these challenges and improve public safety outcomes, staff recommends replacing the existing AEDs with the Avive Connect AED®, which incorporates cuttingedge technology through its REALConnect™ platform. This system redefines AED fleet
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.7
06/24/2025
management by using Wi-Fi, cellular, and GPS technology to provide automated health checks and real-time status alerts. This innovation eliminates the need for manual device inspections, reducing staff workload and ensuring that every AED remains compliant and ready for use.
The Avive Connect AED® also includes several key advantages over the City’s current AED units:
Automated Maintenance & Monitoring: REALConnect™ conducts daily remote diagnostics, providing proactive alerts and ensuring devices remain operational without manual intervention.
Data Transmission in Real-Time: After each use, the AED automatically uploads critical incident data—including ECG readings, timestamps, and shock analysis—to assist first responders and physicians in making timely, informed medical decisions.
911 Integration: The QuickRescue™ feature instantly notifies 911 dispatchers when the AED is activated, sharing live location and usage data to support a faster and more informed emergency response.
Rechargeable Battery: Unlike traditional AEDs that require costly and frequent battery replacements, the Avive Connect AED® features a rechargeable battery, reducing long-term operational costs and ensuring greater sustainability.
Upgrading to Avive Connect AED® units represents a proactive step toward modernizing the City’s emergency preparedness infrastructure, reducing maintenance burdens, and enhancing public safety outcomes.
Year to date, City staff has purchased 16 replacement units, 16 portable power banks, and 10 AED Training Cartridges totaling $45,972.26.
Staff requests approval to purchase an additional:
Seven (7) replacement units for City facilities
One (1) additional unit to be placed in the Wastewater Treatment Plant 31 replacement units for Police vehicles
The Human Resources Department is utilizing Council/Administrative Policy, Purchasing Policy No. 10-7, Section 5.4, Cooperative Purchasing Agreements to select this vendor.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.7
06/24/2025
Not Applicable.
PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.
DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.
ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
Alternative Options to the Staff Recommendation:
1. Do not approve staff’s recommendation.
2. Modify staff’s recommendation to approve a modified number of purchases.
3. Continue item with direction for staff to return with additional information.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Previous Action
2. Resolution
PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.
On October 27, 2022, by Ordinance No. 1045, the City Council adopted the Purchasing Policy No. 10-7.
On June 25, 2024, by Resolution 2024-73, the City Council adopted the FY 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating Budget.
On January 28, 2025, by Resolution 2025-10, City Council adopted the amended FY 2024/25 Operating Budget.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE
TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
WITH AVIVE TO PURCHASE AUTOMATIC EXTERNAL
DEFIBRILLATOR (AED) UNITS FOR CITY FACILITIES AND
POLICE VEHICLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $143,383.53, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL $10,000 FOR CONTINGENCIES, FOR A TOTAL NOT
TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $153,383.53; AND AMEND THE FY
2024/25 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND IN
THE AMOUNT OF $87,251.00
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2025, by Resolution 2025-10, City Council adopted the amended FY 2024/25 Operating Budget; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Policy 10-7 requires that purchases or services over $50,000 be approved by City Council; and
WHEREAS, Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) are critical life-saving devices deployed throughout City facilities and in police vehicles to provide immediate response to sudden cardiac arrest incidents; and
WHEREAS, the operational readiness and legal compliance of these AED units are essential for maintaining public safety and emergency preparedness; and WHEREAS, the current AED units in use require frequent manual inspections and battery replacements, and lack remote monitoring capabilities, placing a significant burden on City staff and potentially compromising device availability; and WHEREAS, the Avive Connect AED®, featuring the REALConnect™ platform, utilizes Wi-Fi, cellular, and GPS technology to perform automated health checks and provide real-time status alerts, thereby enhancing the reliability and oversight of the City’s AED program; and
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department is utilizing Council / Administrative Policy, Purchasing Policy No. 10-7, Section 5.4, Cooperative Purchasing Agreements to select this vendor; and
WHEREAS, the cost of the AED units would be funded by the General Fund and the Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund; and
WHEREAS, the 2024/25 General Fund Operating Budget includes sufficient budget for the purchase, however, the 2024/25 Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund will require a budget amendment of $87,251.00 for the purchase.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby authorize the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement and necessary documents with Avive in the amount of $143,383.53, plus an additional amount for contingencies of $10,000, for a total not to exceed amount of $153,383.53; and amend the 2024/25 Vehicle and Equipment Operating Budget in the amount of $87,251.00.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of June 2025 by the following vote: