Agenda packet, first session — East Palo Alto City Council, December 3, 2024 (part 1 of 4)

EAST PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR SESSION AMENDED
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 3, 2024, 6:30 PM
EPA Government Center
2415 University Avenue, First Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
NOTICE
This meeting will be held virtually and in- person at the Council Chambers located on 2415 University Ave, First Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303. The virtual portion of this City Council meeting will be conducted in accordance with City of East Palo Alto Resolution adopted pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.

The public may participate in the City Council Meeting via Zoom Meeting or by attending inperson in the Council Chambers at 2415 University Ave, First Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303.

Community members may provide comments by emailing [email protected], submitting a speaker card at the meeting, or using the RAISE HAND feature when the Mayor or City Clerk call for public comment. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting.

Please click this URL to join
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87501102194
Or join by phone:

Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 669 900 6833 or
+ 1 346 248 7799 or
+ 1 253 215 8782 or
+ 1 312 626 6799 or
+ 1 929 205 6099 or
+ 1 301 715 8592
Webinar ID: 875 0110 2194
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aMWYF4KT East Palo Alto City Council December 3, 2024 Agenda
1 1

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Pulgas Avenue Mini-Roundabouts (ST-12) Plans Specifications & Estimate (PS&E)
Recommendation:

Adopt the resolution:

1. Approving the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates for the Pulgas Avenue Mini-Roundabouts Project (Project);

2. Authorizing the City Manager to advertise the project to solicit bids for the construction phase; and

3. Finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15301, 15303, and 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines.

3.2 Contract Amendment Number 2 to extend the contract term through December 31, 2026, with Harris and Associates for Asset Management Services
Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a second amendment with Harris & Associates, Inc.; and

2. Finding that the proposed action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

3.3 Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Project and Environmental Justice (Health and Equity) Element Project Outreach Contract Increase East Palo Alto City Council December 3, 2024 Agenda
2 2
Recommendation:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement in an amount not to exceed $54,400 with PlaceWorks to support enhanced community engagement activities for the Environmental Justice (Health & Equity) and Safety Element projects. The contract will terminate on June 15, 2026 and shall be in a form provided by the City Attorney, at the sole discretion of the City Manager; and

2. Authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement not to exceed $10,600 with Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) to support enhanced community engagement activities for the Environmental Justice Element and Safety Element update projects. The contract will terminate on June 15, 2026 and shall be in a form provided by the City Attorney, at the sole discretion of the City Manager; and

3. Waiving the formal bid procedure pursuant to East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.84.070(D), as to items 1 and 2 above; and

4. Finding that the proposed actions do not constitute “projects” with the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and (5) in that they are governmental fiscal, organizational or administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

3.4 Amendment to Extend the Term of the Agreement with Willdan Financial Services to Prepare a Nexus Study Update and Financial Feasibility Analysis
Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to extend the term of the existing agreement with W Financial Services to June 30, 2025, with authority to grant an additional sixmo extension to December 31, 2025, to complete a Nexus Study Update and Finan Feasibility Analysis for updating the City’s development impact fees.

3.5 On-Call Pavement Investigation and Reporting Services Contract Recommendation: Adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to award, negotiate, and execute an agreement with CAL Pavement Management, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for an amount not to exceed $40,000.00 for on-call pavement investigation and inspection services for a term of five years; and

2. Finding that the proposed action does not constitute a "Project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

3.6 Local Road Safety Plan
East Palo Alto City Council December 3, 2024 Agenda
3 3
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the Countywide and the City of East Palo Alto Local Roadway Safety Plan and accompanying Vision Zero Goals

3.7 Approve Purchase of additional water meters for the Water Meter Replacement Program
Recommendation: 1. Authorizes Veolia North America to purchase water meters;

2. Appropriates $416,483.12 from the water meter fund for the purchase of water meters;

3. Waives formal bid procedures pursuant to East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.84.070(D); and finds that the proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Repair, maintenance and/or minor alteration of an existing facility) and Sections 15303 (construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures).

3.8 Award the Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project No. WS-09) to EKI Environment & Water, Inc.

Recommendation: Adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to award, negotiate, and execute an agreement with EKI Environment & Water, Inc. in a form approved by the City Attorney, for a contract amount of $139,590.00, and to establish a 10% contingency of $13,959.00, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $153,549.00 for professional engineering services to complete the design of the East Palo Alto Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project No. WS-09); and

2. Finding that the proposed action being considered does not constitute a "Project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that does not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

3.9 Annual Development Impact Fee Report (AB 1600 Report) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution accepting the Annual Development Impact Fee Report (AB 1600 Report) for Fiscal Year 2023-24

3.10 Notice of Completion - Addison Avenue Safe Routes to School and Green Street Improvements Project
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution:

1. Accepting the Addison Avenue Safe Route to School and Green Street Improvements Project; and

2. Authorizing the release of a retention balance in the amount of $107,603.37; and
East Palo Alto City Council December 3, 2024 Agenda
4 4

3. Authorizing the recordation of the Notice of Completion with the County of San Mateo, and release the contract retention balance; and

4. Finding that the proposed action does not constitute a "Project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and (5) in that it is a governmental, fiscal, organizational, or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

3.11 Peninsula Volunteers Inc. Contract Amendment
Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the contract between Peninsula Volunteers Inc. and the City by increasing the original notto-exceed amount $70,000 to a new not-to -exceed amount $106,000 for the provision of hot catered meals and supplies for the City’s Senior Congregate Meal program in a form approved by the City Attorney.

1. Direct the City Manager to perform a contract amendment that accompanies the previously given authority to extend the contract by two three-month terms; and

2. Increase the not-to-exceed amount of $70,000 to a new not-to-exceed amount of $106,000 to continue supplying critical catered meal services to support the Congregate Meal program for Older Adults; and

3. Waive the formal bid procedure pursuant to East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.84.070(D).

3.12 Adoption of Zoning Map Amendment (ZCA24-001) to rezone a 2.12-acre portion of an existing 2.536- acre parcel at 1933 Pulgas Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 063-492-280) from R-MD-1 Multiple-Family Medium Density Residential Subzone 1 to R-MD-2 Multiple-Family Medium Density Residential Subzone 2 in East Palo Alto, CA 94303.

Recommendation:

Adopt an ordinance and waive the second reading to:

Amend the official City of East Palo Alto Zoning Map to rezone the subject property from R-MD-1 Multiple-Family Medium Density Residential Subzone 1 to R-MD-2 Multiple-Family Medium
Density Residential Subzone; and
East Palo Alto City Council December 3, 2024 Agenda
5 5
Find that the Zoning Map Amendment is within the scope of the project covered by the program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Vista 2035 General Plan, and as such no new environmental document would be required; and additionally, any subsequent residential development would likely qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption unless it is shown, by empirical evidence, that said project would result in significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts.

3.13 University Avenue Safety Enhancements Project (ST-08) Plans Specifications & Estimate (PS&E)
Recommendation:

Adopt the resolution:

1. Approving the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates for the University Avenue Safety Enhancements Project (Project);

2. Authorizing the City Manager to advertise the project to solicit bids for the construction phase; and

3. Finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15301, 15303, and 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines.

3.14 FY 2024-25 First Quarter Treasury Report
Recommendation: Accept and file the Treasury Report for the fourth quarter ended September 30, 2024.

3.15 Fiscal Year 2024-25 City Council Strategic Priorities First Status Update Recommendation: Receive an update on the FY 2023/24 through FY2024/25 Strategic Priorities Plan.

3.16 Adopt a Regular Ordinance Adding Chapter 13.09 to the East Palo Alto Municipal Code Establishing Administrative Remedies Procedure for Challenges to Fees, Charges, and Assessments
Recommendation:

1. Waive the second reading and adopt an ordinance, set forth as Attachment 1 to this staff report, adding Chapter 13.09 to the East Palo Alto Municipal Code establishing Administrative Remedies Procedure for challenges to Fees, Charges, and Assessments.

2. Find that the adoption by the City Council of the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21065 (not a project), and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

3.17 Mrs. Beatrice Mobley Proclamation
East Palo Alto City Council December 3, 2024 Agenda
6 6
Recommendation:

Present the proclamation for Mrs. Beatrice Mobley.

3.18 Consideration of a Donation from H & H Evergreen Foundation for the Police Department Traffic Safety Awareness Program, Annual Toy Distribution Program, and Department Needs
Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to:

1. Accept a donation of funds in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) from the H & H Evergreen Foundation, and execute a Donation Agreement to support the Police Department’s Traffic Safety Awareness Program ($20,000.00), Annual Toy Distribution Program ($30,000.00), and general department needs ($100,000) in accordance with the City’s Donation Acceptance Policy; and

3.19 Rosemary Steele Proclamation
Recommendation:

Present the proclamation for Rosemary Steele.

3.20 City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommendation:

Adopt the November 12, 2024, City Council Meeting Minutes.

3.21 Freyer & Laureta, Inc. Contract Amendment Number 6 to add funds in the amount of $216,600 and extend the contract term through December 31, 2029
Recommendation:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute contract amendment Number 6, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Freyer & Laureta, Inc. to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $1,600,000 by $216,600 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $1,816,600 and extend the term through December 31, 2029 for engineering support services pertaining to the East Palo Alto Sanitary District; and

2. Waiving formal bid procedures pursuant to East Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.84.070(D); and
East Palo Alto City Council December 3, 2024 Agenda
7 7

3. Finding that the proposed action does not constitute a “project” with the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act “CEQA”) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and (5) in that it is a governmental fiscal, organizational or
administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

3.22 Consultant for City Manager and City Attorney’s Evaluations Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing the Assistant City Manager to award and execute an agreement, in a form approved by the Deputy City Attorney, in an amount not to exceed $102,000 with Municipal Resource Group, LLC to assist the Council in evaluating the City Manager and City Attorney annually over the next three years (through March 1, 2027); and

2. Waiving the formal bid procedure pursuant to East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.84.070(D); and

3. Finding that the proposed action does not constitute a “project” with the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and (5) in that it is a governmental fiscal, organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

4. CLOSED SESSION

4.1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Government
Code Section 54957(b)(1).

Title: City Manager

4.2 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Government
Code Section 54957(b)(1).

Title: City Attorney

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
East Palo Alto City Council December 3, 2024 Agenda
8 8

6. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

7. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

8. POLICY AND ACTION

8.1 Approving East Palo Alto Police Policy 428 (Automated License Plate Readers)
Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution:

1. Approving East Palo Alto Police Policy 428 (Automated License Plate Readers)

8.2 Economic Development Strategic Plan Agreement
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to award, negotiate and execute an agreement with HR&A Advisors, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for $174,330, and to establish $25,000 as a contingency, for a not-to-exceed total of $199,330 and a term through December 31, 2025, for the preparation of an Economic Development Strategic Plan;

2. Authorizing the new Mayor to appoint a replacement for current Mayor Lopez to the Council subcommittee that will be involved in this project, effective at the start of the new calendar year; and

3. Finding that the proposed action does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

8.3 Strategic Priorities and Work Plan Agreement
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution awarding and authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement for Strategic Priorities and Work Plan with Raimi & Associates, Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney, in an amount not to exceed $130,000.

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS

9.1 Adoption of RBD / 4 Corners Final Specific Plan and Final SEIR *Added attachments 1-7
Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution:

1. Certifying that the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report East Palo Alto City Council December 3, 2024 Agenda
9 9
(FSEIR) has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);

2. Adopting a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan pursuant to Public Resources Code 21000 and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000);

3. Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations;

4. Directing the Community and Economic Development Director to File a Notice of Determination within five working days of adoption pursuant to Section 15075 of the CEQA Guidelines;

5. Approving General Plan Amendment (GP24-001) for
associated amendments consistent with the Specific Plan; and Adopt an ordinance:

6. Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance approving the Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan, a specific plan consistent with CA Government Code Sections 65450-65457; and

7. Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance amending Article 2 (Zones, Allowable Uses and Development Standards) of Chapter 18 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code (Development Code) consistent with the RBD Specific Plan (ZC24-002).

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

11. ADJOURNMENT
Upcoming meetings:

Reorganization Meeting December 17, 2024 6:00 PM
Special Meeting December 19, 2024 6:00 PM
East Palo Alto City Council December 3, 2024 Agenda
10 10
This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) This Notice of Availability of Public Records: All public records relating to an open session item which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act, that are distributed to the majority of the City Council will be available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the City Council. Such documents may also be available on the East Palo Alto website www.cityofepa.org subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting. Information may be obtained by calling (650) 853-3100.

The City Council meeting packet may be reviewed by the public in the Library or the City Clerk's Office. Any writings or documents pertaining to an open session item provided to a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, shall be made available for public inspection at the front counter at the City Clerk's Office, 2ND Floor, City Hall, 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, California 94303 during normal business hours. Information distributed to the Council at the Council meeting becomes part of the public record. A copy of written material, pictures, etc. should be provided for this purpose.

East Palo Alto City Council Chambers is ADA compliant. Requests for disability related modifications or accommodations, aids or services may be made by a person with a disability to the City Clerk's office at (650) 853-3127 no less than 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof.

DECLARATION OF POSTING
This Notice is posted in accordance with Government Code §54954.2(a) or §54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website. Under penalty of perjury, this Agenda was posted to the public at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

POSTED: November 22, 2024
AMENDED: November 26, 2024
ATTEST:

James Colin
City Clerk
East Palo Alto City Council December 3, 2024 Agenda
11 11
CONSENT ITEM 3.1

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Batool Zaro, Senior Engineer
Humza Javed, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Pulgas Avenue Mini-Roundabouts (ST-12) Plans Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) Recommendation
Adopt the resolution:

1. Approving the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates for the Pulgas Avenue MiniRoundabouts Project (Project);

2. Authorizing the City Manager to advertise the project to solicit bids for the construction phase; and

3. Finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15301, 15303, and 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority: Enhance Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Priority: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
In 2021, the City applied to take part in the San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE) School Travel Fellowship Program (Fellowship Program) and was selected to participate. The goal of the program was to help improve safety for students walking and biking to school. Staff met with local schools and regional partners to evaluate safe routes to school improvements within the community. 12 CONSENT ITEM 3.1
As part of the 2021/2022 project, two temporary traffic circles were installed at two intersections in the City nearby schools. Locations are as follows:
 Pulgas Avenue and Runnymede Street
 Pulgas Avenue and Beech Street
Prior to installation, the project was presented to the Public Works and Transportation Commission (PWTC) at the September 21, 2022, meeting and to the City Council at the October 4, 2022, meeting.

Staff accepted feedback and received support from the PWTC and Council for the project. The City installed the temporary traffic circles in October 2021.

Pulgas Avenue is a 25-mph neighborhood collector street with one lane in each direction. Along most of the Pulgas Avenue corridor, parking is permitted on both sides. Additionally, along the Pulgas Avenue corridor, there is sidewalk on one or both sides. Several schools are also located along the corridor, so it is traveled by a lot of students. Moreover, in 2010, as part of a pedestrian safety analysis, these two intersections were selected as candidates for mini roundabout installations.

During the data-gathering process as part of the 2022 fellowship, the team received a lot of feedback recommending traffic calming measures along Pulgas Avenue. The existing stop controls and perpendicular alignment of these intersections made them ideal candidates for this pilot project.

The traffic circles that were installed as a part of this program were meant to be temporary traffic control measures. They were installed with a budget of $13,000, with the intention of eventually improving them to permanent roundabouts if the community was receptive and supportive to the improvements.

In 2023, once again, staff applied for the Student Travel Fellowship and was selected to participate in the program. As part of the 2023 fellowship, the City received technical support for the preliminary design of converting one of the traffic circles to a mini roundabout. Staff presented the information in this report to the Public Works and Transportation Commission (PWTC) and solicited feedback on the performance of the traffic circles and other design considerations. On April 19, 2023, staff received support from the PWTC for the project. Because the student travel fellowship did not cover all of the costs and only covered one location, the City Council, at the May 16, 2023, meeting, passed Resolution No. 55-2023 to award a contract of $13,000 to Alta Planning + Design (ALTA) for the remainder of the preliminary design work to convert the traffic circles to permanent roundabouts at the aforementioned locations. On March 19, 2024, City Council awarded a design contract to ALTA Planning + Design Inc. to provide civil engineering and traffic engineering design professional engineering services to complete the mini-roundabout design package.

Analysis
Under the Engineering staff’s guidance, ALTA has prepared the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) package, which can be found on the project page linked here:
https://www.cityofepa.org/publicworks/page/pulgas-avenue-mini-roundabouts 13 CONSENT ITEM 3.1
The project scope includes installing two new mini-roundabouts, improving pedestrian crossings, installing upgraded ADA curb ramps, and improving signage and striping. The goal of the project is to improve safety at both intersections.

At the October 16, 2024, regular meeting, the project was presented to the Public Works and Transportation Commission, and PWTC recommended the draft plans to City Council for approval.

Upon City Council approval, the project will be bid out for construction in December 2024.

Fiscal Impact
The cost estimate for this project is $842,328.00. Funding will consist of $400,000.00 drawn from the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle grant fund balance and $442,328 from CIP funds, both of which are fully allocated in the FY2024-25 CIP budget.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Environmental
The proposed action (Pulgas Avenue Mini-Roundabouts Project) would be exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities), 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and 15304 (Minor alterations to land).

The project scope includes installing two new mini-roundabouts (at Pulgas Avenue and Runnymede Street/ Beech Street), improving pedestrian crossings, installing upgraded ADA curb ramps, and improving signage and striping within the existing City right of way.

Government Code: 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not involve an entitlement.

Applicability of Levine Act: No, not applicable.

Attachment

1. Resolution
14 Resolution No. XX-2024 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX– 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
APPROVING THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES FOR THE PULGAS AVENUE MINIROUNDABOUT PROJECT (ST-12) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ADVERTISE THE

PROJECT TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE
WHEREAS, the Pulgas Avenue Mini-Roundabouts Project (Project) enhances pedestrian safety on Pulgas Avenue at Runnymede Street and Pulgas Avenue at Beech Street; and WHEREAS, the project includes minor improvements to existing facilities in the public right of way, including the installation of two new mini-roundabouts, improving pedestrian crossings, installing upgraded ADA curb ramps, and improving signage and striping; and WHEREAS, the goal of the project is to improve safety at both intersections; and WHEREAS, as part of the 2021 the San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE) School Travel Fellowship Program (Fellowship Program), the two intersections were selected for the installation of temporary traffic circles; and
WHEREAS, as part of the 2023 fellowship program, the City received technical assistance and partial preliminary design for one mini-roundabout; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 2023, City Council passed Resolution No. 55-2023 to allocate funds to complete the preliminary design for the mini roundabouts at two locations; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2024, City Council awarded a design contract to ALTA Planning + Design Inc. (ALTA) to provide civil engineering and traffic engineering design professional engineering services to complete the mini-roundabout design; and WHEREAS, at the October 16, 2024, Public Works and Transportation Commission (PWTC) meeting, the PWTC recommended the draft plans to City Council for approval; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of East Palo Alto hereby:

1. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference into this action; and

2. Approves the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates for the Pulgas Avenue Mini-Roundabouts Project (Project); and

3. Authorizes the City Manager to advertise the project to solicit bids for the construction phase; and

4. Finds that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15301 ,15303, and 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:
15 Resolution No. XX-2024 2 of 2
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Antonio D. Lopez, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
16 CONSENT ITEM 3.2

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Humza Javed, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment Number 2 to extend the contract term through December 31, 2026, with Harris and Associates for Asset Management Services Recommendation
Adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a second amendment with Harris & Associates, Inc. to extend the term through December 31, 2026, for asset management services; and

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority No. 1: Enhance Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Priority No. 4: Improve Public Facilities and Infrastructure Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
17 CONSENT ITEM 3.2
On January 30, 2020, the State Division of Drinking Water (“DDW”) issued Permit No. 02- 17-20p-4110024 (“Permit”) to the City of East Palo Alto (“City”) for operating and maintaining the City’s water system. The Permit requires the City to submit a Water System Asset Management Plan (“AMP”) to DDW.

On November 17, 2020, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with Harris & Associates, Inc. (Harris) in the amount of $200,000, to prepare an AMP pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 146-2020.

On March 15, 2022, the City Council approved the AMP pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 24-2022. The AMP provides a framework for collecting asset data pertaining to the City’s water system. Assets include water meters, pipes, fittings, valves, hydrants, water storage tanks, wells, water treatment facilities, etc. The data is used for a risk-based approach for prioritizing asset maintenance and replacement.

Harris has assisted staff in preparation and implementation of the AMP. They have also supported staff in working with its water operator, Veolia North America, Inc. (Veolia) to create inventories and asset data and insert the data into a software system that allows Veolia to schedule, record, and report operational and maintenance tasks. Veolia owns and maintains the software for the City’s water system, and the City owns the asset data.

Analysis
The current agreement plus first amendment expires in December 2024. The amendment to extend this contract until December 31, 2026, is needed to continue asset management support.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Environmental
The action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

Government Code § 84308 Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not the payment of money and only an extension of term.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.
18 CONSENT ITEM 3.2
Attachment

1.Resolution
19 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TERM THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2026
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2020, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with Harris & Associates, Inc. (Harris) to prepare an Asset Management Plan (AMP) pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 146-2020; and
WHEREAS, the AMP provides a framework for collecting asset data pertaining to the City’s water system; and
WHEREAS, in 2022, the Council authorized the first amendment to the Harris agreement for $150,000 because additional work was required for implementation of the AMP; and WHEREAS, Harris has continued to provide asset management support for various public assets; and
WHEREAS, continuing support and time is needed to create and update shape files for Public Works assets in a Geographical Informational System (GIS).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY:

1. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference into this action;

2. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the second amendment to the professional services agreement with Harris & Associates, Inc. to extend the term of the agreement from June 2024 through December 31, 2026; and

3. Finds that the action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
20 2 of 2
Antonio López, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D Lê., City Attorney
21 CONSENT CALENDAR 3.3

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Alvin Jen, Associate Planner
Elena Lee, Planning Manager
Amy Chen, Community & Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Project and Environmental Justice (Health and Equity) Element Update Projects Outreach Contracts
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution:

1. Awarding and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, in an amount not to exceed $54,400 with PlaceWorks to support enhanced community engagement activities for the Environmental Justice (Health & Equity) and Safety Element Update projects. The contract shall terminate on June 15, 2026, and include the possibility of one six-month extension at the sole discretion of the City Manager; and

2. Awarding and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, not to exceed $10,600 with Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) to support enhanced community engagement activities for the Environmental Justice Element and Safety Element update projects. The contract shall terminate on June 15, 2026, and include the possibility of one six-month extension at the sole discretion of the City Manager; and

3. Waiving the formal bid procedure pursuant to East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section

2.84.070(D), as to items 1 and 2 above; and
22 CONSENT CALENDAR 3.3

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority: Promote Heath and Public Safety
Background
As required by State law, the City Council adopted Vista 2035 General Plan on October 4, 2016.

Government Code section 65302 also requires each plan to address and update mandated elements including a Safety Element and Environmental Justice (Health and Equity) Element with Vista 2035 as the Health and Equity Chapter.

In late 2021, several local jurisdictions in San Mateo County expressed interest in collaborating on an update of their respective safety and environmental justice elements. The cities/towns and County have a strong history of collaboration and resource sharing on housing-related initiatives through the 21 Elements collaborative1. The 21 Elements collaborative, led by the CPC, was originally created to assist San Mateo County jurisdictions (20 cities and the County) with housing policies and programs, including impact fees and inclusionary housing. Starting in 2020, the group focused on assisting jurisdictions with updating their Housing Elements and has recently expanded to assist with other General Plan element updates. The City has joined these other jurisdictions that have expressed interest in collaborating on other joint efforts to update both elements. To date, the CPC has acted as project manager through its role in the 21 Elements for both the Safety and the Environmental Justice Elements. After a competitive RFP, PlaceWorks was the selected consultant to assist cities in the collaboration with both elements.

CPC continues to be the project manager. There are efficiencies built into the tasks from the collaborative approach, such as sharing the costs of a steering committee, agency interviews, and the website. Below is a description of these collaborative efforts and which agencies in the County are participating.
▪ Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Project – East Palo Alto’s Safety Element update is part a collaborative partnership with the County of San Mateo and the cities of Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, and San Bruno. ▪ Multi-Jurisdictional Environmental Justice Element Project -- East Palo Alto’s Environmental Justice Element update is part a collaborative partnership with the County of San Mateo and the City of Burlingame.
1 See 21 Elements website at: http://www.21elements.com/ 23 CONSENT CALENDAR 3.3
For both elements, Community Resilient Communities (CRC) is also included as a subconsultant with PlaceWorks and brings community-based adaptation planning tools to help create feasible programs that address community priorities to respond to climate change and sea-level rise. CRC is currently working with and managing the North Fair Oaks Climate Ready Team and the East Palo Alto Climate Change Community Team.

On May 16, 2023, City Council approved a resolution authorizing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City and San Mateo County (fiscal agent) for the participation in a Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element project and approved a budget appropriation of $156,964 in funding from fiscal year 2022-2023 towards funding of this project. On May 16, 2023, City Council also approved a resolution authorizing an MOU between the City and the City of Burlingame (fiscal agent) for the participation in a Multi-jurisdictional Environmental Justice project and approved a budget appropriation of $202,232 in funding from fiscal year 2022-2023 towards funding this project. CPC, Placeworks and City staff have actively been engaged in the preparation of the elements, including public outreach, since the summer of 2023.

Analysis
Environmental Justice Element and Safety Element
The scope of work for this project includes thoughtful approaches to community engagement and equity. PlaceWorks has partnered with CRC to help lead engagement and outreach to community groups and hard to reach residents and to provide an equity lens on work products.

The proposal provided by PlaceWorks in 2023 included community workshops, hard-toreach/community group meetings, and stakeholder meetings for the Safety Element project. The Environmental Justice project proposal included community workshops, an Environmental Justice-focused survey, a joint staff/agency workshop, and industry/agency interviews.

In early 2024, PlaceWorks, CRC and City staff began discussions regarding expanding the community engagement for the Environmental Justice Element and Safety Element project. After assessing the original project scope, PlaceWorks and the CRC recommended that additional outreach opportunities would be beneficial to create more opportunities for stakeholders to be involved in this process.

Climate Smart Communities Initiative Grant
In May 2024, Climate Smart Communities Initiative (CSIC) reached out to the City and CRC to see if there was any interest in participating in a pilot program with a partnership between the City and a Community Based Organization (CBO). This grant could be used towards technical assistance and funding for planning, outreach, and implementation projects. This request occurred after the initial community outreach. As discussed above, the City has received requests from community groups for more outreach and engagement opportunities. With the assistance of the grant practitioner Coastal Quest, the City and CRC’s proposal was awarded an amount of $115,000 (Attachment 2). CRC is the awardee for this grant for services to be 24 CONSENT CALENDAR 3.3
conducted in East Palo Alto.

For the Environmental Justice project, the additional outreach includes an expansion of an equity-focused Environmental Justice survey, an additional Pacific-Islander workshop, additional stakeholder engagement, new workshops focused on policy development, and PlaceWorks support and attendance at two adoption hearings. For the Safety Element project, additional outreach includes two additional workshops (one conducted in Spanish and one in English), three (3) additional focus groups and more support for the adoption hearings.

This grant would allow CRC to cover costs for additional outreach in the Multi-Jurisdiction Environmental and Safety Elements projects. However, this grant has limitations: it requires project funds to be utilized no later than August 1, 2025, and restricts the funds to either the grant practitioner, a CBO, or City staff. Because CPC and PlaceWorks are not CBOs, funding from this grant cannot be allocated for their costs. However, time and expertise is required by PlaceWorks and CPC to provide content and project management support for these new engagement efforts and to weave the results into the final element documents. To cover the additional outreach, a new contract with PlaceWorks for $54,400 and a new contract with CPC for $10,600 are required. A total of $65,000 in funding is requested as described in the Resolution (Attachment 1). These two contracts will supplement the original MOUs and contracts. A scope of work for both PlaceWorks and CPC is attached (Exhibit A and B) to the resolution and would be used for the contracts.

The original general contingency for the Environmental Justice project is $9,630 and $12,019 for the Safety Element project. Some of this contingency was used to plan for and begin this expanded outreach. This funding request would also augment those reduced contingency resources. The contracts are proposed to conclude by June 15, 2026, with one six-month extension per contract at the discretion of the City Manager to provide adequate time for the consultants to wrap up the project and for billing purposes.

City staff recommends waiving the formal bid procedure and executing agreements with CPC and Placeworks, given the relatively small size of the contracts, the need for coordination with work already completed by the existing vendors (CPC and Placeworks), and the immediate need for such services would make it unlikely that going out to bid would lead to a significantly lower contract value for the services needed in the time frame required.

Fiscal Impact
The total cost of both contracts for the additional public outreach is $65,000. The funding is available through the General Fund FY24-25 Planning Budget. A General Plan Update surcharge charged for large projects and funding set aside in FY24-25 for General Plan Update related costs are sufficient to fund the total cost.

Public Notice
Notice of this agenda item was provided to the public by posting the City Council agenda on the 25 CONSENT CALENDAR 3.3
City’s bulletin outside City Hall, as well as by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and at the San Mateo County Library, located at 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Environmental
The proposed actions do not constitute “Projects” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and (5), as they are governmental administrative, fiscal, organizational, or administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect changes to the environment.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: Yes.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: The signatory for the agreements are Joshua Abrams, Principal, Baid Driskell Abrams Community Planning DBA Community Planning Collaborative and Tanya Sundberg, Principal, Placeworks. Staff is unaware of any other parties or participants relevant to the Council’s consideration of this item.

Attachments

1. Resolution
Exhibits
A. PlaceWorks Scope of Work
B. Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) Scope of Work

2. Climate Smart Communities Initiative Grant (CSIC)

3. Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element MOU

4. Environmental Justice MOU
26 ATTACHMENT - 1
Resolution No. XX-2024 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX– 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO (1) NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $10,600.00, WITH COMMUNITY PLANNING COLLABORATIVE (“CPC”), IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH THE

POSSIBILITY OF ONE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION, AT THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE CITY MANAGER; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO (2) NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $54,400.00, WITH PLACEWORKS, IN A

FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF ONE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION AT THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE CITY; WITH BOTH CONTRACTS

INTENDED TO COORDINATE ADDITIONAL OUTREACH RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SAFETY ELEMENTS; AND, WAIVING THE FORMAL BID PROCEDURE PURSUANT TO EAST PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.84.070(D) AS TO ITEMS 1 AND 2 ABOVE;
WHEREAS, the cities, towns, and County in San Mateo have a strong history of collaboration and resource sharing on various planning studies and initiatives; and WHEREAS, the City is currently participating in two multi-jurisdictional projects with other local agencies in San Mateo County to update its Environmental Justice (Health and Equity) Element and Safety Element; and
WHEREAS, PlaceWorks was selected as the lead firm to provide consulting services for the outreach, analysis, and planning associated for both projects, and the consulting firm of Community Planning Collaborative (CPC), under contract to provide technical assistance to 21 Elements, is serving as the project manager for both collaborative projects; and WHEREAS, as the Environmental Justice and Safety Element projects progressed for the last year, it became clear that additional community outreach was needed for both projects. Through a collaboration with Climate Resilient Communities, a sub-contractor to PlaceWorks, and the City’s planning staff, a $115,000 grant was secured for additional community engagement through the Climate Smart Communities Initiatives (CSCI). Climate Resilient Communities is the awardee for this grant for services to be conducted in East Palo Alto; and WHEREAS, the primary consultant team for the Environmental Justice and Safety Element projects (PlaceWorks and CPC) requires additional professional services to complete the grantfunded outreach which Climate Resilient Communities will deliver and to provide additional community outreach and additional public review meetings; and WHEREAS, City staff recommended waiving the formal bid procedure and execute an agreement with CPC and Placeworks, given that the size of the contract (relatively small), the need for coordination with work already completed by the existing vendors (CPC and Placeworks), and the immediate need for such services would make it unlikely that going out to bid would lead to a significantly lower contract value for the services needed in the time frame required.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY:
27 ATTACHMENT - 1
Resolution No. XX-2024 2 of 2

1. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference into this action; and

2. Authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with a term ending June 15, 2026, in an amount not-to-exceed $10,600.00 with Baird Driskell Abrahms Community Planning DBA Community Planning Collaborative (“CPC”), in a form approved by the City Attorney with the possibility of one six-month extension at the sole discretion of the City Manager for coordination of additional community outreach related to the Multi-jurisdictional Environmental and Safety Element projects; and

3. Authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with a term ending June 15, 2026, in an amount not-to-exceed $54,400.00 with Placeworks, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with the possibility of one six-month extension at the sole discretion of the City Manager to support Climate Resilience Communities (CRC) with additional outreach related to the Multi-jurisdictional Environmental Justice and Safety Element update projects.

4. Waives the formal bid procedure pursuant to East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section

2.84.070(D); and

5. Finds that the proposed action does not constitute a “project” with the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and (5) in that it is a governmental fiscal, organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Antonio D. Lopez, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
28 2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400 | Berkeley, California 94704 | 510.848.3815 | PlaceWorks.com

MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 15, 2024
TO: Salifu Yakubu and Elena Lee, City of East Palo Alto FROM: Cliff Lau and Tanya Sundberg, PlaceWorks
SUBJECT: Environmental Justice Elements Planning Initiative and Peninsula Resilience Planning Project: Outreach Expansion and CSCI Grant Support in East Palo Alto This memorandum provides the proposed scope and cost estimate to support expanded community engagement for the Environmental Justice Elements Planning Initiative and the Safety Element/Peninsula Resilience Planning (PREP) project in East Palo Alto, including supporting work that will be conducted by Climate Resilient Communities (CRC) under the Climate Smart Communities Initiative (CSCI). As CRC and PlaceWorks have recommended over our discussions, expanding outreach in East Palo Alto will ensure meaningful and robust engagement and help to build trust with residents and community members by responding to their request to expand outreach activities to hear from more voices and create additional points of engagement throughout the planning process. To achieve this goal, the project team proposes the following tasks that would augment the original community engagement scopes for these projects.

Environmental Justice Elements Planning Initiative
Task 1. Pacific-Islander Workshop
This workshop will be dedicated to engaging the Pacific-Islander community in East Palo Alto. This workshop will be a repeat of the first workshop that was held last spring, using the same materials and presentation, translated as needed. PlaceWorks will coordinate and support preparation of materials. PlaceWorks will not attend this workshop. (CRC will lead all other workshop tasks under the CSCI grant.)
Task 2. Stakeholder Engagement
PlaceWorks will support CRC’s work to hold ten stakeholder discussions (which they will conduct under the CSCI grant). PlaceWorks will not participate in discussions, but will provide input on questions and review and incorporate feedback from these discussions into the process.

Task 3. Policy Development Workshops
PlaceWorks will prepare draft goals, policies, and programs/actions on a faster schedule for a subset of topics that we will review with the community during this set of workshops. Specifically, PlaceWorks will draft eight separate goal statements (each goal covering a discrete topic), with associated policies and programs/actions to achieve each goal. These goals/topics will be

EXHIBIT - A
29 2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400 | Berkeley, California 94704 | 510.848.3815 | PlaceWorks.com identified in collaboration with CRC and the City based on the overall round 1 engagement.

PlaceWorks will consult with CRC when drafting the policy guidance and submit the draft policy guidance to the City for review prior to presenting it to the community. This scope covers the work required for the extra round of review before the full set of policy guidance is developed later in the process, which is covered by our existing contract.

PlaceWorks will then work with CRC (who will be working under the CSCI grant) to facilitate a second round of workshops in East Palo Alto. Specifically, PlaceWorks will prepare boards that will present the draft policy guidance, with one goal and its associated policies and programs/actions per board, along with images/graphics related to the topic. The workshops’ focus will be to ask community members to review the draft policy guidance and share their feedback. One workshop will be conducted in English and a second in Spanish; PlaceWorks will attend and facilitate each workshop.

Task 4. City Council Adoption Hearings
Under our current contract, PlaceWorks is only scoped to prepare a staff report and presentation for the adoption hearings, but not to attend them. This task adds the scope and budget required for PlaceWorks to attend the adoption hearing, as well as scope and budget required to attend a second hearing if needed, including preparation of a staff report and presentation.

Task 5. Grant Planning and Project Management
PlaceWorks will support CSCI grant planning and project management, including calls with City staff and other team members to discuss the grant and how it could fit into the overall process.

Environmental Justice Elements Planning Initiative Cost Estimate Task Total
Task 1: Pacific-Islander Workshop $2,570
Task 2: Stakeholder Engagement $3,448
Task 3: Policy Development Workshops $18,074
Task 4: City Council Adoption Hearings $6,490
Task 5: Grant Planning and Project Management $3,927
Total $34,509
Peninsula Resilience Planning Project
Task 1. Communities of Concern Workshops
PlaceWorks will support CRC’s work to hold two workshops in East Palo Alto with members of local communities of concern and other frontline groups. This support includes providing marketing assistance and helping to review materials. One meeting will be held in Spanish and a second will

EXHITBIT - A
30 2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400 | Berkeley, California 94704 | 510.848.3815 | PlaceWorks.com be held in English. Similar to the communities of concern workshops held earlier this year in other locations, these meetings will discuss general topics of safety and resilience in East Palo Alto, with the goal of identifying community needs and priorities. PlaceWorks will not attend these workshops, but will review the results and incorporate them into policy development and other phases.

Task 2. Focus Group Meetings
PlaceWorks will support CRC in hosting a series of three focus group meetings with East Palo Alto community members. These focus group meetings will take place in the spring of 2025.

Participants will review and provide comments on draft goals, objectives, and policies for the updated Safety Element, in addition to other relevant topics that may come up.

Task 3. Grant Planning and Project Management
PlaceWorks will support CSCI grant planning and project management, including calls with City staff and other team members to discuss the grant and how it could fit into the overall process.

Peninsula Resilience Planning Project Cost Estimate
Task Total
Task 1: Communities of Concern Workshops $3,250
Task 2: Focus Group Meetings $3,140
Task 3: Grant Planning and Project Management $3,800
Total $10,190

EXHIBIT -A
31 Memo
To: Elena Lee, Planning Manager
Alvin Jen, Associate Planner
From: Cathy Capriola, Consultant, Community Planning Collaborative cc: David Driskell & Joshua Abrams, Community Planning Collaborative Date: November 18, 2024
Re: Project Management Support for East Palo Alto’s Climate Smart Communities Initiatives (CSCI) Grant for Expanded Community Engagement for Safety Element and Environmental Justice Element Projects
Summary & Background
The City of East Palo Alto has received the benefit of a Climate Smart Communities Initiatives (CSCI) Grant in partnership with Climate Resilient Communities for expanded community engagement for both their Safety Element and Environmental Justice Element projects. This grant will ensure increased grassroots outreach and tailored engagement for East Palo Alto. To incorporate this grant into the current Safety Element and Environmental Justice Element work plans, additional funding and expertise are required from the broader consultant team of PlaceWorks and Community Planning Collaborative. As background, East Palo Alto is part of two collaborative projects for a Safety Element and Environmental Justice as described below.
▪ Safety Element – East Palo Alto’s Safety Element update is part of the Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Collaborative Project, which is a partnership of the County of San Mateo and the cities of Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, and San Bruno.
▪ Environmental Justice Element -- East Palo Alto’s Environmental Justice Element update is part of the Multi-Jurisdictional Environmental Justice Element Collaborative Project, which is a partnership of the County of San Mateo and the City of Burlingame.

CSCI Grant & Funding Needed
In May 2024, Climate Smart Communities Initiative (CSIC) reached out to the City and CRC to see if there was any interest in participating in a pilot program with a partnership between the City and a Community-Based Organization (CBO). This grant could be used towards technical assistance and funding towards planning, outreach, and implementation projects. With the assistance of the grant practitioner Coastal Quest, the City’s and CRC proposal was awarded an amount of $115,000. Climate Resilient Communities is the awardee for this grant for services to be conducted in East Palo Alto.

This grant allows CRC to cover costs for additional outreach in the Multi-Jurisdiction Environmental and Safety Elements proposals. However, this grant has limitations: It requires project funds to be

EXHIBIT- B
32 2
utilized no later than August 1, 2025, and restricts the funds to either the grant practitioner, a CBO, or City staff. Because CPC and PlaceWorks are not CBOs, funding from this grant cannot be allocated for their costs. However, time and expertise is required by PlaceWorks and CPC to provide content and project management support for these new engagement efforts and to weave the results into the final element documents. A new contract with Community Planning Collaborative is required to cover the additional outreach.

Community Planning Collaborative is the project manager for both of these collaborative projects and has been assisting the City of East Palo Alto in scoping and costing this added outreach opportunity.

Community Planning Collaborative will continue to act as the Project Manager for this expanded community outreach scope and ensure that the City’s interests are met. The table below shows the estimated time for supporting this new grant funding.

EXHIBIT- B
33 548 Market Street, PMB 81178, San Francisco, CA 94104 - 5401 415.421.3774 [email protected]
July 12, 2024
Tina Lee
Director
Coastal Quest
283 4th St #202
Oakland, CA 94607
Regarding Grant #17764-2023-13
Dear Tina,
It is a pleasure to inform you that Multiplier, on behalf of the Climate Resilience Fund, has approved a grant to Coastal Quest the amount of $115,000.00.

Enclosed is a copy of our Grant Agreement which contains the terms and conditions governing the use of our grant funds.

We hope these funds contribute to the success of Coastal Quest.

Sincerely,
Constance de Brun
Head of Finance
Doc ID: 597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d
34 GRANT AGREEMENT
This Grant Agreement is entered into between Multiplier (the “Grantor”), on behalf of the Climate Resilience Fund, and Coastal Quest (the “Grantee”).

Recitals
Multiplier is a California nonprofit 501(c)(3) umbrella organization that accelerates impact for initiatives focused on protecting and fostering a healthy, sustainable, resilient, and equitable world.

Climate Resilience Fund (CRF) is a project of Multiplier. CRF’s mission is to mobilize resources to support climate resilience and sustainability outcomes in communities across the U.S. and for the natural systems on which they depend. Together with our partners, we aim to expand our collective capacity to create a more adaptive, sustainable, climate resilient society.

For the purposes of this Grant Agreement, Multiplier and CRF are referred to collectively as “Grantor” and the grant recipient is referred to as “Grantee”. Grantee’s point of contact for all communications and notices regarding this grant shall be Darren Long at CRF ([email protected]).

Coastal Quest – Coastal Quest works collaboratively with partners to build resilient coastal communities. Healthy coasts support diverse and rich habitats that provide great economic and cultural value including shoreline protection, recreation, and abundant natural resources. Our mission is to create lasting solutions to protect, sustain, reduce threats to, and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of our coastal environments for present and future generations.

The Grantor and the Grantee hereby agree asfollows:

I. Tax Status. Grantee represents that it is a tax-exempt organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and that it is not a "private foundation" as defined in Code Section 509(a). Grantee shall notify Grantor immediately of any anticipated or actual changes in its taxexempt status.

II. Grant Term. This Grant Agreement (the “Agreement”) shall be effective as of August 1, 2024 (the “Effective Date”), and shall continue through completion, no later than August 1, 2025 (the “Grant Period”).

III. Grant Purpose. This project will expand outreach and engagement about climate resilience in our community through a series of workshops, projects, and activities that prioritize historically underrepresented residents. Climate hazards currently felt by vulnerable members of the community, including but not limited to flooding, sea-level rise, increased temperatures, increasingly frequent wildfires, as well as drought and chronic air pollution will prioritized in outreach and engagement efforts. The community concerns and priorities collaboratively identified through these workshops will be the foundation for the City’s new Environmental Justice Element and updated Safety Element of the city’s General Plan–a guiding policy vision for the next 8+ years of climate resilience, environmental, social, and racial justice.

Doc ID: 597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d
35 IV. Payment Terms. Grantor will disburse $103,500.00 (90%) (the “Grant”) to Grantee upon execution of this Agreement and $11,500.00 (10%) upon receipt of final project survey. Grant funds must be fully expended during the Grant Period in a manner consistent with the Scope of Work – Exhibit A that outlines allowable use of funds. All contracts and subgrants funded using Grant funds must be completed by the end of the Grant Period.

V. Lobbying and Voter Registration. Grantee agrees that there is no agreement, oral or written, that directs that the grant funds can be used for lobbying activities. It is also agreed that Grantee will not directly or indirectly participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office.

VI. Unspent Funds. The Grantee will return to Grantor any portion of the Grant not expended or committed to be expended for the Project by the Grant Period end date. To request a no-cost extension of the grant term, the Grantee must provide a written request, including reason and new requested end date, to Grantor 30 days before the end date of the Grant Period. The Grantee must receive an amendment to the Grant to expend funds beyond the Grant Period.

VII. Reporting Requirements.

A. The Project kickoff survey completed within 30 days of the start of the grant. Survey instrument to be provided by CSCI.

B. Midpoint verbal progress update with CSCI staff.

C. Final project survey completed within 14 days after the end date of the grant. Survey instrument to be provided by CSCI.

VIII.Interest. The Grantee is encouraged to use all interest earned on Grant funds to further the Grant Purpose; however, a formal accounting of such income is not required.

IX. Records. Grantee shall (i) maintain complete and accurate separate accounting for the Grant, detailing receipts and expenditures made under the Grant, and (ii) retain these records during the Grant Period and for at least four (4) years after receipt and acceptance of the final report.

During this time, Grantee shall make such records available to Grantor (or its designated representatives) for inspection or audit at Grantor’s expense and on reasonable notice to Grantee.

X. Monitoring and Evaluation. Grantor may, at its expense and on reasonable notice to Grantee, monitor and evaluate operations under this Grant. Such monitoring and evaluation may include on-site visits and/or discussions with Grantee’s personnel.

XI. Publicity. Grantor shall include information regarding the Grant in its periodic public reports and may include such information in press releases or other publicly available materials.

XII. Additional Requirements.

The Grantee agreesthat:

A. The laws and customs applicable to the Grantee do not permit any of its income or assets to be distributed to, or applied for the benefit of, a private person or noncharitable organization other than pursuant to the conduct of the Grantee organization’s charitable activities, or as payment of reasonable compensation for services rendered or as payment Doc ID: 597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d
36 representing the fair market value of property which the Grantee has purchased.

B. The Grantee organization has no shareholders or members who have a private ownership interest in the income or assets of the organization.

C. Use of the Multiplier name and Climate Resilience Fund name related to this grant are subject to the following provisions: (i) The Grantee may include basic information about this grant (such as the name Multiplier or Climate Resilience Fund, the grant amount, and a brief description of its purpose) in its periodic public reports, proposals and reports to other donors, and on its website, and (ii) Any use of Multiplier’s or Climate Resilience Fund’s logo requires advance written approval at [email protected].

Additionally, the Grantee agreesto:

D. Comply with all applicable laws or regulationsin any jurisdiction in which it conducts activities.

E. Cooperate with Grantor in supplying any additional information or complying with any procedures that any governmental agency might require for Grantor to establish that it has observed all requirements of the law with respect to this Grant.

F. Notify Grantor immediately of any anticipated or actual changes in the president, executive director or other key personnel identified in the Grant proposal, award letter or this Grant Agreement, or of any anticipated or actual merger, consolidation, sale, or transfer of all or substantially all of the Grantee’s assets. The Grantee acknowledges that these changes may trigger Grantor’s review and reassessment of the Grantee’s ability to meet the purposes of the Grant. Such review may lead to additional grant provisions or other limitations for unexpended funds.

G. Make any data, research, knowledge, and other information developed with these Grant funds freely available to Grantor. Grantee hereby grants to Grantor a perpetual, worldwide right and license to use, publish, distribute, reproduce, copy, and modify any intellectual property developed with the Grant funds for non-commercial purposes. At Grantor’s request, the Grantee agrees to execute all necessary or appropriate documents and take all other reasonable steps to document or formalize such rights in these materials.

Further, the Grantee shall not:

H. Disclose the name of or any information concerning the funder of any Grantor project without the explicit written consent of both the relevant funder and Grantor.

I. Regrant or contract any of the Grant funds without Grantor’s explicit prior approval.

XIII. Right to Modify or Discontinue Funding.

A. CRF reserves the right to discontinue funding of the Grant and terminate this Agreement at any time if CRF determines, in its sole discretion, that: (i) it is not satisfied with the progress of the Grant or the content of any written report, (ii) Grant funds are not being used by Grantee in an effective and efficient manner to further the Grant’s purpose, (iii) there is any anticipated or actual changes in the president, executive director or other key personnel, or (iv) Organization has otherwise failed to comply with the terms of this Agreement.

B. In the event that CRF makes any such determination, CRF shall have the right to (i) discontinue any further payments to Grantee and/or (ii) direct Grantee to repay to CRF any Grant funds not used in accordance with this Agreement. CRF reserves the right to discontinue, modify, or withhold any payments due under this Grant, or to modify the terms of this Agreement, to comply with any law or regulation applicable to this Grant or to Doc ID: 597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d
37 protect and maintain CRF’s tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code.

XIV.Budget Revisions. Grantee must submit a written request for a revision to the Project budget that results in a variance of twenty-five percent (25%) or more of any line item.

XV. Release and Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Grantee shall release, indemnify, defend and hold harmless Grantor and its directors, officers, trustees, employees, representatives and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, damages, liabilities, injuries (personal or bodily), property damage, causes of action, losses, judgments, costs, expenses and penalties, including, without limitation, court costs and attorney’s fees, arising out of (directly or indirectly) or related in any way to the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of Grantee or any Grantee director, officer, employee or agent in connection with this Grant or the Project, except to the extent resulting from the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of Grantor.

XVI.Human Subject Research. If the Grant is to be used in whole or in part for research involving human subjects, you hereby certify that you will conduct the research in compliance with the ethical standards and the criteria for approval and conduct of research set forth in United States Department of Health and Human Services policy for the protection of human research subjects (45 C.F.R. Part 46 and related guidance, as amended from time to time) and all other federal and state laws applicable to the research project. Such requirements may include, but are not limited to, obtaining and maintaining institutional review board (IRB) approval and obtaining informed consent of participating research subjects.

XVII. No Waiver. Failure by either party to require the other party’s performance under any provision of this Agreement shall in no way affect such party’s right to require full performance under that or any other provision at any time thereafter. In addition, a party’s waiver of a breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or any other provision or constitute a waiver of the provision itself.

XVIII. Entire Agreement. This Agreement (a) constitutes the entire understanding of Grantor and the Grantee with respect to the subject matter herein, and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, whether oral or written; (b) is made exclusively with the Grantee and may not be transferred or assigned to any other organization or person without Grantor’s prior written approval; and (c) may be amended or modified only by a mutual written agreement between the parties.

XIX.Notices. All notices and other communications under this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be deemed duly given (a) on the date sent by e-mail if sent during normal business hours of the recipient during a business day, and on the next business day if sent after normal business hours of the recipient, (b) if sent via a nationally recognized overnight courier service (delivery receipt requested), with charges paid by the mailing party, on the later of (i) the first business day following the date of dispatch, or (ii) the scheduled date of delivery by such service, or (c) on the fifth business day following the date of mailing, if mailed by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid to the party receiving the notice or communication.

All notices and other communications shall be sent to the following addresses, or such other addresses as the parties may designate from time to time by notice in accordance with this Doc ID: 597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d
38 Section XIX:

To Climate Resilience Fund:

Darren Long
[email protected]
548 Market Street, PMB 81178
San Francisco, CA 94104-5401
To Coastal Quest:

Emma Koeze
[email protected]
434-249-8293
283 4th St #202
Oakland, CA 94607
XX. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be deemed to be made under, and in all respects shall be interpreted under and governed by, the laws of the State of California.

Agreed to and accepted on behalf of Coastal Quest:
___________________________________ __________________________ Signature Date
Agreed to and accepted on behalf of Climate Resilience Fund:
___________________________________ __________________________ Signature Date
Agreed to and accepted on behalf of Multiplier:
___________________________________ __________________________ Signature Date
Name: John Nordgren Title: Managing Director
Name: Tina Lee Title: Director
Name: Constance de Brun Title: Head of Finance
7/15/2024
7/12/2024
07/12/2024
Doc ID: 597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d
39 Exhibit A – Scope of Work

1. Purpose
This project will expand outreach and engagement about climate resilience in our community through a series of workshops, projects, and activities that prioritize historically underrepresented residents. Climate hazards currently felt by vulnerable members of the community, including but not limited to flooding, sea-level rise, increased temperatures, increasingly frequent wildfires, as well as drought and chronic air pollution will prioritized in outreach and engagement efforts. The community concerns and priorities collaboratively identified through these workshops will be the foundation for the City’s new Environmental Justice Element and updated Safety Element of the city’s General Plan–a guiding policy vision for the next 8+ years of climate resilience, environmental, social, and racial justice.

2. Desired Outcomes
• Increased community capacity, education and understanding of climate hazards such as flooding, sea-level rise, groundwater rise-driven flooding and industrial contamination, increased temperatures, and other hazards compounded by climate change. • Increased protective behavioral changes that help community members address hazards and integrate climate resilience practices into their daily lives. • Policy changes and actions prioritized that address the impacts of climate change, reduce pollution, and protect the health and safety of residents. • A community-led vision of local climate resilience that identifies funding mechanisms, responsible parties, and opportunities for cross-jurisdictional collaboration to advance environmental justice at the city level.
• New data and a clear sense of community preferences and priorities as well as a strategic vision to achieve them and ultimately, a compelling case for additional funding to further support Climate Resilient Communities and the City of East Palo Alto along its Steps to Resilience.

3. Narrative or Summary of Activities Planned to Achieve Outcomes Our project will ensure robust, sustained, and equitable engagement for the City of East Palo Alto’s Environmental Justice and Safety Element Updates to their General Plan, resulting in 8 years of policy guidance that reflect community-led priorities to advance social, racial, and environmental justice. We will conduct multilingual outreach and engagement to understand community preferences and priorities to address climate vulnerabilities and environmental hazards, including specific workshops for monolingual Spanish speakers and engagement opportunities for Pacific Islanders facilitated in Tongan, Samoan, and Fijian. As a community-based organization with deep ties to the community we are uniquely positioned to ensure residents that are most often excluded from political processes are present, active, and organized to produce better policy that reflects the most urgent needs of residents.

4. Activities, Key Deliverables and Timeline
Activates, key deliverables, and timelines listed in Exhibit B.

Doc ID: 597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d
40 5. Reporting
• Project kickoff survey completed within 30 days of the start of the grant. Survey instrument to be provided by CSCI.
• Midpoint verbal progress update with CSCI staff.
• Final project survey completed within 14 days after the end date of the grant. Survey instrument to be provided by CSCI.

6. Payment Schedule
• Award total: $115,000.00
• 90% of award paid upon signed grant agreement: $103,500.00 • 10% of award paid upon receipt of final project survey: $11,500.00 Doc ID: 597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d
41 EXHIBIT B - REPORTING & DELIVERABLES GUIDELINES

DESIRED OUTCOME
• Increased community capacity, education and understanding of climate hazards such as flooding, sea-level rise, groundwater rise-driven flooding and industrial contamination, increased temperatures, and other hazards compounded by climate change. • Increased protective behavioral changes that help community members address hazards and integrate climate resilience practices into their daily lives. • Policy changes and actions prioritized that address the impacts of climate change, reduce pollution, and protect the health and safety of residents. • A community-led vision of local climate resilience that identifies funding mechanisms, responsible parties, and opportunities for cross-jurisdictional collaboration to advance environmental justice at the city level.
• New data and a clear sense of community preferences and priorities as well as a strategic vision to achieve them and ultimately, a compelling case for additional funding to further support Climate Resilient Communities and the City of East Palo Alto along its Steps to Resilience.

KEY DELIVERABLES
July 2024:

Complete contracting and finalize work plan, scope, and outreach strategy.

Deliverables: Signed contracts to begin work and finalized Outreach Strategy Document.

August - September 2024
Conduct two (2) Safety Element workshops, one in each month. Finalize survey content, methodology, and begin distribution.

Deliverables: Two Safety Element Workshop Summaries, Finalized Survey, Survey Distribution Strategy October - December 2024
One (1) Environmental Justice Element Workshop, 200 completed surveys before year end. Five (5) stakeholder discussions with impacted community groups and those often excluded from these processes (incarcerated people, unhoused people, undocumented residents) Deliverables: One EJ Element Workshop Summary, Survey Report & Results Summary January - March 2025
Review of Draft EJ & Safety Elements, conduct three (3) Safety Element Focus Groups with different linguistic groups to receive feedback on Draft Safety Element, Conduct two (2) Environmental Justice Workshops.

Deliverables: 3 Safety Element Focus Group Summary Reports, 2 Environmental Justice Element Workshop Summary
April - June 2025
Five (5) additional stakeholder discussions, Redlined Draft of EJ and Safety Elements documenting community suggested alterations, additions, and feedback gathered from all prior outreach & engagement efforts.

Deliverables: Stakeholder Meeting Summary, Redlined Draft of EJ and Safety Elements Doc ID: 597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d
42 July 2025
Grant close out and final reporting.

Deliverables: Final grant report, Final EJ and Safety Element Documents CSCI Deliverables
The Project Lead is required to participate in a Steps to Resilience refresher training as part of the cohort orientation session in July 2024. As a result of this training and direct technical assistance from CSCI staff and partners that will be made available to the Project Lead, the Project Lead will be able to complete the following:
• Community vision, values, and equity centered goals
• Documented potential impacts using an exposure matrix • Impact statements for the main hazard/asset pairs that have the greatest vulnerability and risk • An options spreadsheet with supporting information
• Prioritization spreadsheet
• A climate resilience plan
Grantees are required to provide the following reports that document the progress of their projects:

Final report, (due dates indicated in Agreement) will include the following:
• Final project survey completed within 14 days after the end date of the grant. Survey instrument to be provided by CSCI.

All reports must be submitted electronically to Darren Long at [email protected] with [email protected] Cced. Please indicate the grant number in your reports. For questions regarding reporting requirements, please contact Darren Long.

Doc ID: 597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d
43 EXHIBIT C: ADVOCACY DEFINITIONS
Please see graphic on next page.

Source: Bolder Advocacy (www.bolderadvocacy.org)
Please note that the information in this chart applies only to organizations that have formally elected to measure their lobbying activities under Section 501(h) of the Internal Revenue Code. Please consult with counsel on any questions regarding whether an activity is lobbying, and for guidance on measuring lobbying activity if you are an organization that has not filed IRS Form 5768.

Doc ID: 597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d
44 Doc ID: 597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d
45 17764-2023-13_CRF_Coastal Quest_2024-7-12_GA
17764-2023-13_CRF..._2024-7-12_GA.pdf
597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d

MM / DD / YYYY
Signed
07 / 12 / 2024
16:13:40 UTC-4
Sent for signature to Constance de Brun
([email protected]), John Nordgren
([email protected]) and Tina Lee
([email protected]) from [email protected]
IP: 67.205.253.23
07 / 12 / 2024
16:14:59 UTC-4
Viewed by Tina Lee ([email protected])
IP: 184.23.244.204
07 / 12 / 2024
16:19:27 UTC-4
Viewed by John Nordgren ([email protected]) IP: 104.28.116.29
07 / 12 / 2024
16:21:05 UTC-4
Signed by John Nordgren ([email protected]) IP: 104.28.116.29
07 / 12 / 2024
18:49:25 UTC-4
Viewed by Constance de Brun ([email protected])
IP: 66.222.105.176
46 07 / 12 / 2024
18:50:09 UTC-4
Signed by Constance de Brun ([email protected])
IP: 66.222.105.176
07 / 15 / 2024
13:58:46 UTC-4
Signed by Tina Lee ([email protected])
IP: 98.37.149.32
07 / 15 / 2024 The document has been completed.
13:58:46 UTC-4
17764-2023-13_CRF_Coastal Quest_2024-7-12_GA
17764-2023-13_CRF..._2024-7-12_GA.pdf
597b2377ec8d8aa55d851244284e74d0900c954d

MM / DD / YYYY
Signed
47 1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Between

SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
and

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
for the

MULTIJURISDICTIONAL SAFETY ELEMENT PROJECT
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), effective the 15th day of June, 2023 is entered into by and between the County of San Mateo (“County”) and the City of East Palo Alto (“Agency”), together referred to herein as the "Parties." WHEREAS, the County and cities and towns in San Mateo County have a strong history of collaboration and resource sharing on various planning studies and initiatives, including a new initiative to participate in the Multijurisdictional Safety Element Project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, recent changes to State law require local jurisdictions to review and update the safety elements of their general plans to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies, fire hazards, flood hazards, and evacuation routes; and WHEREAS, nine (9) jurisdictions in San Mateo County have formed a Safety Element Collaborative (“Collaborative” and “Collaborative Partners”) to address the legal requirement to update safety elements and to share analysis and resources for greater efficiency for the jurisdictions participating in this collaborative effort; and WHEREAS, seven (7) jurisdictions will participate in the full project scope of work (Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, San Mateo County), and two (2) jurisdictions will only participate in certain tasks (Brisbane, Pacifica); and
WHEREAS, for those agencies participating in the Collaborative’s full scope of work, a legally compliant safety element will be produced; and WHEREAS, through a competitive RFP process facilitated by San Mateo County, 48 2
PlaceWorks (“Contractor”) was identified as the preferred firm to provide consulting services for the Project for tasks such as community engagement, the vulnerability assessment, and drafting updated safety elements; and
WHEREAS, Community Planning Collaborative, the consulting firm for the 21 Elements Project, has served as the project manager (“Project Manager”) for the Safety Element Collaborative through the Collaboratives’ initial formation and the RFP process to ensure the voice of each participating agency is heard and their needs addressed; and WHEREAS, Community Planning Collaborative will continue to serve as the Project Manager for the Safety Element Collaborative for the duration of the Project; and WHEREAS, the County will serve as the fiscal agent for the Project; and WHEREAS, the total cost of the Project is $1,316,416 and the Agency’s contribution is $156,964; and
WHEREAS, the County and Agency desire to enter into this MOU to memorialize the understanding that the Parties will work cooperatively to implement and fund the Project in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County and Agency agree as follows:

I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this MOU is to memorialize the understanding between the County and Agency that (1) the Agency wishes to participate in the Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Project, (2) the Agency wishes to utilize the Contractor and the Project Manager as the consulting team, and (3) the County will serve as the fiscal agent to facilitate the Project.

II. EXHIBITS
The following exhibits are attached to this MOU and incorporated into this MOU by this reference:

Exhibit A – Project Contributions by Agency
Exhibit B – PlaceWorks - Scope of Work and Fee Proposals 49 3
Exhibit C – Community Planning Collaborative – Scope of Work and Fee Proposal
III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
a. The County will serve as the Fiscal Agent for the Project and will enter into separate agreements with Contractor and Project Manager. The County will review and process payments and invoices on behalf of the Collaborative Partners to the consultants pursuant to the terms of the relevant consulting agreements.
b. The Agency will provide funding as set forth in Exhibit A for the Project and will participate in obligations identified in the Scope of Work in Exhibit B, including participating in the overall plan development and implementation. c. Community Planning Collaborative will serve as Project Manager and will manage and implement all aspects of the Project, in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit C.
d. PlaceWorks will serve as Contractor and will carry out the tasks described in the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit B.

IV. FUNDING AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
a. Agency agrees to pay the County for the Agency contribution identified in Exhibit A of this MOU. The Agency agrees to pay the County either (1) 100% of its contribution by July 15, 2023, (2) 50% of its contribution by July 15, 2023 and the remaining 50% by September 15, 2023, or (3) 20% of its contribution by July 15, 2023, 60% by September 15, 2023, and the remaining 20% by August 1, 2024.

The Agency will notify the County of its payment selection upon execution of this MOU.

1. The Contractor will submit invoices to the Project Manager on a monthly basis for Project activities. A brief narrative progress report shall be included with each invoice. The Project Manager will review the Contractor’s invoices and submit the invoices to the County for payment.

2. The Project Manager will submit the Project Manager’s invoices and brief narrative progress reports to the County on a monthly basis for review and payment.

3. The Contractor and Project Manager will provide a quarterly accounting of invoices, charged and remaining funds for each Collaborative Partner to the County and Agency.
b. The County and Agency each agree they are not entitled to reimbursement of costs incurred while performing obligations as set forth in Section III, Roles and Responsibilities.
c. In the event that the actual costs of completing the scopes of work, as set forth in Exhibits B and C, exceed the budgets set forth in Exhibits B or C, respectively, the Collaborative Partners, including the County and Agency, will confer and agree either to reduce the relevant scope of work and/or to provide additional 50 4
funding subject to further written mutual agreement of the Parties. The Collaborative Partners agree to use best efforts in such case to reach resolution without causing a Project delay.
d. At the conclusion of the Project, the Project Manager will submit a final accounting to each Collaborative Partner with any remaining funds returned to each Collaborative Partner or a final invoice if required.

V. TERM
This MOU shall be effective from June 15, 2023 to June 15, 2026, unless terminated sooner pursuant to Section XIII.

VI. AMENDMENTS
The Agency contact, or designee, is authorized to make minor modifications to the scopes of work in Exhibits B and C, in consultation with the Project Manager and County, to respond to necessary changes as the Project evolves as long as the Project cost does not exceed the total approved cost estimate in Exhibit A. Such minor modifications to the scopes of work shall be documented in writing, but shall not require an amendment to this MOU.

This MOU can be amended, modified, or supplemented only in writing(s) signed by both Parties. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein will be binding on either of the Parties.

VII. INDEMNIFICATION
a. It is agreed that Agency shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify County and its officers, employees, agents, and servants from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought by a third party which arise out of the terms and conditions of this MOU (collectively, “Claims”); provided that such Claims are the direct result from the acts or omissions of Agency and/or its officers, employees, agents, and servants.
b. Agency shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify County from and against any and all claims for wages, salaries, benefits, taxes, and all other withholdings and charges payable to, or in respect to, Agency’s representatives for services provided under this MOU.
c. It is agreed that County shall defend, save harmless, and indemnify Agency and its officers, employees, agents, and servants from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought by a third party which arise out of the terms and conditions of this MOU and which result from the acts or omissions of County and/or its officers and employees, agents and servants. d. The duty of each party to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other as set forth herein shall include the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code.
51 5
e. In the event of concurrent negligence (or intentional/reckless acts) of County and/or its officers and employees, on the one hand, and Agency and/or its officers, employees, agents, and servants, on the other hand, then the liability for any and all claims for injuries or damage to persons and/or property which arise out of terms and conditions of this MOU shall be apportioned according to the California theory of comparative fault.
f. This indemnification will survive termination or expiration of this MOU.

VIII. NOTICES
a. All notices and communications deemed by either party to be necessary or desirable must be in writing and may be given by personal delivery to a representative of the other party or by mailing the same, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

If to the County:

San Mateo County Planning & Building Department
455 County Center
2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Steve Monowitz, Director of Community Development
650/363-1861; [email protected]
If to the Agency:

City of East Palo Alto
Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 853-3150
[email protected]
b. The address to which mailings may be made may be changed from time to time by notice mailed as described above. Any notice given by mail will be deemed given on the day after that on which it is deposited in the United States Mail as provided above.

IX. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The Parties agree and understand that the work/services performed by either of the Parties or any consultant retained by either of the Parties under this MOU are performed as independent contractors and not as employees or agents of the other party. Nothing herein will be deemed to create any joint venture between the County and Agency or any employment relationship between Agency and County, Contractor and Project Manager.

X. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
Neither party will assign, transfer, or otherwise substitute its interest in this MOU, nor its 52 6
obligations, without the prior written consent of the other party. All obligations created under this MOU will be binding on, and the rights established herein will inure to the benefit of, any successors or assigns of the Parties.

XI. COMPLIANCE
The Parties must comply with any and all laws, statues, ordinances, rules, regulations, or requirements of the federal, state, and local governments, and any agency thereof, which relate to or in any manner affect the performance of this MOU.

XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The Parties agree to work together in good faith to resolve any dispute arising from this MOU and agree to refer any dispute not resolved within 30 days to the County’s Community Development Director and Agency’s Planning Director for resolution. In the event resolution cannot be reached, the Parties may submit the dispute to mediation by a neutral party mutually agreed to by the Parties prior to initiating any formal action in court.

XIII. TERMINATION
Either Party may terminate this MOU with or without cause upon 30 days' prior written notice. If either Party terminates this MOU with or without cause, the Agency will be responsible for its pro rata share of costs incurred by the County or the County’s Project consultants up through the effective date of termination.

XIV. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this MOU is be deemed invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that provision will be reformed and/or construed consistently with applicable law as nearly as possible to reflect the original intentions of this MOU; and in any event, the remaining provisions of this MOU will remain in full force and effect.

XV. GOVERNING LAW
This MOU will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to contracts that are made and performed entirely in California.

XVI. NO WAIVER
No waiver of any default or breach of any covenant of this MOU by either party will be implied from any omission by either party to take action on account of such default if such default persists or is repeated. No express waiver will affect any default not specified in the waiver, and the waiver will be operative only for the time or extent stated. The consent or approval by either party to or of any act by either party requiring further consent or approval will not be deemed to waive or render necessary consent or approval to any subsequent, similar acts.
53 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this MOU as follows:
[AGENCY NAME]
By: ____________________________
Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
ATTEST:

By:________________________________
James Colin, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ____________________________
John D. Lê, City Attorney

SAN MATEO COUNTY
By: ____________________________
David Pine, President, Board of
Supervisors, County of San Mateo
ATTEST:

By:_________________________________
Michael Callagy, Clerk of Said Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ____________________________
Melissa Andrikopoulos, Deputy County
Attorney
54 8

EXHIBIT A

PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS BY AGENCY
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO – TOTAL COST

SAFETY ELEMENT CONSULTANT

PLACEWORKS TEAM CONTRACT
Base Contract $118,475
AddͲOn Items $1,714
CEQA Contingency $12,821
General Contingency $12,019
SUBTOTAL $145,029

PROJECT MANAGER
COMMUNITY PLANNING COLLABORATIVE THROUGH 21 ELEMENTS
SUBTOTAL $11,935

TOTAL COST $156,964
55 9

EXHIBIT B

PLACEWORKS SCOPE OF WORK AND FEE PROPOSALS
*See Exhibits A AND B to the agreement between the County of San Mateo and PlaceWorks, Inc., incorporated herein by this reference*

56 10

EXHIBIT C

COMMUNITY PLANNING COLLABORATIVE SCOPE OF WORK AND FEE

PROPOSAL
57 Multi-Jurisdictional Safety
Element Update
for the County of San Mateo
February 9, 2023 | Revised Proposal for Services
58 Multi-Jurisdictional Safety
Element Update
for the County of San Mateo
February 9, 2023 | Revised Proposal for Services
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE www.placeworks.com
Prepared By: PlaceWorks
ϮϬϰϬĂŶĐƌŽŌtĂǇ͕^ƵŝƚĞϰϬϬ
ĞƌŬĞůĞǇ͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂϵϰϳϬϰ
ƚϱϭϬ͘ϴϰϴ͘ϯϴϭϱ
/ŶƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶǁŝƚŚ͗
ƚůĂƐWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ^ŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
EĞǆƵƐWůĂŶŶŝŶŐΘZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ
ůŝŵĂƚĞZĞƐŝůŝĞŶƚŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ
59 Technical
Proposal
60 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 3

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Understanding and Approach
California residents understand that natural hazards are an inescapable and inherent character of our state, and San Mateo County is no exception. Lakes and streams regularly shrink and swell in cycles of drought and downpours, hills and forests turn dry and burn, and the ground occasionally shakes and rumbles. As a background of all of this, the consequences of global climate change alter our expectations of normality, changing the frequency and intensity of many of our natural hazards, often with increasingly severe effects.

We cannot ignore these hazardous conditions, nor can we completely eliminate the risk they pose. The continued success of San Mateo County, as with the rest of our region and state, depends on finding ways to adapt to these conditions and increase our resilience to their harmful effects. We can reduce the chance of these hazards occurring, design our physical and social systems to resist their effects, and plan for rapid, effective responses and recovery when they do inevitably happen. The Safety Element of each jurisdiction’s General Plan serves as a comprehensive framework and foundation for
community resilience with goals, policies, and programs that address safety issues in the community, providing
opportunities to build community resilience throughout all phases of the emergency management cycle.

The PlaceWorks team understands that nine jurisdictions in San Mateo County have formed a Safety Element Collaborative (Collaborative) for a coordinated update of their Safety Elements (or in the case of Brisbane and Pacifica, selected aspects of the Safety Element). The Collaborative includes the County of San Mateo and the Cities of Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, and San Bruno (also referred to as Participating Agencies or Participating Jurisdictions). The updated Safety Elements should be responsive to all applicable State laws and pertinent public safety issues, including climate change, the intersection between risks and equity, and evacuation access. For many of these communities, there is a significant amount of overlap in the types of hazard conditions they must address (refer to Table 1). In addition, they should integrate with other safety-related planning efforts, including the recently updated Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, local emergency operation plans, and climate adaptation plans, and comprehensively address both short-term and long-term safety and resilience issues.

Disaster
Response
Mitigation Recovery
Preparation
The emergency management cycle
61 Technical Proposal
4 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update Table 1. Participating Jurisdictions and Hazards of Concern Jurisdiction Scope
Participation
Hazards of Concern
Dam
Inundation
Evacuation
Concerns Flooding GeologicLandslides
GeologicLiquefaction
Sea
Level
Rise
Tsunami
Wildfire

CAL FIRE
review
San Mateo
County
Full 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Atherton Full 9 9 9 9
Belmont Full ex. SB 99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Brisbane VA & Maps 9 9 9 9 9 9
Burlingame Full 9 9 9 9 9 9
East Palo
Alto
Full 9 9 9 9 9 9
Half Moon
Bay
Full 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Pacifica VA & Maps 9 9 9 9 9 9
San Bruno Full 9 9 9 9 9 9
Tailored Holistic Planning
While recognizing the importance of having safety elements that are tailored to each community, the PlaceWorks team understands that these elements must mesh and sync up with each other to create a unified framework to public safety and resilience as much as possible. The successful efforts of OneShoreline illustrate how effective a county-wide approach can be when it comes to policy frameworks, capital projects, educational efforts, and data sharing, among others. Although not all jurisdictions in San Mateo County are participating in this project, we still intend to pursue cross-boundary analyses and solutions that can help inform surrounding communities and which other communities may be able to join later. For example, unincorporated San Mateo County, Half Moon Bay, and Belmont include very high fire hazard severity zones.

As feasible, a unified approach to reduce the risks to new and existing development in these zones can help ensure increased protection across community limits and make sure these Participating Jurisdictions are prepared for any future fires.

The PlaceWorks team understands that despite the relatively close proximity of the nine Participating Jurisdictions, there are substantial differences between these communities. These differences include physical distinctions, such as terrain and distribution of land uses; socioeconomic differences among community residents, such as income; a range of community characteristics, including quality and age of housing stock; exposure to different hazards and safety issues; and numerous other factors. 62 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 5
We know that this project cannot be approached as a single Safety Element distributed to each community.

Each community must receive analyses, policies, community engagement strategies, and other resources as part of their Safety Element that is uniquely prepared for that community’s needs. Pacifica’s vulnerabilities are different from Belmont’s, and many policy solutions that work for East Palo Alto are not likely to be applicable to Atherton. We pride ourselves on working with municipal agency staff, community-based organizations (CBOs), and other local experts to better understand the unique challenges and opportunities facing each community, allowing us to prepare plans that are specifically suited to each jurisdiction and not cookie-cutter “one-size-fits-all” documents.

Assessing Vulnerability Through an Equity Lens
The PlaceWorks team is aware that acknowledging and helping to correct inequities is a key principle of this planning effort, and this is a topic we are eager to address. Our team understands the nexus between equity and resilience, recognizing that lack of access to secure housing, financial resources, healthcare and education, decision-making, and numerous other consequences of systemic injustices and marginalization make an individual or a group more likely to be harmed by natural hazards and their consequences, both directly and indirectly. Many populations in the Participating Jurisdictions have experienced such discrimination and vulnerability, and we see a key part of our role as learning from their experiences and using our understanding of equity issues to elevate their needs and priorities.

Part of our understanding of equity, disproportionate impacts, and vulnerability is knowing the different forms that these issues take. There are numerous factors that contribute to vulnerability, and we want to make sure that the updated Safety Elements comprehensively address these issues. For example, it is well known that income and other financial resources are one of the biggest determinants of resilience. Higherincome persons can more easily afford to rehabilitate and harden their homes, pay for protective resources, absorb temporary loss of income from hazard-related impacts, relocate to less vulnerable areas, and take many other steps to reduce their vulnerability. However, this does not mean that wealthy individuals may not also be vulnerable to the effects of natural hazards. In a county where the median income for a family of four is $166,000, factors such as overpaying for housing, overcoming obstacles to home ownership (e.g., lack of affordable homes, saving for down payment), and overcrowding can contribute substantially to vulnerability. Social isolation, access and functional needs, chronic health conditions, and many other factors also make an individual more sensitive to natural hazards regardless of their financial resources. A key goal of these Safety Element updates will focus on working with community members, CBOs, and jurisdiction staff to ensure that these plans include a comprehensive understanding of vulnerability that accurately reflects • Brisbane: 4,850
• Unincorporated
San Mateo
County: 129,270
Population
• East Palo Alto:
$83,510
• Atherton: Over
$250,000
Median
household
income
• Half Moon Bay:
49%
• San Bruno: 84%
Percentage of
houses built
before 1980
63 Technical Proposal
6 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update the very real needs and priorities of the most at-risk groups, while also not excluding those who may not be considered “traditionally” vulnerable but who may still suffer disproportionate impacts.

County-wide income limits for a household of four and median household income.

Taking the Long View
Under recent changes to State law, safety elements must be reviewed and updated (as needed) at least every eight years. Despite this, safety elements must continue to provide a framework for long-term safety and resilience. While they can (and should) include relevant short-term actions, as a part of the General Plan, a safety element should traditionally support community action for 15 to 30 years. However, the PlaceWorks team understands that this historic horizon is no longer sufficient in the era of climate change, and that our communities should be planning for conditions decades in the future. We know that a building or piece of critical infrastructure constructed during the eight-year active period of these safety elements may still be operational by 2100. For example, Census data shows that approximately 11 percent of the houses in San Mateo
County were constructed before 1940, long before the
advent of modern building codes, safety standards, or
many of the other land use planning tools that inform
today’s development. Meanwhile, consider that State
guidance recommends planning for at least 84 inches of
sea level rise by 2100, a level that would cause significant inundation in parts of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and the
unincorporated county, and would likely create impacts in $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
Acutely
low
Extremely
low Very low Low Moderate
Above
moderate
East Palo
Alto
County average, San
Bruno, and Brisbane
Belmont Atherton
Pacifica and
Half Moon Bay
2100 sea level rise projections in East Palo Alto, according to Adapting to Rising Tides modeling.

Burlingame
64 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 7
all other communities. We understand the importance of planning our communities now to account for longterm future conditions, helping to ensure that future generations, including the infrastructure and critical facilities that they rely on, are out of harm’s way as much as possible and are prepared for hazard events.

Inclusive Community Engagement
Any plan must have support from the community, or its success is in jeopardy. The PlaceWorks team understands the importance of building community backing for the Safety Element updates. Our approach to community engagement for comprehensive planning and resilience projects ensures that community member concerns, goals, priorities, and values are elevated in the Safety Element updates and made central to their intent. Our approach to public engagement emphasizes the importance of conducting outreach to as broad a segment of the community as possible, including to people who historically have not participated in community planning efforts. This includes using a range of in-person and virtual engagement approaches and tools, using interactive and compelling ways to gather community feedback, and making information available to community members in plain, easy-to-understand ways to help support informed participation.

Critically, we intend to collaborate very closely with CBOs and jurisdictions’ staff to understand how best to reach out to community members, to learn what strategies have been successful in the past, as well as what’s working well now in similar projects in Participating Jurisdictions, and to improve the engagement process.

We also intend to collaborate with CBOs and jurisdiction staff to conduct outreach in other languages, as necessary.

Feasible Implementation
We cannot overstate the importance of implementation, and as many of our staff are former public jurisdiction staff themselves, the PlaceWorks team understands that a plan that only sits on the shelf is of no value to anyone regardless of how nicely it reads or how well it was put together. It is critical that the strategies in the Safety Elements be appropriate and feasible for the communities, including that they can be implemented with available staff time, funding levels, and other resources. Right now, there are numerous opportunities to fund safety, resilience, and adaptation work coming from regional, state, and federal sources, as well as private organizations. We plan to prepare Safety Elements that help to best position the Participating Jurisdictions to secure these funds and take advantage of other emerging resources that can support these efforts.
65 Technical Proposal
8 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update Scope of Work
PlaceWorks supports the work program presented in the Request for Proposals (RFP) with minor modifications. The work program described in this section includes all tasks identified in the RFP plus an additional sub task for project management and coordination with the Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) Project Manager in Task 1 and small modifications to combine sub tasks. Task 1, project coordination and communication, is an ongoing task. Task 2, community engagement and equity approach, will occur throughout the process with targeted outreach or touchpoints at key points in the process. Tasks 3 through 10 will occur sequentially as each task builds up to the final review and approval of the Safety Element.

Our Scope of Work presents our proposed approach to the project; however, we look forward to discussing the approach with the Collaborative and adjusting it as needed to support achievement of the project goals.

We recognize that not all Participating Agencies will participate in all tasks. Our understanding of agency participation by task is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Participating Agency Participation by Task
Participating Agency Participation by Task
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Atherton 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Belmont 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Brisbane 9 9 9 9
Burlingame 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
East Palo Alto 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Half Moon Bay 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Pacifica 9 9 9
San Bruno 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Unincorporated San
Mateo County
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
66 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 9
Task 1. Project Coordination and Communication

1.1 Collaborative Steering Committee
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The PlaceWorks team will participate in meetings with the Collaborative Steering Committee throughout the project. As noted in the RFP, we anticipate this Collaborative will include participation by at least one representative from each Participating City and San Mateo County, in addition to the CPC Project Manager and staff the PlaceWorks team.

Meetings of the Collaborative Steering Committee will be opportunities to share information, provide feedback at key points in the process, discuss options and opportunities for community engagement, and review approaches to addressing key hazards of concern.

As part of the project kick-off meeting, we propose to review the project schedule and identify topics, key project milestones, and opportunities to engage the Collaborative Steering Committee. Some topics, like community engagement, will likely occur on each meeting agenda, though the time needed will vary by phase of the project. For scoping purposes, we anticipate up to nine (9) meetings by video conference with the Steering Committee.

PlaceWorks will develop the meeting approach and draft agenda in collaboration with the CPC Project Manager and prepare deliverables and presentation materials for each meeting. PlaceWorks and the CPC Project Manager will identify key decisions and discussion items for each agenda. PlaceWorks will review meeting materials with the CPC Project Manager before distribution to the Committee members. After each meeting, the CPC Project Manager will prepare and distribute a high-level summary of key points, action items, decisions, and next steps. PlaceWorks understands the CPC Project Manager will facilitate each meeting and that the PlaceWorks team will lead presentation and discussion of our work products during the meeting. All meetings will be held online through Zoom.

Our scope for this task assumes the CPC Project Manager will lead the formation and overall coordination of this Committee and serve as the Committee’s primary point of contact. At the time of project initiation, the Committee and PlaceWorks will confirm the preferred option(s) for sharing files, either through email or through a file-sharing site that is accessible by all Committee members.

1.2 Participating Agency Technical Advisory Committees and 1x1 Support Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Each Participating Agency has the option to create a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide topicspecific feedback and guidance on the development of their jurisdiction’s Safety Element. TACs may include staff representatives from planning, building, public works, emergency management, parks, police/sheriff, Collaborative Steering
Committee Members
Project Manager:

Community Planning
Collaborative (CPC)/21
Elements
Representatives from 8
Participating Cities and
County of San Mateo Dept.
of Planning & Building and
Office of Sustainability
Consultant Team
67 Technical Proposal
10 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update fire, city manager/county executive’s office, and other departments as identified by the Participating Agency.

Each TAC will be coordinated by the key staff from the Participating Agency who will use materials prepared by PlaceWorks to support their discussions and decisions.

The role of the TAC is to support preparation of the Safety Element Update and to provide communityspecific expertise and background to the project team. We recommend TACs review interim and draft project deliverables and provide important feedback to the PlaceWorks team. An example of an interim deliverable is the review of draft lists of populations, hazards, and assets and confirmation of mapped data that will be used to inform the key task of vulnerability scoring. This interim deliverable leads to the main task of conducting a Vulnerability Assessment. It will be important to the success of the Safety Element for Participating Agency staff with direct knowledge and local expertise to contribute to the project. Most meetings will be to ensure key tasks are moving forward and producing locally appropriate results, although some meetings might need to be reserved for focused issue-specific discussions, like wildfire or flooding.

Some of the work of the TAC can be done through email and may not require an in-person or virtual meeting of all members. We recommend a brief kick-off for each TAC that includes a review of the project schedule and roles and responsibilities to set expectations. The formation and role of TAC will vary by Participating Agency. For budgeting purposes, we will provide the following support for each Participating Agency per their request:
» Cities of Atherton, Brisbane, and Pacifica: No formal TAC meetings; all coordination will occur by email.

PlaceWorks will support informal communication and coordination appropriate to key deliverables. » Cities of Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, and San Bruno: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for PlaceWorks staff to participate in TAC meetings (virtual attendance).
» County of San Mateo: Meeting support and attendance in up to eight (8) TAC meetings. Our budget assumes 6 hours of PlaceWorks team time to prepare for, attend, and summarize each meeting, assuming average TAC meeting duration is 90 minutes.

For each meeting, the PlaceWorks team will provide a briefing packet that includes draft project deliverables and project updates that each agency can share with their own internal jurisdiction-specific TAC. The timing of the meetings will align with key product deliverables and milestones. In our experience, we have found it helpful to agency staff and the project when the consultant team is available to meet with interdepartmental teams, like TACs, to review materials, questions, and comments in a timely manner and ensuring an efficient and consistent process. Our participation is at the discretion of the project team and the budget.

In addition to TACs, one-on-one meetings with the key staff from the Participating Agencies will be helpful throughout the project, in addition to the Collaborative Steering Committee and TAC meetings. These oneon-one meetings will allow time for more detailed review and discussion of key issues or deliverables for one community. Between scheduled meetings, PlaceWorks will be available to coordinate and communicate with Participating Agencies by email or by phone if that is easier.

Our budget assumes time for at least three one-on-one meetings (up to 1-hour meeting time per meeting) by video conference for each Participating Agency. As part of this task, we will also offer all Participating Jurisdictions up to four (4), shared drop-in sessions or “office hours” as an additional opportunity for Participating Agency staff to sign-up or drop-in with a question. Office hours will be hosted through Zoom with the option for small breakout rooms based on a topic or deliverable. 68 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 11

1.4 Ongoing Project Management
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Consistent and regular communication between the CPC Project Manager and the PlaceWorks team throughout the project will provide the opportunity for the project team to coordinate and keep the project moving forward on time and within budget. This task includes a project kick-off meeting and regular project check-ins of the project management team. At the project kick-off meeting, we will establish a schedule for project check-ins with the CPC Project Manager.

Our budget assumes one monthly 1-hour meeting during most of the project or one 30-minute check-in meeting twice a month, throughout the 24-month project. During these progress meetings, the PlaceWorks project management team and CPC Project Manager will discuss deliverables and active tasks for the Safety Element Update, identify any issues of concern and potentials solutions, and generally review the progress of the project. Other staff may join occasional meetings as needed. Prior to each meeting, we will work with staff to draft an agenda and identify the necessary participants to best meet the needs of each meeting. The status meetings will be in addition to regular email and phone communication between project team members.

This task includes project management activities, such as monitoring and tracking the budget, preparing and reviewing monthly invoices, maintaining the schedule, and managing the overall team throughout the process. The monthly invoice will detail PlaceWorks’ labor and expenses by task.

Deliverables:
» Monthly invoices and progress memos (electronic).
» Regular check-in meetings with the CPC Project Manager, including agenda preparation and action item summaries (by email).
» Regular email communication and coordination with the CPC Project Manager and leads for each Participating Agency.
» Preparation for and participation of the project management team in up to nine (9) meetings of the Collaborative Steering Committee (online/virtual).
» Preparation for and participation in Technical Advisory Committee meetings as follows:
» Town of Atherton: No TAC meetings; email coordination/communication only. » City of Belmont: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meetings (virtual attendance). » City of Brisbane: No TAC meetings; email coordination/communication only. » City of Burlingame: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meetings (virtual attendance). » City of East Palo Alto: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meetings (virtual attendance). » City of Half Moon Bay: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meetings (virtual attendance). » City of Pacifica: No TAC meetings; email coordination/communication only. » City of San Bruno: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meeting (virtual attendance). 69 Technical Proposal
12 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update » County of San Mateo: Full support, including attendance, for up to eight (8) TAC meetings. » Participation in up to three (3) one-on-one meetings with Participating Agencies (online/virtual).

Participating Jurisdictions can use their contingency budget if additional meeting time is needed. » Up to four (4) virtual, shared office hour sessions (1 hour per session).

Task 2. Community Engagement and Equity Approach
Project success depends on successful community engagement. PlaceWorks ensures this by working with clients to create a solid yet flexible community engagement plan that will guide engagement efforts throughout the project. We strive for a community engagement process that invites participation, provides a safe and inclusive collaborative space, builds capacity, and strengthens community relationships and ensures the end product reflects the community’s experience and goals.

Our team offers the San Mateo County Collaborative expertise in community engagement and how community engagement can inform and improve the technical tasks, like the Vulnerability Assessment and policy development. Our team has recently worked in communities, like Butte County, Santa Rosa, and Santa Barbara County that experienced devastating hazard events and has developed engagement plans that are sensitive to and create space for the emotional, social, and physical disruption and loss, and trauma, caused by these events and supportive techniques to reflect and improve the community’s public safety and hazard mitigation framework to support recovery and resiliency in the face of likely future events. We also have worked in Bay Area and Peninsula communities to integrate equity and environmental justice into comprehensive plans. We look forward to the opportunity to partner with the Participating Agencies and CBOs to engage with stakeholders in the Participating Jurisdictions. We recognize that many communities have started conversations around climate change, adaptation, and resilience, and our team will work diligently to get up-to-speed with recent and ongoing work to ensure it is incorporated into the project and the outreach approach.

We support the Community Engagement tasks presented in the RFP and offer the following approach to these tasks. In some instances, we found the RFP approach to be similar to our recommendation. We recognize these are minimum levels of outreach; however, we have followed many of the same tasks in similar projects and find them to be successful for a Safety Element Update as scoped in Tasks 3-10. As noted in the RFP, we recognize the following assumptions for this task:
PlaceWorks will lead the development and implementation of certain tasks and defer to CBO partners and/or Participating Agency staff to lead other tasks, with support from the PlaceWorks team, as noted in the sub-task descriptions.
PlaceWorks commits to designing outreach materials to be easily accessible to non-technical audiences and include the use of graphics and illustrations.
PlaceWorks and CRC will provide language translation as identified in this Scope of Work. Language translation will be limited to public outreach and communication items identified in Task 2. The contingency budget is available to support additional translation and/or interpretation if requested by the Participating Jurisdictions. PlaceWorks will ensure that there is sufficient time to review and translate materials and ensure they meet equity and inclusion goals.
70 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 13
PlaceWorks will attend only online outreach events, while most in-person events will be attended by agency staff or contracted CBOs. In our task descriptions, we have noted opportunities for PlaceWorks to support in-person events if needed.
Each Participating Agency will use their communication channels (social media, web) to publicize the outreach initiatives. PlaceWorks will provide marketing content to support these tools.

2.1 Community Engagement Plan
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

We begin our community engagement planning process for every project with preparation of an outreach and engagement approach or Community Engagement Plan (CEP). The engagement plan is the foundation for the engagement process and provides transparency to all participants throughout the process. We follow the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2)’s core values and code of ethics in our approach and design our strategies with IAP2’s Spectrum of Public Participation in mind, with flexibility to support community-driven processes. PlaceWorks is a member of IAP2 and supports ongoing training of our staff to ensure we are responsive to best practices and techniques.

For each phase of the planning process, we collaborate with staff to identify the desired level of engagement on the spectrum (inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower), who should be involved, why they should be involved, what their involvement will mean to the process and project, how they should be involved, and how we will use their input in the process and project. We work with our clients to develop goals and their commitment to the public for the outreach and planning process, and to ensure those goals and objectives are shared with all stakeholders throughout the process.

Developing and implementing a strong community engagement process is a cornerstone of our work. As a result, PlaceWorks’ projects reflect the interests and concerns of community members and decision makers.

We employ a variety of in-person and online outreach tools—including workshops, open houses, stakeholder discussion groups, listening sessions, pop-up events, intercept surveys, phone calls, online surveys, and special events—to elicit creative input and participation from all stakeholders. By successfully opening dialogue and building support, we help move projects from vision to final approval. We are also able to support translation and interpretation in a variety of languages.

At the kick-off meeting with the Collaborative Steering Committee, we will facilitate an outreach assessment and discussion with Participating Agency staff to learn about previous, ongoing, and planned community engagement approaches and strategies for similar projects, begin to identify key stakeholders and opportunities for engagement, and discuss goals and objectives for the engagement process. Following the kick-off meeting, PlaceWorks will prepare a draft Community Engagement Plan (CEP) integrating the feedback and guidance from Participating Agencies. We anticipate the draft CEP that will be shared with the Collaborative Steering Committee and the prospective CBO(s) for review and input. Following their review, PlaceWorks will revise the CEP, discuss revisions with staff, and prepare a working draft CEP. This version will guide the outreach and engagement activities, with the option to modify as needed to respond to unexpected information or changes in conditions.
71 Technical Proposal
14 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update For scoping purposes, we anticipate that the CEP will include the following:
The purpose and desired outcomes for community engagement throughout the planning process and for the project overall.
Identify target audiences and include a list of community stakeholders with identification of their networks and areas of expertise, preferred outreach and engagement opportunities for stakeholder types, and key questions and information for stakeholders.
Public information items, including the project timeline, a process chart showing the relationship of community engagement activities to the plan preparation process, deliverables, and similar materials. Protocol for documenting engagement activities and sharing the results with the project team and members of the public.
Indicators of assessing effectiveness of community engagement and a process to collect information. A protocol for communication, including how the project will be branded and messaged. Protocol for marketing in-person and online engagement events. Promotion of the project and related community engagement opportunities will be through a mix of techniques to reach residents and stakeholders, including articles in agency newsletters, inclusion in newsletters or e-blasts from Council or Board members, social media postings, newspaper advertisements, postings on online community calendars, email blasts, word of mouth, and other techniques found successful by agency and CBO staff for similar projects.
Protocol for interpretation and translation of English to Spanish for events and materials. A description of community engagement activities, including targeted stakeholders, purposes, costs, timing, and approach for each activity based on the activities included in Task 2. This will include general community engagement and strategies for inclusive and equity-focused engagement to engage communities that are traditionally under-represented in planning processes. A schedule of outreach activities, including the responsible team members, location, format, and needs for each event.
Roles and responsibilities of the PlaceWorks team, Participating Agencies, the CPC project manager, CBOs, community members and stakeholders, and supporting agencies.

2.2 Equity Approach
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

As noted in the RFP, we’ve retained the Equity Approach as a stand-alone task; however, we anticipate preparation of this approach as part of the Community Engagement Plan though it will be identified separately. The intention of this task is to clearly identify how equity will be incorporated into public engagement and all aspects of project development and execution. As part of our approach to integrating equity into project development, we will review best practices and case studies used in the region to assess goals, policies, and actions with equity considerations. In addition, we will ensure the community and 72 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 15
stakeholder engagement approach is sensitive to community characteristics. We support the Collaborative’s acknowledgement that communities of color, low-income communities, persons with disabilities, and other historically underrepresented groups bear a disproportionately high-risk burden in relation to natural hazards and face higher exposure to hazards with fewer resources to withstand and recover from them. We fully support and commit to meaningfully engagement of these groups throughout this project to ensure that their lived experiences with hazard risk and priorities for policies and implementation strategies are reflected in the updated Safety Elements.

2.3 Community-Based Organizations Partnerships
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

In most of our recent comprehensive planning and community-scale design projects, PlaceWorks has partnered with one or more CBOs to support general and focused community outreach and engagement.

We highlighted two examples of these partnerships in our discussion of our firm’s cultural competence. In addition to PlaceWorks’ experience with CBOs in the county and the Bay Area, our teaming partners Atlas Planning Solutions and Nexus Planning are currently contracting with CBO partners to support outreach for the Santa Clara County Safety Element Update. We anticipate some CBOs supporting the Santa Clara County project that are based in San Mateo County will also have an interest in the San Mateo County Collaborative Safety Element Update project.

Our goal is to continue successful partnerships in previous efforts to conduct targeted outreach with small group meetings, pop-up events, and other engagement efforts. We agree that CBOs are trusted voices within their communities and can provide targeted outreach to groups based on hazard issues, geography, special needs, or equitable engagement.

This task will be led by Climate Resilient Communities (CRC), a local CBO that is well established in the county with trusted partnerships and a successful track record with engagement and community-driven planning for climate resilience. CRC is part of the PlaceWorks outreach and engagement team and will have a leading role in the identification and engagement of San Mateo County-based CBOs in this process and the targeted outreach and engagement for hard-to-reach community members. Their work to identify, include, and engage local CBOs is integrated into multiple outreach and engagement sub-tasks. CRC will also provide equity-focused reviews of select project deliverables to ensure goals, policies, and implementation programs reflect the input and expertise received during community and stakeholder engagement.

This task is primarily dedicated to coordination with and compensation for the local CBO participation. CRC will be a collaborator in the preparation of the overall Community Engagement Plan, during which time their role in supporting multiple outreach tasks will be defined. CRC will lead identification of and outreach to key CBO partners as well as representatives of hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations that might not be represented by a formal CBO. CRC’s work on this project will build from lessons learned and successes in similar outreach and engagement supporting the LHMP and adaptation planning work in the county.

The budget for this task assumes compensation of targeted stakeholders up to $25 per hour, assuming an average of 2 hours per meeting, activity, or event. During preparation of the engagement plan, the project team will detail the terms of eligibility for compensation. Priority use of the compensation will be to support engagement of hard-to-reach community groups, vulnerability populations, and others as outline in Task 2.5 73 Technical Proposal
16 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update with funds also being available for participation in community workshops and review of draft materials if supported by the Collaborative. The approach to compensation will be transparent, accountable, and equitable.

2.4 Community Workshops
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

As part of a community engagement plan, we anticipate community workshops serving as one key opportunity for broad community engagement. The purpose of the community workshops will be to provide agency-wide and county-wide opportunities for the public to provide input and engage with the Safety Element process. We support the use of virtual community workshops to provide opportunities for broad access. As we have worked with our clients to provide meaningful engagement opportunities throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and changing conditions, PlaceWorks developed guiding principles and best practices for virtual engagement and developed expertise in using various online meeting and collaboration tools. The agenda and activities used for each workshop will reflect the desired outcomes and expected participants for the workshop. During virtual meetings, we use a mix of presentations, polls, small group discussions with dedicated facilitators and notetakers, transparent and live notetaking using Google Docs (or similar online tool), and a variety of online activities using Mentimeter, Jamboard, or similar tools to receive input and feedback.

We ensure our virtual meetings are accessible during and after the event. During the meeting, we enable the chat feature, provide closed captioning and an option for interpretation to other languages as appropriate to our projects and clients. Before the meeting, we provide workshop registrants and participants with pre-meeting materials and emails. We supplement our virtual meetings with online content, usually through a project website, online surveys, and social media posts. These materials will be provided in English and translated to Spanish as noted in the list of deliverables for this task. After the meeting, we will send a post-event survey and provide a recording that can be posted on the project website for viewing at the convenience of stakeholders. We prefer to use the Zoom platform to host virtual workshops or events, but we are comfortable and able to use other software if preferred by Participating Agencies.

For each workshop series, PlaceWorks will provide the workshop approach, agenda, marketing materials (e.g. flyer, e-blast/newsletter content, social media content), a PowerPoint presentation with speaking notes, facilitator training, appropriate digital engagement tools, a meeting summary, meeting recording, and a summary for each phase. We will coordinate and collaborate with partner CBOs on workshop design and materials to ensure that the workshops are accessible to a wide range of community members. For each workshop, the PlaceWorks team will provide a facilitator/moderator and a key staff member to present technical or project details. We can provide additional staff on a time-and-materials basis. As noted in the RFP, workshop approaches that use breakout rooms will be supported by Participating Agency staff and/or partner CBOs following facilitator training provided by PlaceWorks. PlaceWorks will manage logistics.

For scoping purposes, we assume two series of workshops with two workshops in each round for a total of four virtual community workshops for the project. During development of the Community Engagement Plan, we will further develop the timing and content of the workshop; though as noted in the RFP, we anticipate 74 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 17
one round of workshops during Task 3, preparation of the vulnerability assessment, and one round during Tasks 5 and 6, during development of goals, policies, and implementation actions.

All community workshops will be facilitated in English. Simultaneous interpretation from English to Spanish or other languages can be provided on a time-and-materials basis upon request. The contingency budget can be used to accommodate these costs at the request of a Participating Agency.

2.5 Hard-to-Reach / Community Group Meetings
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The Community Engagement Plan will provide options and recommendations for smaller community group meetings or activities to complement the larger community workshops and allow outreach to specific groups that are often hard-to-reach, historically underrepresented in community engagement, identified as vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and/or offer focused expertise on a certain hazard, population, hazard, or other component of the project. We’ve found in-person, small group meetings to be excellent opportunities to have meaningful discussions and receive helpful input for climate adaptation and resilience projects. Through preparation of the Community Engagement Plan, we will determine the locations and target participants for these meetings. They could address specific geographic areas, topics, vulnerable populations and communities, and/or historically underrepresented groups.

PlaceWorks, in partnership with our CBO partner Climate Resilient Communities (CRC), will create a Toolkit for these small group meetings. The Toolkit could include a PowerPoint presentation with discussion questions and/or live polling exercises and promotional flyer and text for promotion through various networks. As noted in the RFP, Agency Staff and/or CRC will use the Toolkits to present Safety Element information and lead discussions with community groups. The groups will be identified during preparation of the Engagement Plan (Task 2.1).

CRC staff will organize, promote, and attend a minimum of seven in-person Hard-to-reach/Community Group Meetings to provide technical expertise, answer questions, and take notes on community input.

Simultaneous interpretation from English to Spanish or other languages can be provided on a time-andmaterials basis upon request. CRC will identify language needs during preparation of the meeting approaches and invitation lists for these meetings.

2.6 Stakeholder Meetings
In addition to engagement of community organizations, the Safety Element updates will benefit from engagement of other key stakeholders, such as service providers and partners in emergency preparedness, risk reduction, response, and management. This task targets private and public sector service providers like utilities (PG&E, water/wastewater providers, Caltrans, OneShoreline, etc.). Engaging service providers (including public, non-profit, and for-profit providers of energy, water, transportation, and communication services), agency partners, business owners, employers, public land managers, and other community partners early in the process supports preparation of the vulnerability assessment and safety elements. This focused engagement supports preparation of goals, policies, and strategies that build upon the successes and lessons learned, leverage existing and potential programs that share resilience goals and/or co-benefits, 75 Technical Proposal
18 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update reflects shared values, and ensures a collaborative and equitable approach to implementation. The PlaceWorks team will coordinate with the Collaborative to prepare a stakeholder list during preparation of the engagement plans, recognizing the Participating Agencies have several stakeholder groups with which to coordinate and leverage for guidance, input, and feedback.

The approach to engagement will be small, facilitated group meetings or conversations hosted through Zoom. Each group can be organized by location, stakeholder type, hazard, asset, or population group.

PlaceWorks will lead preparation of meeting logistics, agenda, discussion questions, facilitation, and a summary for each meeting. The full series will include up to six meetings of 8-12 participants (no more than 15 per group) and will occur during Task 3, preparation of mapping and the vulnerability assessment. The PlaceWorks team will provide a facilitator and notetaker for each meeting. At the completion of all stakeholder meetings, PlaceWorks will prepare a memo summarizing what we heard during the discussions.

2.7 Develop Project Website
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

PlaceWorks will create and maintain an accessible and engaging website for the Safety Element Update. The website will contain information about the project, including an explanation of the project, its key steps and products, and what it means to stakeholders; a description of the Safety Element preparation process; project schedule and updates as major milestones are achieved; links to each Participating Jurisdiction’s website for review of existing safety elements and related materials; a document library; links to other relevant resources; frequently asked questions (and answers); contact information; and an opportunity to submit comments and questions, if desired. The website can be organized to allow viewing by geographic area as well as by key topics and hazards.

The website will also provide information about upcoming events and activities, including community events, online engagement opportunities, and Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors meetings on the Safety Element Updates. Activities may include online surveys and interactive exercises. Public review draft documents will be posted on the website when available, and links to other online engagement or interactive products developed for the project, such as Esri-based maps, will also be provided if desired.

PlaceWorks staff will be responsible for creating, managing, and updating the website for the duration of the project. PlaceWorks will prepare a mock-up of the website for the Collaborative’s review and approval prior to building it. PlaceWorks will share a draft build of the website for the Collaborative’s review and incorporate staff comments prior to launching the website. This scope does not assume significant redesign or restructuring of the website once it is launched. Upon completion of the project, PlaceWorks can transfer management of the website to the County if desired.
76 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 19

2.8Mapped Survey Tool
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Leveraging Survey123 for ArcGIS, PlaceWorks will create an interactive, map-based online survey that stakeholders can access with any device with an internet connection (i.e., computer, tablet, smartphone, or similar devices). Survey123 allows for web-based survey forms and for the creation of interactive activities that incorporate the online surveys with interactive activities that allow the user to place location-based comments, attach images, and incorporate other geographic information in their responses. (This feature is optimized when using a smart phone with location services enabled.)
This tool will connect residents with information, decision makers, and other residents in a professionally facilitated community discussion that builds public awareness of and trust in the project process, without constraints on the time, place, or method of public input. We propose to use this mapped survey tool to support community outreach and engagement related to identification of hazards, impacts, and adaptive capacity as part of the Vulnerability Assessment. Based on recent storm events, we anticipate receiving valuable information related to experiences with wildfire and flooding in particular.

PlaceWorks will prepare one survey activity during Task 3 related to hazard mapping and vulnerability assessment. The survey will be available in English and Spanish.

2.9 Story Map
Interested agencies: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

PlaceWorks will design and format the results of the mapping, vulnerability assessment, and safety element goals and policies using Esri’s Story Map application. A Story Map will complement the traditional hard-copy materials and provide a way for the public to interact with the maps and data more closely. This interactive platform could be used to help promote the project as well as provide a dynamic and accessible platform where users can explore the data and gain deeper insights into the key hazard and climate issues affecting their community. This Story Map will be available beginning with the public review of the vulnerability assessment results. We will add more information about the draft goals, policies, and objectives to the Story Map in advance of the public review of draft safety elements.

Story Maps provide a platform that is highly suited for Safety Element engagement and allows for the combination of dynamic and interactive maps with narrative text, diagrams, images, and a full range of multimedia content. While most planning processes strive to create a “living, breathing, document,” the Story Map application empowers agencies to truly achieve this goal. The digital platform allows for regular and seamless updates to the content prior to adoption and into implementation. 77 Technical Proposal
20 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update

2.10 Community Input Report
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

In addition to providing summaries of outreach and engagement events and activities for each touchpoint, PlaceWorks will lead preparation of a consolidated report that summarizes all outreach efforts for this project, the input received, and how input was included or not included in the Vulnerability Assessment, mapping, or Safety Elements. The Community Input Report will include feedback from all public outreach led by PlaceWorks, CBO partners, or Participating Agency staff, including engagement with hard-to-reach and underrepresented communities. In support of this report, PlaceWorks will provide a data collection and summary template to all project teammates leading outreach to ensure consistency in assessment and presentation of information. The report will include graphics, images, tables, and charts as appropriate to share results and summaries of key takeaways. In the presentation of outreach and engagement results in this report, PlaceWorks will not attribute comments to specific stakeholders or organizations to protect privacy and ensure open engagement in the process, unless specifically requested by a stakeholder or organization; however, we will provide a list of types of stakeholders and organizations engaged in each touchpoint.

Deliverables:
» Public Engagement Plan (draft and final, electronic)
» Equity Approach (draft and final, electronic)
» Community Based Organization Partnership, including compensation for up to 400 participants at $50 per 2-hour meeting.
» Two series Virtual Community Workshops (two workshops per series) with the following materials for each series:
» Agenda, meeting approach, agenda, facilitation, and small group facilitator training.. » Workshop promotional flyer and text for Collaborative member announcements/e-blasts in English and Spanish
» Content for posting by Participating Agencies to their social media accounts, including suggested text for posts and supporting graphics. Text will be provided in English and Spanish. » PowerPoint presentation and use of break-out rooms, surveys, and/or live polling exercises available in English and Spanish.
» Summary notes from all workshops, including easy segmentation for each Participating Jurisdiction. » Two members of PlaceWorks team for each workshop. Additional staff can be provided with authorization of the contingency budget.
» Community Group Meetings Support and Toolkits and in-person facilitation and notetaking with up to 7 meetings lead by CRC.
» Six stakeholder meetings (virtual), including an agenda, discussion questions, facilitation, and note taking for each meeting.
» Project Website design, hosting, and content updates (English) during project. » Community Input Report (draft and final, electronic, English only) » Mapped Survey Tool (draft and final, English and Spanish) » Story Map includes draft outline, template, and content and final Story Map (English with option to provide Spanish with contingency funds).
78 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 21
TASK 3. Vulnerability Assessment and Hazard Maps
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The vulnerability assessment and hazard mapping are core parts of the technical work needed to update the Safety Element. The vulnerability assessment helps community members, agency staff, and decision makers understand how community hazards may alter conditions due to climate change and what parts of the community (people and places) are most at risk. Not only is the vulnerability assessment required by State law, but it helps each community clearly understand the potential and far-reaching effects of climate change.

The vulnerability assessment incorporates hazard mapping that translates technical reports and data into an easy-to-understand visual that drives home the threats posed by natural hazards. Understanding the extent of wildfire hazard zones, projected flood inundation areas for sea level rise, how hazard areas overlap with critical infrastructure, and other key facts illustrated by hazard mapping helps the community clearly grasp the potential effects on their well-being.

The PlaceWorks team has unrivaled experience preparing vulnerability assessments and has worked closely with State agencies to write this guidance. Our GIS experts have prepared both static and dynamic mapping for hundreds of communities and are well versed in using the latest interactive visualization tools to communicate hazard issues to members of the public and agency decision makers.

3.1 GIS Database for Hazards
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Spatial data is at the heart of understanding current hazard conditions and potential future risks caused by the effects of climate change. The PlaceWorks team understands that precise, accurate, and up-to-date data play a critical role in the planning process and are necessary to garner support and incorporate ideas from community members. PlaceWorks’ team of GIS experts have an intimate knowledge of the available datasets, including a deep understanding of the key components and underlying data that define each layer. Building on work done on past studies in the region, the PlaceWorks GIS team will start by gathering GIS datasets that speak to existing hazards and future climate conditions, including the potential effects of climate change.

These datasets include, but are not limited to the following natural hazards:
x Seismic hazards
» Faults (on and offshore)
» Shaking potential
» Liquefaction potential
» Level of earthquake hazard
x Water hazards
» Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Area » Department of Water Resources (DWR) Awareness zones
» Dam inundation areas
» Sea level rise and coastal flooding
» Coastal erosion due to sea level rise
79 Technical Proposal
22 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update » Tsunami inundation zones (including any State mapping updates) » Levees
x Fire Hazards
» Fire hazard severity zones
» Future fire risk projections
» Historic wildfire perimeters
» Wildland-urban interface
» Tree mortality
x Other Hazards
» Landsides and debris flows
» Smoke and air quality
» Heat islands tree equity score
x Future Climate Projections
» Extreme precipitation events and drought
» Extreme heat and cold
PlaceWorks will ask Participating Jurisdictions that include human-made/caused hazards in their existing safety elements to confirm if those hazards should be retained and updated. These hazards could include hazardous materials, airport operation-related hazards, or others requested by the community or decisionmakers. This scope of work does not include updates to noise modeling and contours or noiserelated goals, policies, and implementation programs.

Deliverables:
» Geodatabase of hazard data (electronic, draft and final) » Memo summarizing GIS database and any associated methods (electronic, draft and final)

3.2 GIS Database for Asset Layers
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Along with the comprehensive set of hazards data, the PlaceWorks team will prepare a GIS database of community assets that may be affected by climate change and so should be analyzed in the vulnerability assessment. These assets will include aspects of the built environment, including public and private buildings, infrastructure, habitats, and natural resources. Community assets will include assets that span jurisdictions, such as freeways, the Caltrain line, and natural ecosystems, as well as assets that are fully within each community. Preparation of this database will be done in consultation and collaboration with Participating Jurisdictions through Steering Committee and TAC meetings and with community members and stakeholders through Task 2.

These datasets include, but are not limited to:
x Bicycles and pedestrian trails
x Communication towers
x Commercial centers
x Electricity transmission lines and substations
x Forest and woodland habitat
80 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 23
x Government administrative buildings
x Grassland and chaparral habitat
x Historic buildings
x Highways and major roadways
x Medical facilities
x Natural gas pipelines
x Parks and other recreation facilities
x Public transit infrastructure, including bus stops, Caltrain stations, and BART stations. x Police and fire stations
x Railway lines
x Residential structures
x Road and rail bridges
x Schools
x Water and wastewater infrastructure
x Wetland and riparian habitat
Deliverables:
» List of assets for each community (electronic, draft and final) » Memo summarizing GIS database and any associated methods (electronic, draft and final)

3.3 Identify Sensitive Populations
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Although everyone is likely to be affected by climate change, not everyone is likely to be affected to the same degree. We know that certain populations are likely to be disproportionately affected, including many groups that already face systemic inequities, marginalization, and environmental racism. Climate change is already exacerbating many of the challenges faced by these populations, and in the absence of robust action to correct these issues, such inequities are likely to only get worse. The vulnerability assessment will help identify these sensitive populations and describe the threats they face, forming a foundation for necessary action to reduce these challenges and move to a more equitable future.

The PlaceWorks team will collaborate with Participating Jurisdiction staff, key stakeholders, and the broader community through the engagement and equity approach discussed in Task 2, to identify sensitive populations in the Participating Jurisdictions. We anticipate using as refined and detailed data as possible from the US Census Bureau, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the California Healthy Places Index, and other sources. After developing an initial list, we will consult and collaborate with Participating Jurisdictions through Steering Committee and TAC meetings and with community members and stakeholders through Task 2 to ensure this list is accurate and comprehensive before beginning the vulnerability assessment. We expect that this effort will occur in parallel with conversations about the connection between climate change and inequity, which may be part of community engagement efforts or stand-alone small group discussions. Our past experiences in the county and working in other jurisdictions throughout the state informs our methodical, yet flexible approach to collaboration. We believe the engagement process is iterative, whereby information is revealed, analyzed, and validated through continuous, transparent engagement with the public. Our team anticipates developing strong, trusting 81 Technical Proposal
24 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update connections from the start of the project, ensuring that as we begin analytical tasks, we don’t rely solely on external data sources to tell the community’s story.

We want to ensure that the list of sensitive populations reflects the full range of groups who may be disproportionately affected by climate change hazards. This includes people who are socially and physically isolated, have limited financial resources, face elevated exposure to hazards, have underlying behavioral or physical health issues, and other groups. We understand that the harm posed by natural hazards, especially those driven or influenced by climate change, can lead to physical injuries, impacts to mental health, economic damages, and reduced well-being and quality of life.

We will identify sensitive populations unique to each Participating Jurisdiction. While there are likely to be similarities across the communities in San Mateo County, the different histories and socioeconomic characteristics of each community necessitates tailored responses driven by individual community needs.

This will let us create vulnerability assessments with a continuous framework and format, but that reflect the unique conditions in each Participating Jurisdiction.

Deliverables:
» List of sensitive populations for each community (electronic, draft and final)

3.4 Prepare Asset Lists
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Along with the list of sensitive populations, the PlaceWorks team will also work with Participating Jurisdiction staff, stakeholders, and community members to prepare a list of for inclusion in the vulnerability assessment.

This list will be based on the assets included in the GIS database discussed in Task 3.2, along with some additional assets, such as key community services and economic drivers, which may not be able to be easily mapped but are still a critical component of their communities. This approach allows for a vulnerability assessment that more accurately reflects the breadth of climate change effects and can identify potential vulnerabilities that might not show up in a more limited analysis.

After preparing an initial list of assets for each Participating Jurisdiction, the PlaceWorks team will vet this list with Participating Jurisdiction staff, key stakeholders, and community members through engagement activities presented in Task 2. Through CBO engagement described in Task 2, CRC will ensure CBOs are involved in this review, even if the assets are not directly related to their missions, since many such organizations could rely on these assets for their daily operations and have a detailed understanding of how such assets may be affected. After this review, we will prepare a final list of assets for inclusion in the vulnerability assessment.

WHY ANALYZE SERVICES

SEPARATE FROM
INFRASTRUCTURE?
Often, climate change can
affect an important service
without damaging the
underlying infrastructure
that the service depends on.

For example, droughts can
threaten a community’s
reliable water supply
without damaging water
pipelines, pumps, or
treatment plants. Analyzing
services and infrastructure
separately lets the
vulnerability assessment
more accurately consider a
fuller range of effects that
climate change may have.
82 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 25
Deliverables:
» List of assets for each Participating Jurisdiction (electronic, draft and final)

3.5 Identify Flood and Fire Hazard Data
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

State law requires that safety elements address flood and fire hazards in the jurisdiction, as well as develop specific policy language to help protect communities against these hazards. The PlaceWorks team has already secured many of the necessary pieces of data as part of our work on safety elements and related documents across the state, but we will work with jurisdiction staff to secure the remaining data and to confirm the relevance of the files we have already obtained.

We expect that we will collect or confirm the following datasets, consistent with the list in the RFP and our understanding of Sections 65302(g)(2) and 65302(g)(3) of the California Government Code:
x Flood hazard maps as prepared by FEMA. This will cover all areas identified as 100-year (including all Zone A designations) and 500-year floodplains. At the time of writing, these maps appear to have been updated between 2012 and 2019, but we will incorporate any new mapping as it becomes available. x DWR 100-year Flood Awareness zones.
x Levees and the areas they protect, along with identification of areas that have a reduced flood risk as a result and areas that may be subjected to flooding in the event of levee failure and overtopping. We expect this will include areas at risk of overtopping as a result of sea level rise, as identified in the Adapting to Rising Tides modeling or other relevant datasets.
x Dam failure inundation maps that are available from DWR, as well as any other inundation mapping that may be available from the California Office of Emergency Services or other resources. x Sea level rise datasets available from the San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Mapping Tool, the Sea Level Rise Risk Assessment for County-owned and operated assets and leased facilities, and the shallow/emergent groundwater data from the San Francisco Estuary Institute. Additional datasets may include the San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Project Database of major existing and planned sea level rise adaptation projects.

Finally, detailed information can be extracted and analyzed from the United States Geological Survey’s Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) of storm-induced coastal flooding and erosion for both current and future sea-level rise scenarios for San Mateo County (CoSMoS V3.1). x Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as prepared by CAL FIRE. We will identify the areas in the unincorporated county designated as Moderate, High, or Very High, as well as the areas in incorporated communities designated as Very High. Our team is aware that these maps currently date to 2007, and that CAL FIRE is in the process of updating them, with the expectation that updated mapping will be available over the timeframe of this project. We will use the most up-to-date mapping in all circumstances. x Wildland-urban interface zone mapping, based on regional, state, and federal studies. x Public and other critical facilities in mapped flood and wildfire hazard zones. Such facilities may include roads and highways, power lines, public safety buildings, community centers, schools, hospitals, and others to be determined in coordination with jurisdiction staff and CBOs. x Current and future land uses in mapped flood and wildfire hazard zones. x Records of past flood and wildfire events in Participating Jurisdictions and the region, including information on any injuries or death, extent and cost of damage, and other disruptions as available. 83 Technical Proposal
26 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update x The local, regional, state, and federal agencies responsible for flood and wildfire protection in the Participating Jurisdictions.

We will collect this data for all Participating Jurisdictions, which will inform the hazard mapping, vulnerability assessment, and background information sections. They will also be integrated into the online map viewer.

As part of these tasks, the data will help identify areas of greatest exposure to flood and wildfire hazards, as well as the people, buildings, infrastructure, and other key assets in these areas who are most at risk. Based on these findings, we expect that these data will inform policies in the Safety Elements intended to help increase resilience to these hazards, prioritizing the areas, people, and assets who face the greatest potential for harm.

Based on our initial survey of available data, we are not aware of any flood hazard mapping from the US Army Corps of Engineers, or of any 200-year floodplains, in San Mateo County. However, we will conduct a more thorough review of the available data and will include any new information as it becomes available.

Deliverables:
» Geodatabase of hazard mapping (electronic, draft and final) » List of other relevant data sources (electronic, draft and final)

3.6 Evacuation Constraints Analysis
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

In 2019, the State adopted Senate Bill (SB) 99, requiring that Safety Elements identify residential areas in any hazard area that lack at least two emergency evacuation routes. This law is intended to help identify evacuation-constrained areas and to indicate where any additional resources may be necessary to facilitate a smooth and effective evacuation if there is ever such a need for it. The PlaceWorks team has developed an approach to identifying these areas that we have vetted with CAL FIRE and used in numerous communities across the state.

Given the widespread potential of some hazard issues
across San Mateo County (such as seismic hazards), and
the fact that hazards may occur outside of mapped hazard zones (such as recent wildfires, which have burned in
areas not officially identified as fire hazard zones), we recommend that the SB 99 analysis apply to all residential properties in the Participating Jurisdictions. We will
identify the roads that can function as likely evacuation routes, including highways, arterials, and relevant
neighborhood roads, in coordination with jurisdiction
staff. We then assess the distance between residential
parcels and likely evacuation routes, as measured along the road network. Parcels that lack convenient access to multiple evacuation routes, or to a single evacuation route that would allow them to evacuate in multiple directions, are flagged as potentially evacuation constrained. We
Screenshot from an evacuation constraints analysis,
identifying residential parcels that lack convenient access to multiple evacuation routes or options. Properties on
roadways with a single access point are particularly at risk of evacuation constraints.
84 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 27
then vet these parcels with Participating Jurisdiction staff, community members, and local emergency responders to confirm their accuracy.

We understand that the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research is developing guidance to support evacuation analysis. We are prepared to modify our approach as necessary to comply with any guidance from the State that may be released prior to the completion of this project, or to better meet the needs of Participating Jurisdictions. We can review our method with staff before beginning work to make sure it is suitable and appropriate for all communities. We also understand that an Assembly Bill (AB) 747 analysis will be conducted separately and is not part of this project. To the extent possible, we will sync our efforts with that analysis to use the same datasets and other fundamental assumptions.

Deliverables:
» GIS layers of evacuation constraints analysis results (electronic, draft and final) » Memo summarizing method for evacuation constraints analysis (electronic, draft and final)

3.7 Vulnerability Assessment
Exposure
The presence of
populations or assets that
are subject to climate
hazards.

Sensitivity
Levels to which a
population or asset would
be affected by exposure to
a changing climate.

Potential Impact
Potential effects on a
population or asset based
on its exposure and
sensitivity to a hazard.

Adaptive Capacity
The ability to moderate
harm or exploit
opportunities.

Vulnerability
The degree to which
natural, built, and human
systems are susceptible to
harm.

Adapted from the Adaptation
Planning Guide
85 Technical Proposal
28 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update After we confirm the lists of sensitive populations and assets, identify the hazard zones and supporting data, and prepare hazard mapping, the PlaceWorks team will prepare vulnerability assessments for all Participating Jurisdictions. We will prepare this in accordance with the recommendations in the Adaptation Planning Guide.

San Mateo County has already performed a substantial vulnerability assessment of sea level rise on community, built, and natural assets. Through the Sea Change program, the County has a strong understanding as to how rising seas pose risks to its people and places. The PlaceWorks team does not intend to redo the sea level rise vulnerability assessment, but rather extract information to (1) Inform policies and actions in the Safety Element related to flooding and coastal hazards; and (2) Inform the development of policies and actions for hazards or vulnerabilities that may be exacerbated or influenced by sea level rise impacts.

We will begin by identifying the current risk posed by these hazards and how these hazards are likely to change in the future given climate change projections and other considerations. We will assess which of the populations and assets are likely to be harmed, given their locations, degree of connection, and other factors, collectively known as the exposure. We will next determine how susceptible each population and asset is to each relevant hazard (the sensitivity). This will allow us to identify the impact, or the anticipated effects that a population or asset may experience as a result of climate change-related hazards on future conditions. We will then assess the adaptive capacity of all populations and assets for each relevant hazard, determining their ability to resist or respond to these impacts. Based on the combined impact and adaptive capacity score, we can assign a draft vulnerability score.

Low Impact Medium Impact High Impact
Low Adaptive
Capacity V3 (medium vulnerability) V4 (high vulnerability) V5 (severe vulnerability) Medium Adaptive
Capacity V2 (low vulnerability) V3 (medium vulnerability) V4 (high vulnerability) High Adaptive
Capacity V1 (minimal vulnerability) V2 (low vulnerability) V3 (medium vulnerability) An illustration of how impact and adaptive capacity scores can translate to vulnerability, on a five-point scale from Minimal to Severe.
86 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 29
The impact and adaptive capacity analyses and the resulting vulnerability score will draw on data from numerous sources. We will look at published reports and studies that describe the impacts and adaptive capacities of relevant populations and hazards, tailoring these findings to ensure they are applicable to the Participating Jurisdictions. These sources include academic papers, State and regional reports, and publications from nonprofits, CBOs, and other groups. We will use the GIS data layers identified in earlier tasks to inform the findings of the vulnerability assessment. For example, we will look at where sensitive populations are concentrated to see if they may be more exposed to a hazard than other groups or if they are farther away from facilities that can provide resources during emergencies. Where relevant, we will split populations or assets by jurisdiction or region, recognizing that the vulnerability of the same population or asset may vary depending on location.

We will make sure that the vulnerability assessment also considers cascading and indirect impacts. This involves identifying instances in which one hazard situation may lead to another (such as a severe wind event that contributes to a significant wildfire), or in instances where a population or asset is not directly harmed by a hazard but is ultimately susceptible to the effects of other direct damage (such as a flood that damages an important business and forces it to close, creating economic harm for employees, even if they were not physically harmed). Consideration of these factors allows us to conduct a more holistic vulnerability assessment, taking a much wider range of potential effects of climate change into account. By extension, this supports greater opportunities for resilience in the updated Safety Elements.

We will prepare an individual vulnerability assessment for each Participating Jurisdiction, but we will prepare these sets of scores in coordination with each other, drawing on common datasets and studies to the extent they are relevant. This approach will allow us to make sure that the findings of the vulnerability assessment are tailored to the unique conditions present in each Participating Jurisdiction, but also that they have a common background and foundation. This balance will help identify appropriate responses to the issues facing each Participating Jurisdiction, as well as common vulnerabilities across San Mateo County that support regional collaboration and resilience efforts.

It is critical that we vet the findings of the vulnerability assessment with the community and Participating Jurisdiction staff. While the PlaceWorks team is proud of our expertise on this subject, we recognize that we do not have the on-the-ground experience of people and organizations who have been living and working in these communities for years. We plan to submit all potential data sources for staff and the community to confirm through the activities identified in the Community Engagement Plan (see Task 2). All draft vulnerability assessment scores will be released for public review following review by Participating Jurisdiction. This approach allows us to incorporate the lived experience of the community and staff thoroughly into the assessment process, creating a vulnerability assessment that is more accurate and better representative of local understanding. Based on our experience with other communities, we expect this to be a conversation between all involved to refine the scores and get to a set of results that satisfy both the legal requirements and the needs of the participants.

CASCADING EFFECTS
Instances where one climate
change-related hazard
results in another.

INDIRECT EFFECTS
When a population or asset
is not directly harmed by
hazardous conditions, but
experiences impacts as a
result of other damage.
87 Technical Proposal
30 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update Deliverables:
» Summary of vulnerability assessment methods and relevant hazards (electronic, draft and final) » Vulnerability assessment scoring results for review (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction)

3.8 Summarize Results of Vulnerability Assessment
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

An important part of the Safety Element Update will be helping members of the community and other involved stakeholders understand the risks present in their community and what can be done to improve resilience. The PlaceWorks team will prepare vulnerability assessment summaries to support this goal and to help build a foundation of key findings that can be used to inform the development of resilience policies.

We will prepare these written summaries after Participating Jurisdiction staff review the findings of the vulnerability assessment and we revise the scores accordingly to respond to these comments. We will draft one summary for each Participating Jurisdiction. These summaries can function as stand-alone reports but can also act as appendices to the Safety Elements or other resilience documents as appropriate. We will submit a proposed outline of the written reports to Participating Jurisdiction staff to ensure that the approach meets expectations before drafting the summaries.

These summaries will highlight the primary hazards of concern, along with the populations and assets who are most vulnerable and why. The summaries will include a brief methodological description, explaining the process that the team used to prepare the vulnerability assessment. We will write these summaries to be easily accessible to community members without over-simplifying the content or omitting important details.

We will also make use of mapping and GIS files, including any already-prepared mapping, to help explain key issues.

As with the vulnerability assessment scores themselves, we will submit the drafts of the vulnerability assessment summaries to members of the public, jurisdiction staff, key CBOs and other stakeholders, the Technical Advisory Committees and Collaborative Steering Committee, and other groups, consistent with the approach laid out in the Public Engagement Plan. We expect that these reviewers will provide feedback on the written summaries to make sure that they are highlighting important issues, presenting findings in a way that is consistent with community experiences, and meeting all other expectations. We will revise the written reports to incorporate these comments and ensure that the reports serve community needs.

Deliverables:
» Outline of vulnerability assessment summaries (electronic, draft and final) » Vulnerability assessment summaries for each Participating Agency (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)

3.9 Online Map Viewer
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The goal of the online data viewer is to provide the project team, Technical Advisory Committee members, stakeholder groups, and community members with a comprehensive repository of the GIS data layers used for the vulnerability assessment along with the results of our analysis. Metadata will be included for each 88 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 31
layer presented through the online map viewer, which will provide details on the source data and analysis methodology where applicable. PlaceWorks will use the latest web mapping technology available through ArcGIS Online to create a user-friendly streamlined application that will provide users with deep understanding of each of the included datasets and how they work together to answer key questions and shed light on current and future conditions.

PlaceWorks team will use this task to supplement and enhance the County’s existing map viewer that was created for the 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. If this is desired, we can modify our process above to ensure our efforts expand on this existing resource and further enhances the outcomes. This allows the Collaborative to capitalize on efficiencies from past work and enhancements that expand both the knowledge base and usability of this information for all agencies participating in the process.

Deliverables:
» Online map viewer (electronic, draft and final)

3.10 Hazard Maps for Inclusion in Safety Element
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

PlaceWorks understands the importance of communicating technical information to a broad audience using well-designed maps. PlaceWorks staff has the unique ability to understand complex planning issues and distill them in an accessible, graphically-rich way. The California Government Code requires that the Safety Element includes up-to-date maps. The PlaceWorks GIS team will prepare a comprehensive set of maps for the Safety Element that will include data gathered in Tasks 3.1, GIS Database for Hazards, and 3.2, GIS Database for Asset Layers. We will prepare a base map with community facilities and infrastructure and once reviewed and approved by City staff, we will use the base map to create the hazard maps for the Background Report.

Deliverables:
» A set of PDF maps (electronic, draft and final)
Task 4. Background Information on Hazards
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The background reports of the updated Safety Elements provide important context and other information that helps describe the issues present in the community. This information serves as a foundation for the updated policies, along with the results of the vulnerability assessment, hazard mapping, and other analyses.

When written well, these documents help explain relevant issues to members of the public, jurisdiction staff and officials, and other engaged stakeholders.

We know the importance of preparing these background reports to be thorough and complete, while still ensuring that they are engaging and interesting. Despite their often-technical nature, we pride ourselves in writing background reports that can be easily understood, allowing them to serve as valuable educational materials in the Safety Element process. We will prepare a stand-alone background report for each Participating Jurisdiction.
89 Technical Proposal
32 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update

4.1 Update Hazard Background Information
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The PlaceWorks team will prepare a background report for each participating jurisdiction, complying with all State laws and guidance regarding what must be included in this document. We expect that these background reports will discuss the regulatory context that informs the Safety Element, the purpose of the Safety Element and the reason for updating them, and each of the key issue areas. For issues that relate to a specific hazard, such as wildfire or floods, we will introduce the hazard and why it is a community concern; discuss past events in the Participating Jurisdiction or region; review the agency or agencies responsible for protecting against it; and the future risk posed by it, including changes as a result of climate change. For issues not related to a specific hazard, such as evacuations or emergency preparation, we will discuss other relevant topics as needed to give the reader a good understanding of the issue and include mapping and graphics, where relevant.

We plan to draft the background reports as stand-alone documents that can function as appendices to the main Safety Element, along with the vulnerability assessment summaries discussed in Task 3.8. We recommend this approach, as it allows us to incorporate sections of the background report into the main Safety Element document, providing context to the policies while keeping much of the detailed information in the appendix. However, if desired by Participating Jurisdictions, we can draft the background reports to be part of the main document.

For all the background reports, we intend to follow the same basic format, although we recognize that the issues discussed will vary from community to community, and some communities may wish to organize topics differently. We will prepare an outline of the background report for review by jurisdiction staff and other interested stakeholders before drafting the reports themselves. We will provide the final background reports in the same formatted template for the draft Safety Elements themselves discussed in Task 7.

Deliverables:
» Outline of background reports (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Background reports for each Participating Agency (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
Task 5. Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Developing goals, objectives, and policies into a framework is a major step in element development for a jurisdiction. The previous tasks help set a strong foundation that this framework builds upon to ensure future development and activities within a community are safer and more resilient. For many jurisdictions, policies can take many forms depending on the issues that need to be addressed. For that reason, this task will work with each jurisdiction to understand their needs and the types of policies that work best. 90 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 33
Examples of the types of policies that can be included in the updated Safety Elements.

5.1 Regional Best Practices Summary
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The diversity of jurisdictions involved in this project requires a thorough review of best practice examples from across the region, including a review of plans, policies, and programs prepared and implemented by cities and partner agencies in San Mateo County that are not participating in this collaborative. Based on the results of the Vulnerability Assessment (Task 3) and the review of the existing plans discussed in Task 5.2 the PlaceWorks team will work to identify the policy needs for each jurisdiction. While we know there are crosscutting issues that all Participating Jurisdictions may face, there are a number of ways to address these issues to better accommodate individual community needs. This summary will focus on key factors such as:
Methods for monitoring and evaluating progress towards risk-reduction goals. Applicable guidance pertaining to resilience.
Equity-focused climate change policies.
Cross-cutting issues that may affect many jurisdictions. Regional initiatives and collaboration that promote and enhance resilience at the local level.

We will identify potential solutions that take advantage of best practices and successful efforts in the county and nearby communities, informed by jurisdiction staff and key stakeholders, input from members of the community, and emerging opportunities in San Mateo County and the region. Following our review of best practices appropriate to the project, PlaceWorks will prepare a Best Practices Summary Memo tailored to the specific conditions in the Participating. We will build from and complement existing and planned efforts whenever possible, allowing for a more efficient use of time and resources that avoid unnecessary Programmatic: Strategies to expand or create new programs, activities, and initiatives.

Plans, regulations, and policy development: Strategies to revise policies, plans, regulations, and guidelines.

Capital improvement projects: Strategies to address physical and functional needs in the built and natural environment, or to secure funding for these projects.

Education, outreach, and coordination: Strategies to begin or expand partnerships and relationships, communication, and expanding awareness.

Evaluation: Strategies to improve feedback, input, and data and information to conduct further or new analyses.
91 Technical Proposal
34 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update duplication. At the same time, we plan to recommend entirely new programs where appropriate. This will include actions that San Mateo County and Participating Jurisdictions can launch in partnership with other agencies and CBOs.

Deliverables:
» Regional Best Practices Summary Memorandum (electronic, draft and final)

5.2 Review of Existing Plans, Requirements, and
Gaps
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The PlaceWorks team will prepare a review of each participating jurisdiction’s existing Safety Element (or comparable document), along with other relevant sections of the General Plan and other supporting documents, such as the Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, climate action/adaptation or sustainability plans, and emergency operations plans. We will check each existing Safety Element for consistency with current State requirements and identify any content that can be incorporated from supporting documents or other technical documents to help meet these requirements.

While consistency with State laws is an important objective for Safety Elements, it is not the only standard that they have to meet. We expect that the vulnerability assessments will identify key gaps in each community’s adaptation and resilience approach that are critical to community well-being, but which may not be explicitly required by the State. Similarly, we expect that community members, CBOs, and other stakeholders who participate in the public engagement process will raise other issues that the updated Safety Elements should address but are not mandated to do so. There may also be other best practices or emerging opportunities that will be helpful to the updated Safety Elements.

We will prepare a gap analysis memo identifying these additional issues that we recommend the updated Safety Elements address.

As part of this review, we will also consider the policies in the existing Safety Elements and provide recommendations for whether to keep policies as-is, modify them, or remove them. We will use current State requirements and the results of the gap analysis to inform these recommendations. As a part of this work, we will coordinate with local jurisdiction staff to understand which policies have already been implemented, what policies have been effective, and where policies can be revised or improved to better meet the needs of the community.

We understand that the adoption dates of the existing Safety Elements vary widely across the Participating Jurisdictions. Some were adopted within the past few years, while others are a few decades old. We expect that compliance with current State laws and other community needs will be at least partly a function of age and are prepared to make more substantial recommendations as needed.

RECENT STATE

REQUIREMENTS
- Include detailed
information about flood and
wildfire risks.
- Include specific policies
related to reducing the
threat from floods and
wildfires.
- Prepare a climate change
vulnerability assessment.
- Include policies to improve
adaptation and resilience to
climate-related hazards.
- Assess evacuation
constraints of residential
areas.
92 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 35
Deliverables:
» Review matrix for consistency with State laws (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Review matrix of existing policies and recommendations (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
» Gap analysis memo (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)

5.3 Draft Goals, Policies, and Objectives
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The PlaceWorks team will work with local jurisdiction staff, CRC, and other key stakeholders to prepare a set of draft goals, policies, and objectives for each of the updated Safety Elements. These goals, policies, and objectives will respond to State requirements, findings in the vulnerability assessment, results from the gap assessment, and input from the public engagement process. The overarching goal will be to provide increased protection for all populations, buildings and infrastructure, and other assets in the community, with a specific focus on populations and assets that are uniquely susceptible.

The PlaceWorks team, in partnership with CRC, will ensure the draft goals, policies, and objectives incorporate the equity approach prepared as part of Task 2. As part of this commitment, when drafting and reviewing the goals, policies, and objectives, the PlaceWorks team will use the County’s equity assessment tool, or other tool as directed by the Participating Jurisdiction or recommended through best practice. As part of the equity review, CRC will ensure the draft goals, policies, and objectives fairly incorporate comments, suggestions, and requests received through the engagement and outreach activities conducted as part of Task 2.

We will draft the goals, policies, and objectives to take advantage of the full range of strategies available for local communities to improve public safety, adapt to changing conditions, and grow their community resilience. These may include new regulatory standards or development review processes, educational efforts, community partnerships, specific capital improvement projects, and more involved planning processes. We will also recommend goals, policies, and objectives that support monitoring and reporting of Safety Element strategies to determine their effectiveness and to allow them to be revised in future updates.

We will incorporate recommendations from the Adaptation Planning Guide, California Climate Adaptation Strategy, and other reports and guidance documents where appropriate. We will include strategies from existing local plans, such as policies in the Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and OneShoreline’s priority projects, where it makes sense to have a clear linkage between the documents. State law also requires including certain strategies in the draft elements, such as policies around siting new critical facilities outside of hazard-prone areas and using natural infrastructure systems to support resilience efforts.

Deliverables:
» Draft Goals, Policies, and Objectives Memorandum (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Equity Assessment of draft goals, policies, and objectives. 93 Technical Proposal
36 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update

5.4 Revise Goals, Policies, and Objectives
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Upon completion of Task 5.3, the Goals, Policies, and Objectives will be shared with the Technical Advisory Committees, stakeholder groups, and members of the public for review and feedback. Based on this feedback, which will be integrated with engagement and outreach opportunities in Task 2, the PlaceWorks team will gather input received and identify the changes and recommendations necessary and what content was removed or not included in the final draft. In our experience, many goals, policies, and objectives that do not make it into a Safety Element are usually out of scope from what a Safety Element is intended to accomplish or may be infeasible because of political or financial constraints. However, as part of this task, any goals, policies, and objectives that aren’t taken forward will be documented to ensure decision makers understand how the process informed the final element development.

Deliverables:
» Final Goals, Policies, and Objectives Memorandum (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) Task 6. Implementation Measures
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The implementation measures will build upon the data collection efforts, vulnerability assessment, and community and stakeholder feedback to detail the specific steps required to implement the Safety Element policies. Collectively, the measures will also serve as a guidance and reference document for the jurisdictional staff from each city. The PlaceWorks team will develop a framework with the full list of the implementation measures to include which agencies, partners, or departments are responsible for implementation; agency, department, or partner implementation costs based on a scale of low to medium to high (i.e., $, $$, $$$); timeframe for implementation on a scale of near-term or long-term; and potential funding opportunities.

These metrics will be used to prioritize implementation of the Safety Element policies and actions. Our team’s standard planning and analytical process already includes collecting a variety of these variables. Therefore, our team will provide efficiencies for the cities and County in development of the measures.

6.1 Develop Draft Implementation Measures
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

We will develop draft implementation measures designed to carry out the updated goals, policies, and objectives of each jurisdiction. As part of the implementation measure development, the team will review state and federal guidance, including guidance for equitable climate planning from sources such as the California Adaptation Planning Guide, the Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN), and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). We will also review examples of best practices from other relevant local jurisdictions throughout the state to identify resilience and adaptation projects and programs that may be advantageous for the Participating Jurisdictions to consider and incorporate. We will identify needed updates to zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, Local Coastal Programs, building regulations, and 94 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 37
similar to inform the creation or revision of goals, policies, and objectives. Implementation measures from SB 379 (Government Code Section 65302(g)(4)I) and SB 1241 (Government Code Section 65302(g)(3)(C)) will be incorporated as appropriate to comply with state law. In keeping with our team’s holistic integration of equity in our planning processes, we will objectively evaluate the placement of projects, benefits and burdens, and cumulative risks to historically underserved communities from the implementation measures.

The PlaceWorks team, in partnership with CRC, will ensure the draft implementation measures incorporate the equity approach prepared as part of Task 2. As part of this commitment, when drafting and reviewing the implementation measures the PlaceWorks team will use an equity assessment tool, either prepared by the Participating Jurisdiction or recommended through best practice. As part of the equity review, CRC will ensure the draft implementation measures fairly incorporate comments, suggestions, and requests received through the engagement and outreach activities conducted as part of Task 2.

6.2 Revise Implementation Measures
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The project team will share draft implementation measures, and any prioritization as determined by Participating Jurisdictions, with the Technical Advisory Committees, stakeholder groups, and members of the public, as determined by the Public Engagement Plan to gather feedback and input. We will revise draft implementation measures based on that feedback and input, and then will use the Community Input Report to communicate what implementation measures were or were not incorporated. This subtask should incorporate with Task 2.

6.3 Implementation Recommendations
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The team will offer recommendations for critical next steps to implement the mitigation measures, including strategies for the: (1) monitoring and evaluation of implementation of measures; (2) bundling of measures to optimize efficiencies in funding, planning, and implementation; and (3) incorporation of new, best available science and best management practices. This document will also include any recommendations on prioritization as made by Participating Jurisdictions.

Deliverables
» Implementation Measures Document (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Recommended Next Steps: Implementation Memorandum (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
95 Technical Proposal
38 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update Task 7. Safety Elements Drafted for Jurisdictions
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

After all the individual segments of the Safety Element updates are ready, we will assemble the results into a complete Safety Element. These documents will incorporate all the content and analyses prepared to date.

As a part of this stage of the work, we anticipate preparing two drafts of each Safety Element: an administrative draft for jurisdiction staff, and a public review draft for widespread review that includes staff revisions.

The PlaceWorks team, in partnership with CRC, will ensure the draft safety elements incorporate the equity approach prepared as part of Task 2. As part of this commitment, when drafting and reviewing the safety elements the PlaceWorks team will use an equity assessment tool, either prepared by the Participating Jurisdiction or recommended through best practice. As part of the equity review, CRC will ensure the draft safety elements fairly incorporate comments, suggestions, and requests received through the engagement and outreach activities conducted as part of Task 2.

7.1 Administrative Draft Safety Elements for Jurisdictions Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

The PlaceWorks team will prepare a stand-alone administrative draft Safety Element for each of the Participating Jurisdictions. These Safety Elements will compile all the previously prepared content. We expect that the Safety Elements will include the goals, objectives, and policies from Task 5, the implementation measures from Task 6, and all relevant mapping. We recommend incorporating short sections of text from the background reports and vulnerability assessment summaries to help provide important context while keeping the elements short and streamlined. However, if desired, we can fully include the content from these documents to create a much larger element. We will confirm preferences with jurisdiction staff before preparing the combined element.

We will include the final Community Input Report prepared as part of Task 2.8 along with the administrative draft Safety Element. This will illustrate how we incorporated feedback and comments from the public engagement process into the element. If requested, we can also include a section in the main body of the element to discuss how public comments have informed the preparation of the document.

Prior to preparing the administrative draft Safety Elements, we will prepare a template for the document.

These templates may be the same across all jurisdictions or may be unique to each Participating Jurisdiction, depending on staff preferences. We can also use an existing General Plan template or prepare the new template to match existing styles.

Deliverables:
» Safety Element template (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Administrative draft Safety Element (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Community Input Report (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) 96 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 39

7.2 Public Review Draft Safety Elements
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

After each jurisdiction’s staff provide us with a compiled set of comments on the administrative draft Safety Element, we will make revisions in response to the feedback. This will include a discussion with jurisdiction staff to review potential changes and confirm the revisions. We will return the revised draft Safety Elements to jurisdiction staff for review by members of the public.

Deliverables:
» Public review draft Safety Element (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) TASK 8. CEQA Analysis
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

PlaceWorks will prepare the required environmental review for each of the seven proposed Safety Elements pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Over the years, PlaceWorks has prepared a variety of CEQA documents for Safety Elements, including making use of CEQA streamlining mechanisms such as the Common Sense Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)) and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addenda (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). In some cases, PlaceWorks has also prepared Negative Declarations or Mitigated Negative Declarations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15071) and Focused EIRs (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168).

PlaceWorks understands that each of the six proposed Safety Elements will come with their own unique circumstances and proposed changes. However, the proposed action for each jurisdiction, the adoption of an updated Safety Element, in general would have no effect on the environment because they do not commit the County or City to any particular development project. In addition, the updated Safety Elements, as we understand them to date, would consist of County/City conditions of approval, existing regulatory requirements, and other best practices that are adopted for the purpose of reducing the effects of land use development and infrastructure projects on the environment. For these reasons and based on our previous work preparing Safety Element updates, we believe that the preparation of either a CEQA Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) or a General Plan EIR Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 will be appropriate for the proposed Safety Elements.

However, if the proposed Safety Elements require changes to the project or mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, this scope of work also includes the preparation of Negative Declaration (ND) as a contingency. If impacts cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level and an EIR is required, then PlaceWorks will collaborate with staff to discuss next steps and modify scope of work, budget, and schedule as appropriate.

Additionally, because each Safety Element update constitutes an amendment to the General Plan for each jurisdiction, our scope of work under this task also includes assisting the County and each City with Native American tribal consultation pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18. 97 Technical Proposal
40 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update The following Tasks 8.1 through 8.4 describe the scope of work for the preparation of the CEQA streamlining documents and Native American tribal consultation that PlaceWorks will complete for each Safety Element Update. Task 8.5 is an optional, add-on task for Participating Jurisdictions that determine, after preparation of the Environmental Checklist Memo in Task 8.2, to prepare an Initial Study and Negative Declaration, which will also include tribal consultation as directed by AB 52.

8.1 CEQA Project Management and Initiation
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Terri McCracken will serve as the Principal-in-Charge. Vivian Kha and Miles Barker will serve as the Project Managers for each participating jurisdiction. Terri will be responsible for overseeing the preparation and final review of the CEQA document, as well as overseeing the budget and schedule. Vivian and Miles will serve as the day-to-day contact and will oversee the coordination of data needs and conference calls. Vivian and Miles will also be responsible for overall team coordination throughout the preparation of the CEQA document.

For the initiation of each CEQA process, the CEQA management team will begin by reviewing all relevant documents pertaining to proposed Safety Elements for baseline information and any certified/approved CEQA documents to be used for tiering. PlaceWorks will then schedule and participate in a kick-off meeting with staff to discuss expectations and concerns, and to review key issues, information needs, work products, and delivery schedule. The data to be used for environmental impact analysis will also be reviewed at this meeting to ensure it is fully aligned with that used on other CEQA documents in the jurisdiction.

8.2 Environmental Checklist Memo
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Making use of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, PlaceWorks will prepare a qualitative memo (i.e., no technical modeling will be conducted) following the environmental checklist topics to support the preparation of a notice of exemption (NOE) or General Plan EIR Addendum for the proposed Safety Elements depending on the appropriateness and the preference of the jurisdiction as discussed at the kick-off meeting in Task 8.1. Given the Safety Element is a required part of the General Plan, the memo will address each environmental topic at a programmatic level. PlaceWorks will make maximum use of existing information from each jurisdiction and other governmental agencies.

Deliverable(s):
» Administrative and Final Draft Environmental Checklist Memo (Word and PDF formats) 98 Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 41

8.3 Prepare CEQA Document – Notice of Exemption or Addendum Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Based on the outcome of the environmental checklist memo and preferences of the jurisdiction as described in Task 8.2, PlaceWorks will prepare either a NOE pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062, an Addendum to the General Plan EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, or a Negative Declaration (refer to Task

8.5). This task presents the approach to preparation of an Exemption or Addendum. If a Participating Jurisdiction selects a Negative Declaration, that work is described in Optional Task 8.5. The CEQA document will include a brief project description and through the preparation of the environmental checklist memo in Task 8.2 and will provide the substantial evidence to demonstrate how the proposed projects would not result in any significant effects. The CEQA document will be submitted to the jurisdiction for review, as follows:
» One electronic copy of an Administrative Draft to the jurisdiction for review. Staff will provide PlaceWorks with a single set of consolidated comments on the Administrative Draft. » One electronic copy of a revised, second draft as an electronic “Screencheck.” PlaceWorks assumes that a minimal level of effort, not exceeding four hours, would be required to respond to a single set of consolidated comments from the jurisdiction on the Screencheck Draft.

Following approval of the Screencheck, PlaceWorks will provide the jurisdiction with one electronic copy of the Final document for inclusion in the staff reports and approval by the decision-making body.

If it is determined that potential impacts from the proposed Safety Elements require changes to the project or mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, then Task 8.5 would be implemented based on collaboration with staff.

Following the approval of the Safety Elements, PlaceWorks will prepare the Notice of Determination (NOD).

Our scope of work assumes that staff will be responsible for overseeing the filing of the NOE (if the selected document) and NOD with the County Clerk following the approval of the proposed projects and PlaceWorks will post the NOE/NOD with the State Clearinghouse.

Deliverable(s):
» Administrative, Screencheck, and Final Draft NOD/NOE (Word and PDF formats) » Administrative and Final Draft NOE/NOD (Word and PDF formats) Our proposed schedule for the environmental review includes two-week review periods for the jurisdiction at each submittal phase. Applying these assumptions and depending on the receipt of all the project materials, we anticipate that each CEQA document can be completed within 60 days. 99 Technical Proposal
42 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update

8.4 Native American Tribal Consultation (SB 18)
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

PlaceWorks will complete the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) form requesting a tribal contact list for each jurisdiction. Using the addresses on the list from NAHC, PlaceWorks will draft letters (on the letterhead of each jurisdiction) to each of the tribes on the NAHC list inquiring whether they want consultation. As consultation is a government-to-government process, it must be initiated by the local government agency, and counties are usually represented at the consultation(s). PlaceWorks can facilitate and attend the consultation(s); however, each jurisdiction must be represented. Following the consultation meetings (or conference calls), PlaceWorks will provide a record for the environmental documentation showing that consultation has been completed. Completion of the SB 18 process is needed prior to acting on the project.

Deliverable(s):
» Draft letter to the NAHC
» Draft letters to the identified tribes
» Facilitation, attendance, and documentation of requested consultations

8.5 Optional Add-on: Prepare Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conduct AB 52 Tribal Consultation
Potential Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Based on the outcome of the environmental checklist memo and preferences of the Participating Jurisdiction as described in Task 8.2, PlaceWorks will complete a Negative Declaration form in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15071. PlaceWorks will prepare a Screencheck of the environmental checklist memo as an Initial Study, responding to staff comments on the Administrative Draft document described in Task 8.2.

If mitigation measures are required, PlaceWorks will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP) for the mitigation measures pursuant to the jurisdiction’s policies and procedures. The MMRP, shown in tabular form, will identify responsibility for implementing and monitoring each mitigation measure, along with monitoring triggers and reporting frequencies.

PlaceWorks will draft a Notice of Intent (NOI) of a Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. PlaceWorks will work together with agency staff to prepare a master distribution list. PlaceWorks will be responsible for circulation to the State Clearinghouse, and mailings to local, regional, and state agencies.

Agency staff will be responsible for local noticing.

A maximum 30-day public review period will be required under CEQA if the notification of a State Agency(s) is determined to be necessary, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. This scope does not include participation in any public hearings conducted during the 30-day review period.

While not required under CEQA, following the close of the public review period, PlaceWorks will respond to substantive comments received on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration in a memorandum form. This scope of work includes 8 hours of PlaceWorks time to respond to comments in an Administrative Draft Response to Comments Memorandum. If public comments exceed assumptions and more than 8 hours is required to 100
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 43
address comments received on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, we will request use of contingency funds or a contract amendment to complete Response to Comments. We will prepare an Administrative Draft Response to Comments Memorandum for review by staff. Based on staff comments, we will complete revisions and deliver a Final Response to Comments Memorandum.

If it is determined that the preparation of a CEQA document requires public circulation (Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR), consultation with any Native American tribes that have requested consultation pursuant to AB 52 would be required, which can be combined with outreach efforts described in Task 8.4.

Deliverables:
» Screencheck and Public Review Drafts of the IS/ND (Word and PDF formats) » Administrative and Public Review Draft of the MMRP (Word and PDF formats) » Administrative and Final Draft of the NOI (Word and PDF formats) » Administrative and Final Draft of the Response to Comments Memorandum (Word and PDF formats) » Draft letters to the identified tribes
» Facilitation, attendance, and documentation of requested consultations Task 9: Board of Forestry Review
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Half Moon Bay, and San Mateo County.

Any Participating Jurisdiction that includes State Responsibility Areas or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones must submit its updated Safety Element to the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board of Forestry) at least 90 days prior to adoption, per State law. The PlaceWorks team has collaborated extensively with staff from CAL FIRE’s Land Use Planning Program, who review the Safety Elements and present them to the Board of Forestry and has established very good working relationships with them. We work closely with CAL FIRE staff to address any recommended revisions to the Safety Element informally, before submitting them to the Board of Forestry. Many of our Safety Elements require no revisions before going to the Board of Forestry, and all others need only minor changes. We have never had the Board of Forestry recommend changes for any Safety Element that we have submitted.

Per California Government Code 51178, the State Fire Marshal is required to provide local agencies with the areas within their jurisdiction that meet Fire Hazard Severity Zone criteria for their local adoption and implementation, including inclusion in the Safety Element of the General Plan. Cal FIRE has been working to review, update, identify, and map Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. We anticipate CAL FI–E - Office of the State Fire Marshal will begin providing local governments updated draft Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for Local Responsibility Areas in mid to late 2023 or possibly early 2024. These updated maps could change High Fire Severity Areas within the incorporated cities, which could result in the requirement for CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry review for additional cities than currently identified in this task.

The PlaceWorks team can provide Task 9 services to additional Participating Jurisdictions upon Participating Jurisdiction approval through the use of the contingency budget. 101
Technical Proposal
44 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update

9.1 CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry Safety Element Review
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Half Moon Bay, and San Mateo County.

As required by State law, PlaceWorks will submit draft Safety Elements to CAL FIRE’s Land Use Planning Program for all applicable jurisdictions. CAL FIRE staff will review the draft Safety Elements and make recommendations. We will discuss any recommendations with jurisdiction staff and will either revise the Safety Element in response or will provide a written explanation for why the revision has not been made. We will make all appropriate revisions to the Safety Element before CAL FIRE staff pass the element on to the Board of Forestry. We recommend that we submit the Safety Elements to CAL FIRE staff at the beginning of the public review process.

State law requires that any jurisdiction containing State Responsibility Areas or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones must submit their Safety Element to CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry. Currently, this applies to Belmont, Half Moon Bay, and unincorporated San Mateo County. However, we are aware that CAL FIRE is currently revising their hazard severity zone mapping, and it is possible that additional communities may include Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in this updated mapping. The updated mapping is expected to be released sometime in 2023.

Deliverables:
» CAL FIRE Safety Element review checklist (electronic, for each relevant Participating Jurisdiction) and submittal to CAL FIRE.
» Coordination, and meetings if needed, with CAL FIRE staff during review of Safety Element. » Participation in Board of Forestry Resource Protection Committee meeting during review of Safety Element (1 virtual meeting per participating jurisdiction).

Task 10: Public Agency Boards – Review and Approval
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Each Participating Agency’s Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors must formally review the draft Safety Element and its associated environmental review document. To support a successful review and adoption of each Safety Element, we will support staff to provide regular updates to their Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors as informational items or as Commission/Council/Board workshops or study sessions at key points during the process. At the end of the process, after all public and external agency comments are incorporated into the draft Safety Elements, they will be ready for final review and adoption by each jurisdiction through public hearings. These hearings will be the culmination of the Safety Element Update process and will allow members of the public to provide additional input prior to adoption. The PlaceWorks team will work with Participating Jurisdiction staff materials in support of these hearings.
102
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 45

10.1 Prepare Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Materials
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

During the planning process, the PlaceWorks team will prepare a Planning Commission/City Council/Board of Supervisors Briefing Packet for Participating Jurisdiction staff at three points in the process: (1) project initiation/vulnerability assessment, (2) draft goals, policies, and action preparation, and (3) draft element review. These Briefing Packets will provide an overview of the project status in a brief memo and set of slides that will highlight work completed to-date, opportunities for public engagement, and next steps.

Participating Jurisdiction staff will be responsible for putting this content into agency specific templates or formats, modifying it if needed to include jurisdiction specific details, and for presenting it to their Planning Commission/City Council/Board of Supervisors.

Following completion of Tasks 2-9, the PlaceWorks team will prepare drafts of the Safety Elements incorporating all relevant comments from members of the public, CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry and other public agencies, and other stakeholders as relevant. These drafts will serve as the “public hearing drafts” that will be brought forward to the Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors for review and adoption. Additionally, we will work with jurisdiction staff to support preparation of materials for the Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors public hearings. This support may include preparing drafts of materials and reviewing content prepared by Participating Jurisdiction staff. We anticipate that such materials may be staff reports, presentations, resolutions, or other items that may be helpful for hearings. We will prepare all materials using consistent graphics, branding, and other design features as requested.

Deliverables:
» Public hearing draft Safety Element (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Briefing packets (three, electronic, draft and final) » Staff report content and PowerPoint slides to support on study session during the final public review phase and two public hearings (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction, draft and final)

10.2 Attend Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Meetings
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

Staff from the PlaceWorks team will attend one study session of the Planning Commission or City Council (or a joint meeting) at the initial release of the draft Safety Element, and one Planning Commission, and one City Council/Board of Supervisor meeting for each participating jurisdiction at the adoption stage. We expect that these meetings will be in-person, although we are able to participate virtually if preferred. PlaceWorks will be prepared to support staff with presentations, respond to questions from officials, and fill other roles as needed.

If any Planning Commissions or City Councils/Board of Supervisors direct changes to the draft Safety Elements prior to recommendation/adoption, we will incorporate these changes into a separate final draft 103
Technical Proposal
46 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update following adoption. Otherwise, the public hearing drafts will serve as final drafts, with any necessary changes to reflect their adopted state.

Deliverables:
» Final draft Safety Element (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction) » Attendance at one study session and two public hearings (one Planning Commission meeting and one City Council/Board of Supervisors meeting) for Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County. Meeting attendance is assumed to be in person and includes travel time from the office location of the lead staff person assigned to the agency plus travel costs. Participating Jurisdictions can elect for virtual participation of the PlaceWorks team to reduce costs.

10.3 Add-on: Attend Additional Public Meetings
Participating Jurisdictions: East Palo Alto, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.

We recognize that the preferences and processes for review of General Plan Amendments can vary by jurisdiction and that some Participating Jurisdictions may need additional meeting support beyond the three public meetings scoped in Task 10.2. Members of the PlaceWorks team can participate in additional meetings of the Planning Commission and/or City Council/Board of Supervisors if requested by Participating Jurisdiction staff. Participation in additional meetings may be virtual or in-person as desired. We can support Participating Jurisdiction staff to prepare or review any additional meeting materials as may be needed. This task assumes additional meeting support as noted below by jurisdiction; however, if additional meeting is requested, it can be available on a time-and-materials basis through the contingency budget. Meeting attendance is assumed to be in person and includes travel time from the office location of the lead staff person assigned to the agency plus travel costs. Jurisdictions can elect for virtual participation of the PlaceWorks team to reduce costs.
» East Palo Alto: One additional public meeting, hearing, or study session with Planning Commission and/or City Council.
» San Bruno: One additional public meeting, hearing, or study session with Planning Commission and/or City Council.
» San Mateo County: Three additional public meetings, hearings, or study sessions with the Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors.

Deliverables:
» Attendance at additional public hearings as noted.
» Support with meeting materials for additional meetings. (electronic, draft and final)

104
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 47
Project Schedule
PlaceWorks’ proposed schedule for completion of the Safety Element Multi-Agency Collaborative is shown in Figure 1. In our experience, Safety Element preparation with the tasks included in the proposed scope of work can average 18 to 24 months to allow for robust stakeholder engagement, potential delays with receipt of data from external agencies, and environmental review. We have prepared a 24-month schedule.

PlaceWorks has a strong track record in meeting project schedules and coordinating closely with its clients as part of our approach to quality project management. Our project management process allows for potential project delays to be revealed early and to identify options to keep the project on-track or to adjust the schedule if needed. We recommend reviewing and confirming a detailed schedule during contract negotiations or as part of project initiation. Over years of managing projects, we have developed a variety of tools to keep projects on schedule and ensure that staff are well informed at all times. We maintain an up-to-date schedule throughout the project, to ensure that all team members are aware of upcoming meetings and product due dates.
We stay in close, regular contact with staff and our community partners and document important decisions about the project in writing, which ensures that decisions are understood by all team members. We schedule project due dates for staff with adequate time for editing and formatting into finished reports.

Our team takes a project management approach that focuses on providing a quality process and product in sync with the budget and schedule while enjoying our work and collaborating as a team to ensure that everyone’s strength and input are well-integrated. We approach project management as a dynamic process and one that is critical to the process. This starts during the preparation of the proposal and continues through the project initiation, execution, and completion. Our project manager maintains regular coordination and check-ins with the project team, including our teaming partners and clients. We use tools such as Deltek, Asana, MS Project, and others as needed to support our projects.

In addition to our overall project kick-off meeting, we begin each task by reviewing objectives, budget, schedule, roles, and workflows with all members of our team so that everyone knows both their individual roles and the big picture. We also review each task at completion to assess the work, identify any issues of concern for the project team, identify any lessons learned that should be applied to later tasks, and consider any potential scope or budget considerations. Our project managers assess financial project performance monthly as part of invoice preparation.

Our team uses ongoing quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) processes throughout the project development process as an integral component of our project management approach. We deliver work that is scientifically accurate, consistent with all legal requirements, and meets all needs of our clients. This not only includes plan documents and memos, but technical analyses, data workbooks, outreach materials, and all other work products prepared for our projects. All work is reviewed by the project manager and other senior PlaceWorks staff to ensure that it meets this rigorous set of criteria. A technical editor reviews all work to ensure accurate spelling and grammar, consistent tone, and proper sourcing. Our Word processing staff and graphic designers also review work products for consistent formatting and readability. 105
Technical Proposal
48 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update Figure 1 Project Schedule Tasks April 2023 May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan 2024 Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2025 Feb Mar Task 1. Project Coordination and Communication1.1. Collaborative Steering Committee

1.2. Technical Advisory Committees and 1x1 Support

1.4. Ongoing Project Management Task 2. Community Engagement and Equity Approach

2.1. Public Engagement Plan2.2. Equity Approach2.3. Community Based Organizations Partnerships2.4. Community Workshops

2.5. Hard-to-Reach/Community Group Meetings

2.6. Stakeholder Meetings 2.7. Develop Project Website2.8. Mapped Survey Tool2.9. Story Map 2.10. Community Input ReportTask 3. Vulnerability Assessment and Hazard Maps3.1. GIS Database for Hazards 3.2. GIS Database for Asset Layers 3.3. Identify Sensitive Populations 3.4. Prepare Asset Lists 3.5. Identify Flood and Fire Hazard Data 3.6. Evacuation Constraints Analysis 3.7. Vulnerability Assessment 3.8. Summarize Results of Vulnerability Assessment 3.9. Online Map Viewer3.10. Hazard Maps for Inclusion in Safety ElementTask 4. Background Information on Hazards4.1. Update Hazard Background InformationTask 5. Goals, Objectives, and Policies5.1. Regional Best Practices Summary5.2. Review of Existing Plans, Requirements, and Gaps5.3. Draft Goals, Policies, and Objectives 5.4. Revise Goals, Policies, and ObjectivesTask 6. Implementation Measures6.1. Develop Draft Implementation Measures 6.2. Revise Implementation Measures6.3. Implementation RecommendationsTask 7. Safety Elements Drafted for Jurisdiction7.1. Administrative Draft Safety Elements for Jurisdictions7.2. Public Review Draft Safety ElementsTask 8. CEQA Analysis8.1. CEQA Project Management and Initiation 8.2. Environmental Checklist Memo8.3. CEQA Document8.4. Native American Tribal ConsultationTask 9. Board of Forestry Review9.1. CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry Safety Element Review Task 10. Public Agency Boards - Review and Approval10.1. Prepare Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Materials10.2. Attend Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Meetings 10.2. Attend Additional Public Hearings or Meetings PlaceWorks Preparation of Project Task
Staff Review of Work Products
Meetings - Conference Calls or In-Person
106
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 71

PRICE PROPOSAL
As shown in Table 3, the estimated cost to complete the scope of work described in this proposal is $1,224,016 for the baseline scope of work plus add-on tasks, expenses, and a contingency budget.

Table 4 shows the fee proposal broken down by agency. Tables 3 and 4 are included as separate files.

PlaceWorks bills its work on a time-and-materials basis with monthly invoices.

Assumptions
In addition to the assumptions for the scope of work, this cost estimate assumes that:
PlaceWorks bills its work on a time-and-materials basis with monthly invoices. Our cost estimate includes the meetings as scoped. Additional meetings will be billed on a time-andmaterials basis at the direction of the CPC Project Manager. At least one member of the project management team will attend project meetings, public workshops, and other public meetings identified in the scope.
All products will be submitted to the City in electronic format, which includes Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, and Adobe Acrobat.
Participating Jurisdiction staff will be responsible for TAC, planning commission, City Council/Board of Supervisors, and advisory body meeting logistics, including coordination, document production, applicable public noticing, mailing costs, room reservations, room set-up and take-down, refreshments, and final preparation and posting of staff reports.
107
Price Proposal
72 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update Table 3 – PlaceWorks Fee Proposal - Detailed by Task
Seale Krispi Rohr Jansen McCracken Mazur Guy/Giffin Barker/Kha Lau DiPierro Robbins/ Miller Atlas Planning Solutions Nexus Planning CRC Principal-inCharge Project Manager Asst. Project Manager Principal Advisor CEQA Lead GIS Principal GIS Associate Associate Website & Outreach GIS Analyst Project Planner $250 $210 $175 $260 $245 $225 $155 $155 $165 $125 $140 $135 $135 $125 TASK 1. TASK 1. PROJECT COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION (9 agencies) 1 Collaborative Steering Committee 27 36 45 4 36 148 $565 $28,830 $3,150 $0 $0 $315 $3,465 $32,295 2 Participating Agency Support: Technical Advisory Committees and 1x1 Support 18 56 56 24 12 6 172 $636 $32,426 $9,440 $0 $0 $944 $10,384 $42,810 3 Ongoing project management 44 56 48 148 $623 $31,783 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,783 Task 1. Subtotal 89 148 149 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 12 6 468 $1,824 $93,039 $12,590 $0 $0 $1,259 $13,849 $106,888 TASK 2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EQUITY APPROACH (8 agencies) 1 Public Engagement Plan (PEP) 8 8 88 16 2 50 $193 $9,863 $700 $0 $2,275 $298 $3,273 $13,136 2 Equity Approach 6 8 8 4 4 10 40 $154 $7,834 $350 $0 $2,020 $237 $2,607 $10,441 3 Community Based Organizations (CBOs) Partnerships 84 4 16 $71 $3,611 $0 $0 $21,275 $2,128 $23,403 $27,0144 Community Workshops (4) 20 20 32 36 40 4 4 156 $540 $27,560 $700 $0 $3,650 $435 $4,785 $32,345 5 Hard-to-Reach / Community Group Meetings 24 4 12 6 2 2 32 $101 $5,151 $0 $0 $14,250 $1,425 $15,675 $20,8266 Stakeholder Meetings 6 18 24 18 18 84 $296 $15,086 $2,100 $0 $0 $210 $2,310 $17,396 7 Develop Project Website 8 8 24 40 32 40 8 160 $509 $25,949 $1,180 $0 $0 $118 $1,298 $27,247 8 Mapped Survey Tool 4 4 8 2 4 16 50 12 100 $294 $15,014 $2,360 $0 $0 $236 $2,596 $17,610 9 Story Map 4 4 8 4 8 50 16 6 100 $294 $14,974 $1,180 $0 $0 $118 $1,298 $16,272 10 Community Input Report 6 8 16 40 2 4 4 80 $258 $13,148 $1,660 $0 $3,550 $521 $5,731 $18,879 Task 2. Subtotal 72 86 136 12 0 6 12 70 44 100 196 60 14 10 818 $2,710 $138,190 $10,230 $0 $47,020 $5,726 $62,976 $201,166 TASK 3. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND HAZARD MAPS (9 agencies) 1 GIS Database for Hazards 1 2 2 1 1 27 34 $96 $4,871 $700 $0 $840 $154 $1,694 $6,565 2 GIS Database for Asset Layers 1 2 9 1 1 27 41 $120 $6,120 $700 $0 $840 $154 $1,694 $7,814 3 Identify Sensitive Populations 2 9 18 4 1 16 18 16 4 88 $285 $14,530 $700 $0 $840 $154 $1,694 $16,224 4 Prepare Asset Lists 2 9 9 1 32 18 40 111 $339 $17,269 $700 $0 $840 $154 $1,694 $18,963 5 Identify Flood and Fire Hazard Data 2 9 9 2 2 32 56 $175 $8,900 $1,400 $0 $0 $140 $1,540 $10,440 6 Evacuation Constraints Analysis 8 8 16 2 16 96 146 $428 $21,838 $2,800 $0 $420 $322 $3,542 $25,380 7 Vulnerability Assessment 8 18 54 70 70 220 $718 $36,598 $2,800 $4,680 $1,180 $866 $9,526 $46,124 8 Summarize Results of Vulnerability Assessment 10 18 54 40 40 24 24 210 $675 $34,445 $2,800 $3,120 $1,180 $710 $7,810 $42,255 9 Online Map Viewer 2 8 16 2 9 60 97 $287 $14,612 $3,060 $0 $840 $390 $4,290 $18,902 10 Hazard Maps for Inclusion in Safety Element 2 9 18 2 9 72 112 $328 $16,713 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,713 Task 3. Subtotal 38 92 205 4 0 10 40 158 0 350 166 4 24 24 1115 $3,451 $175,896 $15,660 $7,800 $6,980 $3,044 $33,484 $209,380 TASK 4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON HAZARDS (8 agencies)
1 Update Hazard Background Information 8 24 32 60 68 30 24 246 $770 $39,280 $8,560 $1,560 $0 $1,012 $11,132 $50,412 Task 4. Subtotal 8 24 32 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 68 0 30 24 246 $770 $39,280 $8,560 $1,560 $0 $1,012 $11,132 $50,412 TASK 5. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES (7 agencies)
1 Regional Best Practices Summary 4 6 12 12 12 2 48 $163 $8,333 $1,530 $0 $0 $153 $1,683 $10,016 2 Review of Existing Plans, Requirements, and Gaps 7 12 14 40 48 8 8 137 $434 $22,154 $5,940 $2,340 $0 $828 $9,108 $31,262 3 Draft Goals, Policies, and Objectives 14 16 16 40 48 32 16 182 $578 $29,478 $11,800 $4,680 $4,650 $2,113 $23,243 $52,721 4 Revise Goals, Policies, and Objectives 7 12 12 20 24 16 8 99 $320 $16,310 $5,200 $3,120 $0 $832 $9,152 $25,462 Task 5. Subtotal 32 46 54 0 0 0 0 112 0 0 132 0 58 32 466 $1,495 $76,275 $24,470 $10,140 $4,650 $3,926 $43,186 $119,461 TASK 6. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES (7 agencies)
1 Develop Draft Implementation Measures 8 14 24 4 24 24 14 8 120 $403 $20,553 $9,440 $3,120 $4,650 $1,721 $18,931 $39,484 2 Revise Implementation Measures 4 4 24 16 16 4 68 $225 $11,485 $4,720 $1,560 $0 $628 $6,908 $18,393 3 Implementation Recommendations 8 14 24 16 16 4 82 $287 $14,647 $4,720 $1,560 $0 $628 $6,908 $21,555 Task 6. Subtotal 20 32 72 4 0 0 0 56 0 0 56 0 14 16 270 $915 $46,685 $18,880 $6,240 $4,650 $2,977 $32,747 $79,432 TASK 7. SAFETY ELEMENTS DRAFTED FOR JURISDICTION (7 agencies) 1 Administrative Draft Safety Elements for Jurisdictions 14 32 32 32 60 60 60 290 $896 $45,676 $9,960 $3,120 $4,225 $1,731 $19,036 $64,712 2 Public Review Draft Safety Elements 8 24 24 24 32 28 32 172 $544 $27,764 $7,820 $1,170 $0 $899 $9,889 $37,653 Task 7. Subtotal 22 56 56 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 92 0 88 92 462 $1,440 $73,440 $17,780 $4,290 $4,225 $2,630 $28,925 $102,365 TASK 8. CEQA ANALYSIS (7 agencies)
1 CEQA Project Management and Initiation 36 24 60 $251 $12,791 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,791 2 Environmental Checklist Memo 2 2 24 36 48 12 12 136 $441 $22,511 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,511 3 CEQA Document (NOE or Addendum) 2 2 4 12 24 36 12 12 104 $329 $16,769 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,769 4 Native American Tribal Consultation (SB 18) 4 24 36 48 112 $378 $19,258 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,258 Task 8. Subtotal 2 4 10 0 96 0 0 120 0 0 132 0 24 24 412 $1,399 $71,329 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,329 TASK 9. BOARD OF FORESTRY REVIEW (3 agencies)
1 CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry Safety Element Review 6 6 12 $46 $2,356 $7,080 $0 $0 $708 $7,788 $10,144 Task 9. Subtotal 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 $46 $2,356 $7,080 $0 $0 $708 $7,788 $10,144 TASK 10. PUBLIC AGENCY BOARDS – REVIEW AND APPROVAL (7 agencies) 1 Prepare Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Materials 14 58 30 40 40 8 21 211 $733 $37,378 $7,600 $0 $0 $760 $8,360 $45,738 2 Attend Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Meetings (21) 120 120 $504 $25,704 $8,400 $0 $0 $840 $9,240 $34,944 Task 10. Subtotal 14 178 30 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 40 8 21 0 331 $1,237 $63,082 $16,000 $0 $0 $1,600 $17,600 $80,682 Labor Hours Total 297 672 750 24 96 16 52 672 44 450 942 72 285 228 4600 956 170 529 Labor Dollars Total $74,250 $141,120 $131,250 $6,240 $23,520 $3,600 $8,060 $104,160 $7,260 $56,250 $131,880 $9,720 $38,475 $28,500 $15,287 $779,572 $131,250 $30,030 $67,525 $22,882 $251,687 $1,031,259

EXPENSES
PlaceWorks Reimbursable Expenses $8,487Subconsultants' Reimbursable Expenses $2,500 Expenses Total $10,987
Subtotal: Baseline Tasks + Expenses $1,042,246

CONTINGENCY
Varies by agency $100,135
ADD ON TASKS - Vary by Agency

8.5 CEQA Contingency Add-on: Initial Study/Negative Declaration/AB 52 (per agency) 2 4 8 22 36 4 4 80 $251 $12,821 0 0 0 $0 $0 $64,105

10.3 Optional Add On: Attend Additional Public Meetings/Cost per meeting 8 8 $34 $1,714 $0 $0 $8,570

1.2 Additional TAC Meeting Support & Attendance (County only) 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 $8,960 Add-On Task Total $81,635
ALL TASKSPlaceWorks Grand Total $1,224,016
PlaceWorks
Total
10% Subconsultant
Markup
Subconsultant
Total Safety
Element
Planning
SLR/VA Community Outreach

PLACEWORKS SUBCONSULTANTS
Total
Labor
Budget
Hourly Rate:

GRAPHICS TECH.

EDITOR
WP/
CLERICAL PlaceWorks
Hours
PlaceWorks
2% Office
Expenses
108
Price Proposal
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 73
Table 4 – PlaceWorks Fee Proposal - By Agency

COUNTY ALL
San Mateo Atherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame East Palo Alto Half Moon Bay Pacifica San Bruno Total Task 1. Project Coordination and Communication 14,095 $ 10,525 $ 14,095 $ 6,223 $ 14,095 $ 14,095 $ 14,095 $ 5,570 $ 14,095 $ 106,888 $ Task 2. Community Engagement and Equity Approach $ 102,394 $ - $ 19,754 $ 19,754 $ 19,754 $ 19,754 $ 19,754 201,166 $ Task 3. Develop Vulnerability Assessment and Hazard Maps $ 67,839 $ 15,180 $ 15,180 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 209,380 $ Task 4. Background Information on Hazards $ 10,082 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 50,412 $ Task 5. Goals, Objectives, and Policies $ 29,865 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 119,461 $ Task 6. Implementation Measures $ 19,858 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 79,432 $ Task 7. Safety Elements Drafted for Jurisdictions $ 25,591 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 102,365 $ Task 8. CEQA Analysis (Exemption or Addendum) $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 71,329 $ Task 9. Board of Forestry Review $ 3,381 $ 3,381 $ 3,381 10,144 $ Task 10. Public Agency Board – Review & Approval $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 80,682 $ PW Reimbursable Expenses (Website Hosting, GIS fee, limited travel) $ 3,296 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 10,987 $ PlaceWorks Total $ 298,118 $ 91,801 $ 118,507 $ 31,476 $ 118,475 $ 118,475 $ 121,857 $ 25,061 $ 118,475 1,042,246 $ Add-On Tasks San Mateo Atherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame East Palo Alto Half Moon Bay Pacifica San Bruno Total Additional TAC Meeting Support & Attendance $ 8,960 8,960 $ Additional Public Agency Meetings $ 5,142 $ 1,714 $ 1,714 8,570 $ Contingency - CEQA (Initial Study/Negative Declaration/AB 52 consultation) $ 12,821 $ 12,821 $ 12,821 $ 12,821 $ - $ 12,821 64,105 $ Contingency - General (5% or 10%) $ 31,222 $ 4,590 $ 11,851 $ 3,148 $ 11,848 $ 12,019 $ 12,186 $ 1,253 $ 12,019 100,135 $ PlaceWorks Total $ 356,263 $ 96,391 $ 143,178 $ 34,623 $ 130,323 $ 145,029 $ 146,863 $ 26,314 $ 145,029 $ 1,224,016 Baseline Scope of Work
CITIES
109
2635 Benvenue Ave
Berkeley, CA 94704
510.761.6001
[email protected] | planningcollaborative.com February 11, 2023
Katie Faulkner, Planner III
County of San Mateo
455 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
Subject: Project Management -- San Mateo County Safety Element Collaborative Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element
We are pleased to provide this proposal for continued project management services for the MultiJurisdictional Safety Element Collaborative.

For the past year, Community Planning Collaborative (formerly Baird + Driskell Community Planning) has been serving as the convenor, facilitator and project manager of a collaborative of nine agencies working together on efforts related to their Safety Elements. Specifically, Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) has acted the project manager for the Safety Element Collaborative project through the Collaborative’s initial formation and the RFP process, ensuring that the voice of each participating agency was heard, and their needs addressed. To date, Community Planning Collaborative acted project manager through their role as lead consultant for the 21 Elements Project. 21 Elements was originally created to assist San Mateo County jurisdictions (20 cities and the county) with required Housing Element updates and has now expanded to assist with other General Plan element updates.

With the selection of PlaceWorks, Inc. to serve as the professional Safety Element consultant, there is still the need to provide oversight and orchestration of this multi-agency effort over the next two years. To support staff from the nine agencies, CPC will convene and facilitate the Steering Committee meetings, meet with PlaceWorks to provide preliminary review and direction of process and product components; review public outreach and engagement materials and other deliverables; monitor and provide updates on budget and deliverable requirements to each agency; coordinate with PlaceWorks for efficient and effective work with all agencies; and prepare documents for staff for their communications to Planning Commissions and elected bodies.

As a Principal, Josh Abrams is authorized to bind CPC to the contents of this submittal and to negotiate contracts on behalf of CPC. We propose to have Cathy Capriola continue to serve as the Project Manager of the Safety Element Collaborative. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Josh Abrams
Principal
110
[email protected]

SCOPE OF WORK
In consideration of the payments set forth in Exhibit B, Contractor shall provide the following services:

Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element
Overall, serve as PROJECT MANAGER for the Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element project with nine public agencies in San Mateo County.
Full Scope Participating Agencies: San Mateo County and six San Mateo County cities (Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, and San Bruno) Partial Scope Participating Agencies: Cities of Brisbane and Pacifica; and

1. Steering Committee – Coordinate, facilitate and communicate with the agencies individually and together as a Collaborative Steering Committee throughout the project. Lead the Steering Committee and serve as the Committee’s primary point of contact. Ensure meetings of the Collaborative Steering Committee provide opportunities to share information, provide feedback at key points in the process, discuss options and opportunities for community engagement, and review approaches to addressing key hazards of concern. Review meeting materials prepared by PlaceWorks Team before distribution to the Committee members. After each meeting, prepare and distribute a high-level summary of key points, action items, decisions, and next steps.

2. Project Management – Monitor and oversee the overall project per the executed contract with PlaceWorks. Ensure timeline and project deliverables are met in a timely manner and at the quality expectation of the project.

3. Reporting & Agency Communication – Conduct quarterly check-in meetings with each participating agency and ensure concerns, ideas or issues are reviewed and resolved with the PlaceWorks Team.

Prepare quarterly project progress reports regarding status of the project, overall progress on budget, and update on individual agency costs to date.

4. Invoice Review & Budget Monitoring – Review submitted invoices by PlaceWorks; monitor and track invoices and submitted charges against the overall approved budget for the project as a whole and for each individual agency. Communicate with County as fiscal agent on monthly invoices and provide updates to the Steering Committee as a whole and individual agencies as needed.

5. Coordination with Lead Safety Element Consultant (PlaceWorks) – Coordinate on a regular basis with PlaceWorks on project process, deliverables, and community outreach. Provide guidance and conduct necessary outreach to individual agencies or the Steering Committee as a whole.

6. Work Product Review – Review all public engagement tools and products in a comprehensive manner.

Review technical work products (such as vulnerability analysis and individual safety elements) at a higher level focused on clarity and broad objectives with the detailed review to be completed by the individual agencies based on their specific knowledge and expertise).

7. Adoption Staff Reports – Prepare staff reports and enacting resolutions at the completion of the project for adoption of the completed Safety Elements by each jurisdiction. 111
[email protected]

8. Participate in Key Community Outreach Activities – Participate in occasional community outreach activities, such as the community workshops, to monitor outcomes and to understand the key community issues within the Safety Element processes.

9. Respond to Requests from Participating Agencies -- Provide easy and direct access for Jurisdictions to ask questions, distribute information, query other jurisdictions, obtain updated information on State laws and particular items of importance, etc.
112
[email protected]

FEE PROPOSAL
Contractor shall submit monthly invoices for services rendered during the prior month to [email protected], identifying the Agreement Number, specific work completed, the contract donot-exceed amount, and the amount remaining unspent under this Agreement. The invoice shall be based on the following fee schedule and terms as set forth in the table below which identify the overall budget, distribution of total hours by task, and the amount to be billed to the County by fiscal year. Modifications to the estimated annual billing amounts may be made separately, without amendment to this Agreement, through consultation between the Director of Community Development or designee, and Contractor followed by written authorization from the Director of Community Development or designee. County shall pay Contractor within thirty (30) business days of receipt of a satisfactory invoice.

In no event shall total payment for services under this Agreement exceed ninety two thousand four hundred dollars ($92,400) without a written amendment signed by both parties.

The hourly rate for this project is $200 per hour.

Estimated Annual Billing Amounts: The project spans three fiscal years and is roughly expected to be executed within these parameters:

FY 22/23 – 20% equal to $18,480
FY 23/24 – 60% equal to $55,440
FY 24/25 – 20% equal to $18,480
Hours Costs
Steering Committee Coordination 54 $10,800
Coordination Meetings with Fiscal Agent 36 $7,200
Coordination Meetings with Safety Element Consultant
Team
78 $15,600
Quarterly 1x1 Outreach to Participating Agencies &
Quarterly Reports on Progress, Timeline and Budget
Updates by Project and via Individual Agencies
136 $27,200
Monthly Invoice Review 48 $9,600
Review of Work Products & Community Engagement 60 $12,000 Preparation of Final Staff Report and Resolutions 10 $2,000 Sub-Total 422 $84,400
Contingency 40 $8,000
TOTAL 462 $92,400
113
[email protected]

COST SHARING
Below is a chart outlining the cost sharing based on scope of each agency (full scope with full public engagement; full scope with limited engagement; and partial scope with no public engagement and technical aspects only.)

AGENCY ESTIMATED COSTS
San Mateo County $11,935
Atherton $8,778
Belmont $11,935
Brisbane $6,006
Burlingame $11,935
East Palo Alto $11,935
Half Moon Bay $11,935
Pacifica $6,006
San Bruno $11,935
TOTAL $92,400
114

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Between

CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
and

EAST PALO ALTO
for the

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT PROJECT This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), effective the day of , 2023 is entered into by and between the City of Burlingame Community Development Department (“CITY”) and the City of East Palo Alto (“AGENCY”), together referred to herein as the "PARTIES."
WHEREAS, the cities, towns and County in San Mateo have a strong history of collaboration and resource sharing on various planning studies and initiatives, including this initiative to participate in a Multi-Jurisdictional Environmental Justice Element Project (“PROJECT”), a collaborative effort coordinated by 21 Elements; and Whereas, Senate Bill 1000 (SB1000), requires that jurisdictions with disadvantaged communities either include an environmental justice element in their general plan or incorporate environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives throughout other general plan elements; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this PROJECT is to address the legal requirements of Environmental Justice Elements and SB 1000 by sharing analysis and resources for greater efficiency for the three jurisdictions participating in this collaborative effort, including the City of Burlingame, City of East Palo Alto, and County of San Mateo; and WHEREAS, through a competitive RFP process facilitated by the City of Burlingame, PlaceWorks (“CONTRACTOR”) was chosen as the firm to provide consulting services for the outreach, analysis and planning associated with the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, Community Planning Collaborative, the consulting firm for the 21 Elements Project, has served as the project manager (“PROJECT MANAGER”) for this collaborative effort through initial formation and the RFP process to ensure the voice of each participating agency is heard and their needs addressed; and WHEREAS, Community Planning Collaborative will continue to serve as the PROJECT MANAGER for the collaborative effort for the duration of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame will serve as fiscal agent for the Project and will enter into contracts with PlaceWorks, Inc. and Community Planning Collaborative and oversee the payment of invoices on behalf of the participating agencies; and WHEREAS, each participating agency will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Burlingame outlining the roles of each participating agency, the consultants, and the funding obligations for the PROJECT.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the CITY and AGENCY agree as follows:
115
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this MOU is to memorialize the understanding between the CITY and AGENCY that (1) the Agency wishes to participate in the Multi-Jurisdictional Environmental Justice Element Project, (2) the Agency wishes to utilize the CONTRACTOR as the consulting team, and (3) the CITY is serving as a fiscal agent to facilitate the PROJECT.

II. EXHIBIT AND ATTACHMENTS
The following exhibits and attachments are attached to this Agreement and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference:

Exhibit A – Project Budget and Agency Costs
Exhibit B – PlaceWorks – Scope of Work and Cost Proposal Exhibit C – Community Planning Collaborative – Scope of Work and Fee Proposal III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A. The CITY will serve as the Fiscal Agent for the project and enter into contracts with CONTRACTOR and PROJECT MANAGER. All payments and invoices will be reviewed and paid on behalf of the participating agencies to the consultants.

B. The AGENCY will provide funding as outlined in Exhibit A for the PROJECT and will participate in obligations outlined in the WORK PROGRAM, including participating in the overall plan development and implementation.

C. Community Planning Collaborative through 21 Elements will serve as PROJECT MANAGER and will manage and implement all aspects of the PROJECT, in accordance with the WORK PROGRAM set forth in Exhibit C.

D. Placeworks will serve as the consultant team to carry out any or all aspects of the PROJECT as the CONTRACTOR.

IV. FUNDING AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
A. AGENCY agrees to pay the CITY for the prescribed AGENCY portion (Exhibit A) within 90 days of the executed MOU. An AGENCY will have the option to split their contribution over two fiscal years if necessary.

1. The CONTRACTOR will submit invoices to PROJECT MANAGER on a monthly basis for PROJECT activities. A brief narrative progress report shall be included with each invoice.

2. The PROJECT MANAGER will submit invoices to the CITY on a monthly basis for PROJECT activities.

3. The CITY and PROJECT MANAGER will provide a quarterly accounting of invoices, charged and remaining funds for each of the PARTIES. A final accounting will be submitted to all PARTIES with any remaining funds returned or an additional invoice if required.

B. The CITY agrees that it will not be entitled to reimbursement of its costs incurred 116
while performing its obligations as set forth in Section III, Roles and Responsibilities.

C. In the event that the actual costs of completing the PROJECT Work Program, as set forth in Exhibit B, exceed the budget as outlined in Exhibit A (including the contingency budget amounts), the PARTIES, including the CITY and AGENCY, will confer and agree either to reduce the PROJECT Work Program and/or to provide additional funding based on mutual agreements in writing. All PARTIES agree to use best efforts in such case to reach agreement without causing a PROJECT delay.

V. TERM
This MOU shall remain in effect from June 15, 2023 to June 15, 2025, unless terminated sooner pursuant to Section XIV.

VI. AMENDMENTS
The AGENCY contact, or his/her designee, is authorized to make minor modifications within the work program and the scope of work in Exhibits B and C to respond to necessary changes as the project evolves as long as the scope of the project does not extend beyond the approved total cost estimate in Exhibit A. Such minor modifications to the scopes of work shall be documented in writing, but shall not require an amendment to this MOU. This MOU can be amended, modified, or supplemented only in writing(s) signed by both PARTIES. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein will be binding on either of the PARTIES.

VII. INDEMNIFICATION
a. It is agreed that Agency shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City of Burlingame and its officers, employees, agents, and servants from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought by a third party which arise out of the terms and conditions of this MOU (collectively, “Claims”); provided that such Claims are the direct result from the acts or omissions of Agency and/or its officers, employees, agents, and servants.
b. Agency shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City of Burlingame from and against any and all claims for wages, salaries, benefits, taxes, and all other withholdings and charges payable to, or in respect to, Agency’s representatives for services provided under this MOU.
c. It is agreed that the City of Burlingame shall defend, save harmless, and indemnify Agency and its officers, employees, agents, and servants from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought by a third party which arise out of the terms and conditions of this MOU and which result from the acts or omissions of City of Burlingame and/or its officers and employees, agents and servants.
d. The duty of each party to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other as set forth herein shall include the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code.
117
e. In the event of concurrent negligence (or intentional/reckless acts) of City of Burlingame and/or its officers and employees, on the one hand, and Agency and/or its officers, employees, agents, and servants, on the other hand, then the liability for any and all claims for injuries or damage to persons and/or property which arise out of terms and conditions of this MOU shall be apportioned according to the California theory of comparative fault.
f. This indemnification will survive termination or expiration of this MOU.

VIII. NOTICES
A. All notices and communications deemed by either party to be necessary or desirable must be in writing and may be given by personal delivery to a representative of the other party or by mailing the same, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

If to the CITY:

City of Burlingame Community Development Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Joseph Sanfilippo, Economic Development and Housing Specialist 650.558.7264; [email protected]
If to the AGENCY:

City of East Palo Alto
2415 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Melvin Gaines
650.853.3150/ [email protected]
B. The address to which mailings may be made may be changed from time to time by notice mailed as described above. Any notice given by mail will be deemed given on the day after that on which it is deposited in the United States Mail as provided above.

IX. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The PARTIES agree and understand that the work/services performed by either of the PARTIES or any consultant retained by either of the PARTIES under this MOU are performed as independent contractors and not as employees or agents of the other party. Nothing herein will be deemed to create any joint venture between the CITY and AGENCY.

X. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
Neither party will assign, transfer, or otherwise substitute its interest in this MOU, nor its obligations, without the prior written consent of the other PARTY. All obligations created under this MOU will be binding on, and the rights established herein will inure to the benefit of, any successors or assigns of the PARTIES.
118
XI. COMPLIANCE
The PARTIES must comply with any and all laws, statues, ordinances, rules, regulations, or requirements of the federal, state, and local governments, and any agency thereof, which relate to or in any manner affect the performance of this MOU.

XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The PARTIES agree that any dispute arising from this MOU that is not resolved within 30 days by the PARTIES’ representatives responsible for the administration of this MOU will be set forth in writing to the attention of the CITY’s Community Development Director for resolution. In the event resolution cannot be reached, the PARTIES may submit the dispute to mediation by a neutral party mutually agreed to by the PARTIES prior to initiating any formal action in court.

XIII. TERMINATION
Either PARTY may terminate this MOU with or without cause upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice. If either PARTY terminates this MOU with or without cause, the AGENCY will be responsible for its pro rata share of costs incurred by the CITY up through the effective date of termination.

XV. GOVERNING LAW
This MOU will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to contracts that are made and performed entirely in California.

XVI. NO WAIVER
No waiver of any default or breach of any covenant of this MOU by either party will be implied from any omission by either party to take action on account of such default if such default persists or is repeated. No express waiver will affect any default not specified in the waiver, and the waiver will be operative only for the time or extent stated. The consent or approval by either party to or of any act by either party requiring further consent or approval will not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary consent or approval to any subsequent, similar acts. 119
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this MOU as follows:

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
By: ____________________________
Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
ATTEST:

By:________________________________
James Colin, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ____________________________
John D. Lê, City Attorney

CITY OF BURLINGAME

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT
By: ____________________________
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
By:_________________________________
Kevin Gardiner, Community
Development Director
ATTEST:

By:_________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ____________________________
Michael Guina, City Attorney
120
CONSENT ITEM 3.4

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Hanson Hom, Deputy Manager, Special Projects
Humza Javed, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to Extend the Term of the Agreement with Willdan Financial Services to Prepare a Nexus Study Update and Financial Feasibility Analysis Recommendation
By resolution, authorize the City Manager to adopt and execute the amendment to the existing agreement with Willdan Financial Services to June 30, 2025, with authority for the City Manager to grant an additional six-month extension to December 31, 2025, to complete a Nexus Study Update and Financial Feasibility Analysis for updating the City’s development impact fees.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority: Implement the Comprehensive Transportation and Mobility Plan Priority: Ensure Our Financial and Organizational Health Priority: Improve the City's Water Infrastructure
Priority: Develop and Implement a Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan Priority: Enhance Community Services and Parks for Residents Background
On October 17, 2023, the City Council authorized Willdan Financial Services ( Willdan ) to prepare a nexus study and financial feasibility analysis to update the Citys current development impact fees. The term of the consultant agreement is to June 2024, with an 121
CONSENT ITEM 3.4
allowable six-month extension to December 31, 2024, that can be approved by the City Manager. The agreement includes a description of Primary Scope of Services and Addendum Scope of Services. The Primary Scope of Services encompasses preparing a nexus study update and financial feasibility analysis for updating the Citys existing parks and trails, public facilities, transportation, water, and storm drainage impact fees. The Addendum Scope of Services covers preparing a nexus study for a potential sanitary sewer impact fee if the City assumes jurisdiction of the East Palo Alto Sanitary District (EPASD).

Compensation for the Primary Scope of Services was authorized for a total amount not to exceed $112,572, which includes up to $95,310.00 for defined services and a contingency of up to $17,262 for extra services that can be authorized by the City Manager.

Compensation for the Addendum Scope of Services was authorized for a total amount not to exceed $19,800, which includes up to $16,500 for defined services and a contingency of up to $3,300 for extra services that can be authorized by the City Manager.

Analysis
The Public Review Draft Nexus Study Update and Public Review Draft Financial Feasibility Analysis were released for a minimum 30-day public review period on November 18, 2024, with comments due by December 20, 2024. These two documents are revised versions of preliminary drafts that were issued in June 2024 for initial public input. The City Council will consider updating the parks and trails, public facilities, transportation, water, and storm drainage impact fees in early 2025. Once the updated fees have been adopted, Willdan will prepare a fee calculation tool that will be posted online for use by staff and potential developers.

The nexus study for a potential sanitary sewer impact fee was pending a final decision by the San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to authorize the City to oversee EPASD as a subsidiary district. Now that this decision has been finalized, Willdan can proceed on the nexus study, pending an update on the sanitary sewer system improvements that will be required to support new development in the City. It is expected that the nexus study can be completed by June 2025.

Because the scope of services to be completed by Willdan will extend beyond December 2024, City Council authorization is required. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize extending the term of the agreement to June 30, 2025, with City Manager authority to extend to December 31, 2025, if necessary.

No additional amendments to the agreement are necessary that require City Council action. However, the agreement will also be amended through the previously authority granted to the City Manager to allocate up to $20,562 of the contingency funds for extra services pertaining to the Primary and Addendum Scope of Services. The extra services include the following items:
122
CONSENT ITEM 3.4
 Prepare two public review drafts of the nexus study update and financial feasibility analysis and revise the documents as needed to respond to staff and public comments (current agreement covers one public review draft);  Expand the comparison of development impact fees from four to six cities;  Expand the evaluation of development prototypes for the financial feasibility analysis from six to nine prototypes;
 Prepare a presentation for the City Council on potential special district financing mechanisms to offset development impact fees; and
 Allow for additional consultant support and meetings beyond the Primary and Addendum Scope of Services.

Fiscal Impact
The recommended action does not have a fiscal impact as a budget allocation Is not required for this amendment to the agreement.

Public Notice
The public was provided with notice by making the agenda and report available on the City s website and on the bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Environmental
The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” pursuant to 15378(b)(4) because it is a fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the original contract was competitively bid and as such is exempt from the Levine Act.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachment

1. Resolution
123
RESOLUTION NO. ________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO TO

AMEND THE TERM OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH

WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES TO COMPLETE A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE

NEXUS STUDY UPDATE AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (“Mitigation Fee Act”) and other applicable State laws, Chapter 13.24, Article V, and Chapter 13.28 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code authorize the City to adopt development impact fees pursuant to and require the fees to be evaluated every five years; WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, the City enacted a water capacity development impact fee and on March 19, 2019, the City enacted transportation infrastructure, parks and trails, public facilities, and storm drainage development impact fees; WHEREAS, on April 18, 2023, the City Council authorized issuance of a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) to obtain an economic consultant to prepare a Nexus Study Update and Financial Feasibility Analysis to update the City’s existing development impact fees; WHEREAS, on July 28, 2023, an RFP was published requesting proposals for preparing a Nexus Study Update and Financial Feasibility Analysis to update the City’s development impacts fees in compliance with State laws; WHEREAS, on October 17, 2023, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) with Willdan Financial Services, Inc. (“Willdan”) to prepare the Nexus Study Update and Financial Feasibility Analysis for a total amount not to exceed $132,372; and WHEREAS, the Agreement terminated on June 30, 2024, with a possible six-month extension to December 31, 2024, that can be authorized by the City Manager; however, extending the term of the Agreement beyond December 31, 2024, is necessary to complete the scope of work;
WHEREAS sufficient funds have previously been allocated to fund the Agreement and extending the term of the Agreement does not require an additional budget appropriation; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, as follows:

1. The recitals set forth in this resolution are incorporated as findings and determinations by the City Council.

2. This action does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 124
15378(b)(4) and (5) in that it is a governmental fiscal, organizational, or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

3. Authorize the City Manager to adopt and execute a First Amendment to the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement from December 31, 2024, to June 30, 2025, and further authorize the City Manager to approve a six-month extension to December 31, 2025, if deemed necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
______________________________
Antonio López, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ______________________________ James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
125
CONSENT ITEM 3.5

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Michael Cortez, Assistant Engineer
Humza Javed, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: On-Call Pavement Investigation and Reporting Services Contract Recommendation
Adopt a resolution:

2. Finding that the proposed action does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority: Implement the Comprehensive Transportation and Mobility Plan Background
The City of East Palo Alto owns and maintains approximately 83 lane miles of streets. In order to effectively manage the network of City-owned streets, the City utilizes a Pavement Management Program (PMP) to review the condition of these streets and maximizes the number of streets that can be repaired based on available funding based on the PMP. As of the of the PMP published in 2024, the pavement condition index (PCI) is 60. 126
CONSENT ITEM 3.5
In an effort to augment City staff with the investigation of pavement-related issues, site inspections, and preparing pavement specifications, the City sought to enlist professional services from consulting firms specializing in the investigation of pavement-related issues.

Because pavement related projects are designed in-house by Engineering staff, additional technical support for pavement design may create efficiencies within the Department and can maximize pavement rehabilitation treatment areas with the limited funding available.

The scope of services of this On-Call Pavement Investigation and Reporting Services contract includes, but is not limited to, the following:
 Investigation of existing street conditions on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis;  Report on findings as well as recommendations for corrective and/or preventive measures.
 Preparation of specifications for various pavement treatments  Site inspections of pavement rehabilitation projects
The scope of work is included as Attachment 2. Upon award and execution of the contract, staff will coordinate with CAL Pavement Management’s staff to establish a work plan for pavement investigation, review recommended treatment selection, and assist with the development of an updated Pavement Management Plan.

Analysis
The City issued a request for proposals (RFP) from professional engineering consulting firms on August 2, 2024. On August 22, 2024, the City received two (2) proposal packages.

The two proposals were reviewed and ranked by a panel of staff members from the Public Works Department. Proposals were ranked on a set list of criteria, which included the overall quality of the proposal, the firm’s qualification and delivery of similar projects, the proposed scope of work, the firm’s client references, and schedule/manpower allocation. The highest-ranking proposal was submitted by CAL Pavement Management. The ranking summary has been tabulated below:

PROPOSAL RANKING SUMMARY

FEE PROPOSAL SCORE
CAL Pavement Management 92
CSG Consultants, Inc. 88
CAL Pavement Management brings extensive experience and practical expertise in various pavement preservation services. Furthermore, CAL Pavement Management has a demonstrated history of pavement assessment with numerous public jurisdictions throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and neighboring regions, preparing numerous pavement reports for the City of Vacaville, the City of Mill Valley, and the City of San Rafael. 127
CONSENT ITEM 3.5
Fiscal Impact
Funding for this work was budgeted in the Fiscal Year 24/25 Maintenance budget (F201) in the amount of $40,000.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action involves a competitively bid agreement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Proposal
128
Resolution No. XX-2024 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX– 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD, NEGOTIATE, AND EXECUTE AN

AGREEMENT WITH CAL PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT, IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000.00 FOR ON-CALL PAVEMENT

INVESTIGATION AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto owns and maintains approximately 83 lane miles of public streets; and
WHEREAS, engineering staff designs pavement rehabilitation projects in-house; and WHEREAS, professional technical support for pavement related issues such as design, preparing specifications, and inspections will create efficiencies within the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, the City advertised for the solicitation of proposals for on-call professional pavement engineering services on August 2, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2024, two proposals were received and scored by a panel of staff from Public Works; and
WHEREAS, CAL Pavement Management was the highest-scoring proposer.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of East Palo Alto hereby:

1. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference into this action; and

2. Authorizes the City Manager to award, negotiate, and execute an agreement with CAL Pavement Management, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for an amount not to exceed $40,000.00 for on-call pavement investigation and inspection services for a term of five years; and

3. Finds that the proposed action does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:
129
Resolution No. XX-2024 2 of 2
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Antonio D. Lopez, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
130
5451 Degnan Drive
Martinez, CA,94553
Phone: 925-494-8539
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.calpavements.com
Equity-Driven Management for Lasting Pavements
22 August 2024
Michael Cortez
City of East Palo Alto
Public Works Department
1960 Tate Street
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Subject: Request for Proposals (RFP) for On-Call Pavement Investigation & Reporting Services
Dear Mr. Cortez,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide pavement preservation services for the City of East Palo Alto's pavement management program. The CAL Pavement Management team brings extensive experience and practical expertise to ensure the successful execution of the services outlined in this proposal.

As the Principal of CAL Pavement Management and the Contract Manager, I am authorized to enter into a contract with the City on behalf of the firm. For any questions or clarifications regarding this proposal, please feel free to contact me at 925-494-8539 or via email at [email protected].

We look forward to assisting the City of East Palo Alto in effectively utilizing its maintenance funds and achieving long-term cost savings through targeted pavement preservation treatments.

Respectfully submitted,
Cesar Lara, Principal
CAL Pavement Management
131
City of East Palo Alto
On-Call Pavement Investigation & Reporting Services
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 - Work Plan and Approach ........................................................................................1

1.1 Understanding of the Scope of Services............................................................1

1.2 Management Methodology ..............................................................................1

1.2.1 Project Costs ...........................................................................................1

1.2.2 Schedule Management.............................................................................2

1.2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ............................................................2

1.2.4 Critical Issues ..........................................................................................2 2 - Key Personnel Background......................................................................................3 3 - Team Experience....................................................................................................4

3.1 Project 1: Complete Network Review and 3-Year PMP, Training, and On-Call Consulting (2023) ......................................................................................................4

3.2 Project 2: Citywide Slurry Seal (2022–2023) and Pavement Preservation – Special Inspection and Management (2023–2024)...................................................................4

3.3 Project 3: Project selection, Mapping, and inspection – Slurry Seal, Canal District (2021–2022) and Double Fiber Micro, Terra Linda (2022–2023) ......................................5 4 - References ............................................................................................................6 5 - Schedule...............................................................................................................6 6 - Cost......................................................................................................................7 132
City of East Palo Alto
On-Call Pavement Investigation & Reporting Services
ii

LIST OF TABLES
Title Page
Table 1: Key Personnel Roles and Responsibilities ...........................................................3 Table 2: Key Personnel Standard Rates ...........................................................................7

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Key Personnel Resumes
133
City of East Palo Alto
On-Call Pavement Investigation & Reporting Services
1 1 - WORK PLAN AND APPROACH

1.1 UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCOPE OF SERVICES
CAL Pavement Management understands that the City of East Palo Alto is seeking a qualified consultant to provide on-call pavement investigation and reporting services, with the goal of improving the pavement condition index (PCI) across its 83-lane-mile network of streets. The City utilizes a Pavement Management Program (PMP) to regularly assess and manage the condition of its streets. This project aims to identify and implement the most cost-effective treatment options within the constraints of available funding while providing the best user benefit value.

The primary goal of this project is to enhance the overall PCI for all City-owned streets through detailed and informed pavement management strategies. This will involve conducting thorough investigations of pavement conditions, identifying appropriate treatment options, and providing detailed specifications to guide the repair and maintenance efforts. The consultant’s role is to ensure that the City’s streets are maintained at an optimal level, maximizing the longevity of pavement and ensuring the efficient use of resources.

1.2 MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY
To manage project costs effectively, our approach will include the following steps:
• Initial Cost Assessment: We will begin with a thorough assessment of the project scope to develop an accurate budget estimate. This will include all anticipated costs associated with pavement investigation, reporting, and treatment recommendations.
• Ongoing Cost Monitoring: We will implement a cost-tracking system to monitor project expenses ensuring that the project remains within the allocated budget.

Regular financial reports will be provided to the City, highlighting any potential cost variances and recommending corrective actions.
• Cost Optimization: By leveraging our extensive experience in pavement management with our in-depth knowledge of pavement maintenance materials and treatments, we will build a cost-effective pavement management plan. This will include optimized treatment methods and timing, cutting edge materials and a schedule for implementation.

1.2.1 Project Costs
See Section 6 for our key personnel’s standard rates.
134
City of East Palo Alto
On-Call Pavement Investigation & Reporting Services
2 1.2.2 Schedule Management
Our firm is committed to delivering the project on time by employing the following schedule management strategies:
• Comprehensive Project Timeline: We will develop a detailed timeline that includes all major milestones starting with a review of the City’s Street Saver data. We will then conduct initial pavement condition assessments and end with final delivery of reports, mapping and treatment recommendations by year. This timeline will be shared with the City for review and approval.
• Progress Monitoring: Regular progress meetings with key stakeholders will be held to review the status of the project, address any issues, and adjust the schedule as needed.

1.2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Ensuring the highest quality of work is a top priority for our firm. • Quality Standards: We will establish clear quality standards at the outset of the project, aligned with industry best practices and the City’s specific requirements. • Perform Ongoing Quality Reviews: All deliverables, including pavement condition reports, treatment recommendations, and project specifications, will undergo rigorous review to ensure accuracy and completeness.
• Field Inspections: Our team will conduct field inspections to verify that pavement assessments and treatments are performed to the highest quality standards, ensuring the longevity and durability of the repairs.

1.2.4 Critical Issues
We recognize that several critical issues will be key to the success of this project, including community engagement, stakeholder buy in and effective coordination with City staff. To manage these issues, we will perform the following:

Engage with the Community
We will work closely with the City to ensure that residents are informed and involved in the pavement management process, particularly in areas where street repairs may impact daily activities. Public outreach efforts will be conducted in both English and Spanish to ensure broad community engagement.

Coordinate with City Staff
We will maintain open and regular communication with City staff throughout the project to ensure alignment on goals, timelines, and any emerging issues. This will include regular status updates and collaborative problem-solving sessions. 135
City of East Palo Alto
On-Call Pavement Investigation & Reporting Services
3 Mitigate Direct Pavement Issues
Examples of our mitigation strategies for anticipated pavement issues include the following:
• Maximizing the budget by picking the right candidates for pavement preservation treatments.
• Addressing roads with low PCIs to produce a practical, long-term solution. • Mapping out ADA ramps for candidate selection for 3-year plan.

By employing these methods, our firm is confident in our ability to deliver high-quality, cost-effective pavement management services that will significantly improve the PCI of East Palo Alto’s street network. We are committed to working closely with the City to achieve its goals and to providing exceptional service throughout the duration of the project.
2 - KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
See Table 1 for summaries of proposed key personnel’s responsibilities under this contract. Resumes are presented in Attachment 1.

Table 1: Key Personnel Roles and Responsibilities
Name Role Responsibilities
Cesar Lara (CAL
Pavement Management)
Project Manager • Development of project scope
• Primary coordination and communication with City
• Initial street review and ADA assessments
• Treatment placement expertise/inspection
• Presentation preparation and delivery
Scott Dmytrow
(Pavement ACES)
Technical and
Materials Subject
Matter Expert
(SME)
• Specification development and review
• Submittal review
• Presentation preparation and delivery
• Treatment placement expertise/inspection/testing
• ArcGIS Pro mapping and coordination with Street Saver (as needed)
Cathrina Barros
Dmytrow, PE (Pavement
ACES)
Project Engineer • Specification development and review • Construction materials testing
• Pavement engineering
• Asphalt pavement related policy and specifications
• Technical and report writing
• Program management
• ADA Expert
136
City of East Palo Alto
On-Call Pavement Investigation & Reporting Services
Table 1: Key Personnel Roles and Responsibilities (Continued) 4 3 - TEAM EXPERIENCE

3.1 PROJECT 1: COMPLETE NETWORK REVIEW AND 3-YEAR PMP, TRAINING, AND ON-CALL CONSULTING (2023)
Client: City of Vacaville
Point of Contact: Shawn Graf, PE, Associate Civil Engineer; [email protected]
Address: 650 Merchant Street, Vacaville, CA, 95688
Phone: 707-449-5396
Project Description
The project involved conducting a comprehensive review of the entire road network; providing a treatment recommendation report, maps (roads and ADA), and budget; assisting the City in selecting roadway candidates for future projects; assembling a 3-year pavement management plan; reviewing project specifications; and providing recommendations.

Additionally, the project included assisting with administrative duties related to pavement preservation, reviewing submittal and specifications, identifying asphalt concrete and base failure areas in the field with marking paint, tabulating dimensions per street, providing inspection services, conducting a Street Saver review, and managing various projectrelated tasks as needed.

A pavement preservation inspection course on slurry seal and micro surfacing was delivered to the City’s inspectors in the classroom and followed up in the field on the first day of one of their projects. In addition, we remain on-call to answer questions on treatment issues and concerns as needed.

Key Personnel Involved
Cesar Lara – CAL Pavement Management
Scott Dmytrow – Pavement ACES

3.2 PROJECT 2: CITYWIDE SLURRY SEAL (2022–2023) AND PAVEMENT PRESERVATION – SPECIAL INSPECTION AND MANAGEMENT (2023–2024) Client: City of Mill Valley
Point of Contact: Jared Barrilleaux, Deputy Director of Engineering; [email protected]
Address: 26 Corte Madera Ave., Mill Valley, CA, 94941
137
City of East Palo Alto
On-Call Pavement Investigation & Reporting Services
5 Phone: 415-384-4755
Project Description
These projects included coordinating with community members, the construction management team, and the contractor; reviewing and adjusting project submittals and specifications as needed; working closely with City staff to manage outreach efforts, communicating with residents; and providing on-the-ground support.

Public outreach was conducted in both Spanish and English. Other responsibilities included supplying contact information for resident inquiries via door hangers and barricades, addressing resident calls and emails, and delivering inspection services for pavement preservation projects.

Additionally, our team acted as City staff augmentation for the duration of the project by providing inspection and review of all materials, submittals, and specifications. In this role we also oversaw the involvement and deliverables of the CM on the project.

Key Personnel Involved
Cesar Lara – CAL Pavement Management
Scott Dmytrow – Pavement ACES

3.3 PROJECT 3: PROJECT SELECTION, MAPPING, AND INSPECTION – SLURRY SEAL, CANAL DISTRICT (2021–2022) AND DOUBLE FIBER MICRO, TERRA LINDA (2022–2023)
Client: City of San Rafael
Point of Contact: April Miller, PE, Director of Public Works; [email protected] Address: 111 Morphew Street, San Rafael, CA 94901
Phone: 415-485-3409
Project Description
These projects included reviewing streets for candidates for pavement preservation in the Canal and Terra Linda Districts; coordinating with community members and the contractor; reviewing and adjusting project submittals and specifications as needed; and working closely with City staff to manage outreach efforts, communicate with residents, and provide on-the-ground support.

Public outreach was conducted in both Spanish and English. Responsibilities also included supplying contact information for resident inquiries via door hangers and barricades, addressing resident calls and emails, and delivering inspection services for pavement preservation projects.

Additionally, our team mapped the network and ADA ramps. 138
City of East Palo Alto
On-Call Pavement Investigation & Reporting Services
6 Key Personnel Involved
Cesar Lara – CAL Pavement Management
Scott Dmytrow – Pavement ACES
4 - REFERENCES
Reference Name: Shawn Graf, PE
Company Title: Associate Civil Engineer – City of Vacaville Address: 650 Merchant Street, Vacaville, CA, 95688
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 707-449-5396
Reference Name: Jared Barrilleaux
Company Title: Deputy Director of Engineering – City of Mill Valley Address: 26 Corte Madera Ave., Mill Valley, CA, 94941
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 415-384-4755
Reference Name: April Miller, PE
Company Title: Director of Public Works – City of San Rafael Address: 111 Morphew Street, San Rafael, CA 94901
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 415-485-3409
5 - SCHEDULE
Phase 1 – Initial review of streets, current ADA conditions, and ArcGIS mapping • Drive and evaluate pavement distresses in all 83 lane miles. • Identify/map existing ADA ramps.
• Create ArcGIS layer for city use.

Phase 2 – Treatment selection
• Review Street Saver existing data.
• Select treatment options using Cost Benefit Value (CBV), Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCA), and Equivalent Annualized Cost (EAC) and existing ADA conditions. • Conduct specification reviews and upgrades.

Phase 3 – Development of 3-year citywide PMP plan to address:
• Treatment plan by neighborhood and year.
• Cost estimate per year.
139
City of East Palo Alto
On-Call Pavement Investigation & Reporting Services
7 • Documents (maps, specifications) for use by City staff. 6 - COST
Standard rates for proposed key personnel are provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Key Personnel Standard Rates
Personnel Standard OT/Saturday (1.5x) DT/Sunday (2x)
Cesar Lara $249.77 374.65 499.54
Scott Dmytrow $264.00 396.00 528.00
Cathrina Barros
Dmytrow, PE $330.00 N/A N/A
Office Engineer 210.00 N/A N/A
140
City of East Palo Alto
On-Call Pavement Investigation & Reporting Services
ATTACHMENT 1

KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES
141

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Irene Chiu, Assistant Engineer
Humza Javed, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Local Road Safety Plan
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution approving the Countywide and the City of East Palo Alto Local Roadway Safety Plan
Alignment with the City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority: Implement the Transportation Mobility Plan
Background
A local roadway safety plan (LRSP) identifies and systematically analyzes roadway safety needs and develops a prioritized list of safety countermeasures. It offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates an agency’s responsiveness to safety challenges through local agency partnerships and collaboration.

On June 13, 2024, the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) established and adopted a countywide LRSP after extensive community input and participation along with engagement with its twenty-one (21) member agencies. The LRSP project commenced in Spring 2023 with the assembly of an advisory group comprised of various local agency staff, including public health and safety, as well as other community partners. The advisory group met three times throughout the course of the plan’s development, playing an integral part in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing existing conditions analysis. In addition, the project team held various public engagement events across the CONSENT ITEM 3.6
142
County between August 2023 and January 2024 to receive feedback from the public.

The LRSP is divided into two parts: the first contains the general countywide LRSP, and the second contains specialized chapters for ten participating agencies that currently do not have an adopted LRSP. The City of East Palo Alto does not have its own LRSP; hence, there is a dedicated chapter in the countywide plan. Staff is recommending that the City’s specialized chapter be named the City's Local Roadway Safety Plan (City LRSP) as other cities have also done and adopt it locally. Additionally, adopting the Countywide LRSP allows the City to be eligible for grant funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Cycle 3 County & Local Program, as well as other future federal and State grants such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), and US Department of Transportation Safe Streets for All (SS4A). Thus, staff recommends the Council adopt both LRSPs.

Analysis
According to data from the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 17,317 people have been killed in traffic collisions in California from 2013 through 2017, averaging about 9.5 people per day. From 2018 through 2022, there were 458 reported crashes on surface streets in the City of East Palo Alto and 48 fatal/severe injury crashes. Pedestrians were involved in 27 percent of reported fatal/severe injury crashes and 12 percent of all crashes. Bicyclists were involved in 21 percent of reported fatal/severe injury crashes and 16 percent of all crashes. The City is dedicated to strategies that aim to reduce and eliminate deaths and serious injuries. Seniors, children, people with disabilities, people in low-income communities, people walking, and people bicycling face a disproportionate risk of traffic injuries and fatalities.

The Countywide LRSP identifies the following areas of emphasis for safety improvement:
• Pedestrian and bicyclist safety
• Nighttime/low light safety
• Unsignalized intersections on arterial/collector roadways • Safety for youth and aging populations
• Speed-related roadway crashes
• Roadways with posted speeds 35 mph or higher
• Impaired driving
Vision Zero is a public health-based traffic safety strategy to reduce and eventually eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries using a data-driven, multi-disciplinary, and Safe System approach that also increases safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. The Safe System Approach recognizes that while human error may always occur, a system of redundant engineering and non-engineering solutions can reduce crashes and can prevent crashes from causing death or severe injuries. The Federal Highway Administration has made a commitment to eliminating fatalities and serious injuries on the nation's roadways using a Safe System approach to achieve the goals of Vision Zero. Caltrans has adopted the goal of moving “toward zero deaths” by incorporating the Safe System Approach and using proven effective strategies and countermeasures. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) passed 143
a Vision Zero policy in 2020 that identified actions to support agencies like the City of East Palo Alto.

The City’s vision for roadway safety is to eliminate traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal injury crashes by 50 percent by 2030.To support this vision, the City has established the following goal: to implement traffic-calming and traffic-slowing measures on roads and at intersections with a high level of existing or planned pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle activity and/or crashes.

The City LRSP includes two scoped project locations: University Avenue and Weeks Street, and University Avenue and Bell Street.

University Ave and Weeks St. recommended improvements include:
o Intersection lighting at the eastern side of the intersection o Raised median refuge islands at the north leg
o Pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features (curb extensions and advance “yield” lines)
o Upgraded intersection pavement markings at the intersection o Signal or pedestrian hybrid beacons at the north leg
University Ave and Bell St. recommended improvements include:
o Improved signal hardware (lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number)
o Restriped intersection pavement markings
o Centerline hardening or continuous raised median at the north and south legs o Advance stop bar before crosswalk at the north and south legs o Modified signal phasing to include a leading pedestrian interval at the intersection At the October 18, 2024, Public Works and Transportation Commission (PWTC) meeting, the PWTC recommended adoption of the Countywide and City LRSPs. The PWTC discussed the project identification process, data inputs, and the City’s General Plan vision zero goal.

Given the need of an LRSP for active grant programs, staff recommends the Council adopt a resolution adopting the Countywide and the City of East Palo Alto Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). Upon adoption, staff will continue to work with the countywide Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) to implement and track progress measures for these plans.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact with the adoption of the Local Roadway Safety Plan. Adopting the plan will allow the City of East Palo Alto to be eligible for future grant funding, as some grants require the adoption/implementation of a LRSP.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto. 144
Environmental
The action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not involve an entitlement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. C/CAG Countywide LRSP

3. City of East Palo Alto LRSP
145
Resolution No. XX-2024 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX– 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

ADOPTING THE COUNTYWIDE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND

THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, according to data from the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 17,317 people have been killed in traffic collisions in California from 2013 through 2017, for an average of

9.5 people per day; and
WHEREAS, from 2018 to 2022, a reported 48 crashes resulted in deaths or severe, lifechanging injuries on non-freeway roadways in City, an average of 10 per year; and WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto (City) is dedicated to strategies that aim to reduce and eliminate deaths and serious injuries on streets citywide; and WHEREAS, seniors, children, people of color, people with disabilities, people in lowincome communities, people walking, and people bicycling face a disproportionate risk of traffic injuries and fatalities; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2024, the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) established and adopted the Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan (Countywide LRSP) after extensive community input and participation along with engagement with its twentyone (21) member agencies; and WHEREAS, ten participating agencies, including the City, do not have adopted local roadway safety plans, so the Countywide LRSP includes dedicated chapters for those local roadway safety plans; and
WHEREAS, the City is extracting our Chapter and calling it the City's Local Roadway Safety Plan (City LRSP) as other cities have also done; and WHEREAS, the proposed City’s LRSP identifies pedestrian and bicyclist safety, nighttime/low light safety, unsignalized intersections on arterial/collector roadways, safety for youth and aging populations, speed-related roadway crashes, roadways with posted speeds 35 mph or higher, and impaired driving as emphasis areas for safety improvement; and WHEREAS, Vision Zero is a public health-based traffic safety strategy to reduce and eventually eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries using a data-driven, multi- disciplinary, and Safe System approach that also increases safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all; and WHEREAS, the Safe System Approach recognizes that while human error may always occur, a system of redundant engineering and non-engineering solutions can reduce crashes and can prevent crashes from causing death or severe injuries; and WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration has made a commitment to eliminating fatalities and serious injuries on the nation's roadways using a Safe System approach to achieve the goals of Vision Zero; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration and State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) grant funding for improving safety requires the preparation and implementation of a systematic approach to improve safety as presented in the LRSP; and 146
Resolution No. XX-2024 2 of 2
WHEREAS, Caltrans has adopted the goal of moving “toward zero deaths” by incorporating the Safe System Approach and using proven effective strategies and countermeasures; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) passed a Vision Zero policy in 2020 that identified actions to support agencies like City; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY:

1. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference into this action; and

2. Adopts Vision Zero as its guiding principle for transportation planning, in conjunction with C/CAG adopting this vision at the County level; and

3. Commits to pursuing the recommended near-and long-term policy, program, and guidelines recommendations identified in the City LRSP, with the overriding goal of eliminating traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries; and

4. Commits to consider prioritized locations in the Countywide LRSP and City LRSP sections when making safety improvements, which locations were prioritized including considerations of social equity; and

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

6. Adopts the Countywide LRSP and the City LRSP that summarizes specific recommendations and action items to be taken by City and partner agencies that will address the listed emphasis areas; and

7. Commits to implement the Countywide LRSP in an equitable manner, accounting for historic inequities in transportation and safety investments across the county; and

8. Commits to report progress toward the Vision Zero goals, tracking process and outcome metric in updates to the City Council.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3
rd day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Antonio D. Lopez, Mayor
147
Resolution No. XX-2024 3 of 2
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
148
City of
East Palo Alto

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024
149
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

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

LOCAL JURISDICTION

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

PARTNER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Sustainability
Department
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jessica Manzi, SamTrans
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission
150
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Consultant Team
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

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

SAFE STREETS RESEARCH &

CONSULTING
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale

CIRCLEPOINT
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison

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

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

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

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the nation’s core federal-aid programs. Caltrans administers HSIP funds in the state of California and splits the state share of HSIP funds between State HSIP (for state highways) and local HSIP (for local roads). The latter is administered through a call for projects biennially. 151
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision. Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation.

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

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

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

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

Systemic safety defines an analysis and improvement approach based on roadway and environmental factors correlated with crash risk (rather than targeting locations solely on documented crash history). The approach takes a broad view to evaluate risk across an entire roadway system. 152
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................3 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Vision and Goals ......................................................................................................................................................................4 Plan Development ...................................................................................................................................................................4 Existing Safety Efforts............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Community Engagement and Input........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Engagement Timeline and Events........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Online Map Survey...............................................................................................................................................................................................................7 Crash Data & Trends ...............................................................................................................................................................9 Emphasis Areas ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Countywide High Injury Network...................................................................................................................................................................................13 Project Identification & Prioritization................................................................................................................................. 15 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 Social Equity ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs ..........................................................................................................20 Project Scopes .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations.............................................................................................................25 Near-Term Actions.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ...............................................................................................................................................................................27 Implementation & Monitoring............................................................................................................................................ 30

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Phase 1 pop-up event at a farmers’ market in East Palo Alto. ....................................................................................................5 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Webmap Comments in East Palo Alto ......................................................................................................................................................8 Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of East Palo Alto.............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)....................................................................... 15 Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)............................................................................... 16 Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................ 16 Figure 8: East Palo Alto Priority Locations.................................................................................................................................................................... 19 153
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City of East Palo Alto Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs.......................................................4 Table 2. Community Engagement Phases and Events.......................................................................................................................................6 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in East Palo Alto ..........................................................................................................................................13 Table 4. Priority Locations.......................................................................................................................................................................................................17 Table 5. City of East Palo Alto Countermeasure Toolbox..................................................................................................................................21 Table 6. City of East Palo Alto Policy and Program Recommendations................................................................................................ 26 Table 7. City of East Palo Alto Goals and Measures of Success.................................................................................................................. 30 154
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

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

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

The City of East Palo Alto has a 2023 population of 28,586 per California Department of Finance. The city has 39 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 458 reported crashes on surface streets in the City and 48 fatal/severe injury crashes. Pedestrians were involved in 27 percent of reported fatal/severe injury crashes and 12 percent of all crashes. Bicyclists were involved in 21 percent of reported fatal/severe injury crashes and 16 percent of all crashes. The LRSP provides Safe Systemaligned strategies tailored to East Palo Alto’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.

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

Contents
This LRSP provides the following:

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

A vision and associated goals
Crash data and trends
Engagement and coordination activities
Policies, plans, guidelines and standards
Safe System – aligned recommendations
Implementation and tracking
Prioritized projects and social
equity considerations
155
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4

VISION AND GOALS
The City of East Palo Alto vision for roadway safety is:
• Eliminate traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal injury crashes by 50 percent by 2030.

To support this vision, the City has established the following goal:

1. Implement traffic-calming and traffic-slowing measures on roads and at intersections with a high level of existing or planned pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle activity and/or crashes.

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

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

Annual reports summarize schools’ participation.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road Users
Speed
maintenance
toolkit
The traffic control devices to be considered for use in addressing the speed of traffic will include, but are not limited to, the following:
25 mph speed limit signs
White “25” pavement legends (oversized legends may also be used)
Curve warning signs with speed advisory plates
“Watch Downhill Speed” signs
“Strict Enforcement Area” graphic and letter signs
Ceramic raised-pavement marker rumble strips
Perpendicular painted white bars
Centerline striping
Supplementary reflective raised pavement markers
Speed humps
Other traffic control devices as approved in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices and/or the California Traffic Control Device Committee
Safe Roads,
Safe Speeds,
Safe Road Users
156
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
Safety Partners
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support of the City of East Palo Alto’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
• City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG)
• County Public Health
• Sustainability Department
• San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE)
• San Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA)
• California Highway Patrol
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
• Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC)
• Caltrans
• East Palo Alto Police Department
• East Palo Alto Fire Department
• Ravenswood City School District
Figure 1. Phase 1 pop-up event at a farmers’ market in East Palo Alto. 157
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
Community Engagement and Input
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.

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

Table 2. Community Engagement Phases and Events
Date Event Location
August 10, 2023 Countywide Virtual Kickoff
Meeting: Shared the purpose and
timing of the plan
Virtual meeting (recorded and
posted to plan website)
August 16, 2023 Phase 1 Pop-up/Tabling Event:

Shared crash data analysis;
received input on locations and
safety concerns
East Palo Alto
August 19, 2023 Half Moon Bay Farmers Market
August 20, 2023 Foster City Summer Days
August 27, 2023 San Carlos Block Party
August – September, 2023 Phase 1 Concurrent Online Input Online webmap (countywide input)
December 17, 2023 Phase 2 Pop-up/Tabling Event:

Shared draft prioritized locations
and types of engineering
recommendations; received
comments on locations and
votes/input on types of
treatments and desired locations
Belmont Farmers’ Market
December 20, 2023 Woodside Public Library
January 9, 2024 Colma BART Station
January 16, 2024 Atherton Library
January 18, 2024 Brisbane Farmers’ Market
February 7, 2024 Portola Valley Bicycle, Pedestrian,
& Traffic Safety Committee
March – April 2024 Phase 3 Draft Plan
Share the draft plan publicly on
the project website, through
electronic distribution channels,
and with presentations to C/CAG
Committees and the Board.

Various
158
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7

ONLINE MAP SURVEY
The project team made an online countywide webmap tool and survey available during August and September 2023 for the public to provide comments and respond to questions to guide the plan’s development (see Figure 2). Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.

Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool
Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. There were five comments made within the City of East Palo Alto in addition to the conversations and feedback recorded at the Phase 1 event in August. The comments included the following:

Biking Concerns/Requests
• Add new bike infrastructure such as protected bike lanes and separated bike lanes. • Provide a more connected bike network throughout East Palo Alto and connecting to other cities in the Bay Area.

Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Add new pedestrian infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure such as building new sidewalks, and high visibility crosswalks.

Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Concerns regarding speeding observed – requests for traffic calming. • Concerns regarding enforcement of traffic safety rules near school zones, especially on Pulgas Avenue.

Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Concerns regarding traffic congestion during peak hours.

The location and modal emphasis of comments in East Palo Alto is presented in Figure 3. The comments received are provided in Appendix A. The project team also identified common themes in the responses made countywide which may be relevant to the City. Those are presented in the Community Engagement section of the Countywide LRSP.
159
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
Figure 3. Webmap Comments in East Palo Alto
160
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 9

CRASH DATA & TRENDS
This section provides an overview of the five years of crash data used for this analysis. The data were downloaded from the Transportation Injury Mapping System1 (TIMS) Crash database representing the full years 2018 through 2022. TIMS is a commonly used data source for safety plans. This analysis includes only crashes for which some level of injury is reported and excludes property damage only (PDO) crashes. We removed crashes along grade-separated freeways from the dataset, but we retained crashes that occur along at-grade State Highway facilities and those that occurred within the influence area of freeway ramp terminal intersections.

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

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

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

A review of crash data and input led to the development of the following emphasis areas for the City of East Palo Alto:

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, showing a disproportionate involvement in the most severe outcomes. Similarly, bicyclists were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. In East Palo Alto, pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in 27 percent and 21 percent of the 48 reported F/SI crashes—higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (12 percent and 16 percent, total).

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

In East Palo Alto, one in every two fatal/severe injury crashes (50 percent) occurred in dark conditions.

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

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

Victims between the ages 50 – 69 and 75 to 84 are also more likely to be severely injured than other groups. In East Palo Alto, 33 crashes or 7 percent of all reported injury crashes involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.

5. Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes. Countywide, motor vehicle crashes were more severe along roadway segments than at any other location type; unsafe speed was the most 1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu 161
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 10
commonly cited the primary crash factor (27 percent of injury crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes). In East Palo Alto, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among motor vehicle crashes that resulted in fatal/severe injuries (32 percent).

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

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

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

Countywide and locally, bicyclist crashes account for a higher share of F/SI crashes than among all injury levels.
• The share of local and Countywide crashes occurring in dark conditions for crashes of all injury levels and for F/SI crashes (organized by mode).
• Reported pedestrian and bicyclist crashes summarized by the most common preceding movements countywide, with a comparison of those movements’ share of local crashes to Countywide shares. • The local and Countywide share of crashes involving drugs or alcohol and involving drivers under age 30. 162
18%
(1,164)
19%
(61)
East Palo Alto—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
10%
(32)
6%
(21)
23%
(75) 42%
(138)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
East Palo Alto compares:

East Palo Countywide
Alto 7% 7% (33)
of reported collisions
in East Palo Alto
involved drugs or
alcohol
of reported collisions
in East Palo Alto
involved young
drivers1
(28)
29%
(1,858)
Total Crashes
In East Palo Alto, 458 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
Countywide
Local
67% (308)
State Highway
33% (150)
East Palo
Alto
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (56)
Bicycle Crashes (75)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (327)
21% (10)
52% (25)
12% (56) 27% (13)
16% (75)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
71% (327)

1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.

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

East Palo Alto
East Palo Alto
East Palo Alto
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Compared to the countywide total, where
5% (472) of reported collisions involved
young drivers2
Compared to the countywide total,
where 8% (625) of reported collisions
involved drugs or alcohol
8%
(625)
5%
(472)
163
East Palo Alto—Crash History
East Palo Alto
East Palo Alto
East Palo Alto
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (19)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (27)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (117) All Injury Crashes (327)
All Injury Crashes (75)
All Injury Crashes (56)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (25)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (10)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (13)
62% (8)
60% (6)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
36% (117) 40% (10)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how East Palo Alto compares to Countywide crashes:
25% (19)
48% (27)
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (56)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (75)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
Countywide
Countywide
Agency
Agency
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
9%
(5)
24%
(256)
Motorist Making
left turn
13%
(7)
15%
(163)
Motorist proceeding
straight
21%
(12)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
28%
(21)
21%
(186)
8%
(6)
12%
(106)
8%
(6)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
48%
(36)
35%
(372)
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)
164
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 13
Countywide High Injury Network
In addition to the systemic analysis findings, the analysis included countywide spatial analysis to identify a countywide high injury network for each travel mode (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles). The countywide HIN results were folded into the subsequent regional and local prioritization (described in the next section). Additionally, the characteristics of the HIN and crashes along them were identified as risk factors and incorporated into emphasis areas and into a systemic portion of the prioritization process. Table 3 and Figure 4 show the HIN segments identified within the City.

Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in East Palo Alto
Roadway name All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Bayshore Rd East Palo Alto 1.7 X X X
Capitol Ave East Palo Alto 0.2 X
Clarke Ave East Palo Alto 0.3 X
Donohoe St East Palo Alto 0.5 X X
O’Conner St East Palo Alto 0.6 X
Pulgas Ave East Palo Alto 1.5 X X X
Runnymede St East Palo Alto 0.9 X
Scofield St East Palo Alto 0.1 X
Newbridge St East Palo Alto, Menlo Park 1 X X
University Ave East Palo Alto, Menlo Park 2.1 X X
Willow Rd East Palo Alto, Menlo Park 2.3 X X
U.S. 101 East Palo Alto, Redwood City,
South San Francisco

1.2 X
Bay Rd East Palo Alto, Redwood City,
Unincorporated

3.3 X X
165
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 14
Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of East Palo Alto 166
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
Ped Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% Ped HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤250 ft
from
transit stop, 5.6%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 6.7%
Arterial or Collector,

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

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION &

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

Each factor is comprised of multiple criteria and overlaid on jurisdictions’ roadway data to identify locations for future safety projects. The prioritization process was conducted three times, one for each travel mode. The weighting scheme for each mode is presented in the three figures below (Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7).

Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) 167
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) MV Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% MV HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
Arterial or Collector,

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

8.6%
Posted speed
35mph+, 6.8%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors
168
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
Social Equity
Social equity is a critical factor for project prioritization, and emphasizing social equity within a project prioritization process helps to promote infrastructure spending and improvements in disadvantaged and/or disinvested neighborhoods. We considered and included multiple local, regional, and national datasets for social equity prioritization to reflect different measures available and because available funding opportunities use different indicators. The prioritization included measures accounting for all of the following indicators:
• C/CAG Active Transportation Equity Focus Areas
• MTC Equity Priority Communities
• USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
Layering in these four indicators allows the prioritization to identify more locations that may meet the criteria for just one of these indicators while still elevating locations that show up in multiple or all indicators. The raw scoring data also equips the City to understand which locations meet which measures.

Results
The prioritization resulted in the following top locations. For more details (including the scores of each location), consult Appendix C. Figure 8 also shows the locations.

Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Purdue Ave and University Ave Intersection Yes X X
2 University Ave and Weeks St Intersection Yes X X
3 University Ave and Adams Dr Intersection Yes X X
4 University Ave and Michigan
Ave
Intersection Yes X X
5 Bay Rd and University Ave Intersection Yes X X X
6 Notre Dame Ave and University
Ave
Intersection Yes X X
7 University Ave and Kavanaugh
Dr
Intersection Yes X X
8 University Ave and
Sacramento St
Intersection Yes X X
9 Donohoe St and University Ave Intersection Yes X X
10 O’Brien Dr and University Ave Intersection Yes X X
11 Cooley Ave and University Ave Intersection Yes X X
169
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 18
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
12 University Ave and
Runnymede St
Intersection Yes X X
13 University Ave and Bell St Intersection Yes X
14 Woodland Ave and
University Ave
Intersection No X X
15 Gloria Way and Bay Rd Intersection No X X
16 Glen Way and Bay Rd Intersection No X X
17 Bay Rd and Palo Alto
Verde Ave
Intersection No X X X
18 University Ave and 101 Ramps Intersection Yes X X
19 Dumbarton Ave and Bay Rd Intersection No X X X
20 Demeter St and Bay Rd Intersection No X X
21 Bay Rd and Addison Ave Intersection No X X X
22 Oakwood Dr and Bay Rd Intersection No X X
23 Pulgas Ave and Bay Rd Intersection No X
24 Bay Rd and Fordham St Intersection No X X
25 Bay Rd and Ralmar Ave Intersection No X X
26 Clarke Ave and Illinois St Intersection No X
27 Newbridge St and Menalto Ave Intersection No X
28 Newbridge St and Poplar Ave Intersection No X
29 Bay Rd and Addison Ave Intersection No X
30 Mello St and Newbridge St Intersection No X
31 Saratoga Ave and
Newbridge St
Intersection No X
32 Bay Rd, Newbridge St to
Pulgas Ave
Corridor No X X X
33 University Ave (SR 109), N city
limits to Donohoe Rd
Corridor Yes X X X
34 Newbridge St, Bay Rd to W
city limits
Corridor No X X
170
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
Figure 8: East Palo Alto Priority Locations
171
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

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

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

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

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

The scoped project locations include:
 University Ave and Weeks St. Recommended improvements include:
o Intersection lighting at the eastern side of the intersection o Raised median refuge islands at the north leg
o Pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features (curb extensions and advance “yield” lines) 172
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
o Upgraded intersection pavement markings at the intersection o Signal or pedestrian hybrid beacons at the north leg
 University Ave and Bell St. Recommended improvements include:
o Improved signal hardware (lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number)
o Restriped intersection pavement markings
o Centerline hardening or continuous raised median at the north and south legs o Advance stop bar before crosswalk at the north and south legs o Modified signal phasing to include a leading pedestrian interval at the intersection For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix D.

Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
This section presents Safe System-aligned engineering recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the City of East Palo Alto. First is a table of engineering countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes. The countermeasures align to the crash types as listed in the table.

Complementing those countermeasures is a holistic set of policy and programmatic recommendations that will help align City departments and partners in pursuit of the plan’s vision and goals.

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

0.15 $ Very high
Install left-turn lane and
add turn phase*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

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

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

0.25 $-$$$ Medium
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict left turns and USI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.5 $-$$ Medium
173
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
turns (signalized
intersection)*
Install raised pavement
markers and striping*
SI Wet, night, all
crashes

0.1 $ High
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning*
SI Rear-end,
broadside

0.3 $-$$ Medium
No right turn on red SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ Medium
Centerline hardening or
continuous raised median
SI All crashes 0.46 $ Medium
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from signal)*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections
Varies $-$$$ Low
Install pedestrian
countdown signal heads*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $ High
Install pedestrian crossing* SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $ High
Install pedestrian
scramble*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.4 $ High
Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk (bicycle
box)*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.15 $ High
174
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.6 $ High
Install painted safety zone SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ High
Install Protected
Intersection Elements
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $-$$$ Low
Convert to all-way STOP
control (from two-way or
Yield control)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $ Low
Install signals* UI All crashes 0.3 $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from all-way
stop)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from STOP or
yield control on minor road)
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
Convert intersection to mini
roundabout*
UI All crashes 0.3 $$ Low
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left turns and U-turns
(unsignalized intersections)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised medians
(refuge islands)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

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

0.25 $-$$$ High
Install pedestrian crossings
(with enhanced safety
features)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

0.35 $-$$$ Medium
175
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 24
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Install/upgrade larger or
additional STOP signs or
other intersection warning
or regulatory signs*
UI Turning crashes
related to lack
of driver
awareness

0.15 $ High
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings*
UI Turning crashes
related to lack
of driver
awareness

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

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

0.3 $$$ High
Install transverse rumble
strips on approaches
UI All crashes 0.2 $ High
Install splitter islands on the
minor road approaches
UI All crashes 0.4 $ Medium
Road diet (Reduce travel
lanes from four to three,
and add a two-way, leftturn lane and bike lanes)*
R All crashes 0.35 $ Medium
Corridor access
management
R N/A 0.35 $ Medium
Install edgeline rumble
strips/stripes*
R All crashes 0.15 $-$$$ High
Install separated bike lanes* R Pedestrian and
bicycle

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

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

0.35 $ Medium
Remove or relocate fixed
objects outside of Clear
Recovery Zone
R Hit object 0.35 $-$$ High
Install delineators, reflectors,
and/or object marker*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
176
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 25
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Install/upgrade signs with
new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs*
R Driver behavior 0.3 $ High
Extend pedestrian crossing
time
SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Pedestrian phase recall SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Extend green time for
bicycles
SI Bicycle N/A $ High
Extend yellow and all-red
time
SI All crashes N/A $ High
Lane narrowing R All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
Bicycle crossing (solid green
paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Bicycle signal/exclusive
bicycle phase
SI Bicycle N/A $-$$ Low
Curb extensions UI All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
ADA-compliant directional
curb ramps and audible
push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low
Curb radius reduction SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Low
Splitter islands SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Medium
Approach curvature SI, UI All crashes N/A $$$ Low
Roadside design features All All crashes N/A $-$$$ Low
*Indicates countermeasure is eligible for California HSIP funding as of the most recent funding cycle 1: UI = Unsignalized Intersection; SI = Signalized Intersection; R = Roadway segments; All = All of the above 2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines
Recommendations
In addition to the engineering countermeasures and projects recommended above, the City aims to promote policies, programs, and standards that foster a culture of safety. The table below defines several policy and program recommendations organized into thematic categories. Implemented in cooperation with partners, 177
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 26
these recommendations will deepen the dedication to safety shared throughout the community and round out the City’s Safe System Approach.

Table 6. City of East Palo Alto Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
LCS1: Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee participation
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
LCS3: Communication Protocol
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
Local Enforcement
Coordination (LEC)
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
LEC3: Graduated Traffic Fine Structure
LEC4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Citation Diversion
Program
Local Funding (LF) LF1: Dedicated Funding LF2: Equitable Investment LF3: Prioritize Investments
Local Education /
Outreach (LEO)
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
LEO5: Smart City Fleets
Local Planning/
Evaluation (LPE)
LPE1: Annual Review
LPE2: Plan Update
LPE3: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan

NEAR-TERM ACTIONS
LCS1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee Participation Actively participate in the newly-formed County Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). Bring agenda items as relevant, including but not limited to:
• Safety project updates with every step along the project development process (studies initiated / under way /complete, funding identified, design phases initiated / under way / complete) • Annual updates to the TSAC regarding implementation progress that may be relevant for C/CAG annual monitoring reporting (e.g., projects on identified priority locations and/or the regional High Injury Network, community engagement efforts and summaries, safety funding applied for / received) • Opportunities for cross-jurisdiction coordination (e.g., roadways or intersections shared with adjacent jurisdictions or Caltrans)
• Requests for trainings / best practices that could be provided through the TSAC Lead agency: City of East Palo Alto Public Works
178
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27
LF1: Dedicated Funding
Propose ongoing, dedicated funding and staffing for implementation and monitoring of the safety plan, including presiding over the TSAC. This role may be fulfilled by a partial FTE or through staff augmentation.

Lead agency: City of East Palo Alto Public Works

LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Coordinate with County Public Health and the City of East Palo Alto Police Department to implement a local high-visibility media campaign pertaining to one or more emphasis areas identified in this plan. Dedicated law enforcement with media supporting the enforcement activity to ensure public awareness. Potential communication tools:
• Bus ads
• Social media
• Text messages
Lead agency: County Public Health
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff’s Office, California Highway Patrol, Sustainability Department, SMCOE, City of East Palo Alto Police Department, City of East Palo Alto Public Works LCS3: Communication Protocol
Adopt and develop safety-related communication protocols in coordination with the TSAC. The protocols will promote consistent public communication regarding language usage and statements related to transportation safety. Encourage language in line with Vision Zero and Safe System principles that acknowledges mistakes are inevitable but death and severe injury are preventable. For example, promote use of the word crash rather than accident.

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

Implementation can focus on addressing particular problems or on increasing general safety in specific areas during windows of peak pedestrian activity. (For example: Friday nights in commercial districts, Sundays on recreational routes/areas, etc.)
Lead agency: City of East Palo Alto Public Works
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Coordinate with East Palo Alto PD to deploy a trailer to monitor speeds on streets and to raise awareness of speeding. It can be deployed long term along HIN and other arterials, or short term in neighborhoods. Use the priority locations and data in this plan to identify locations and schedule for deployment.

Lead agency: City of East Palo Alto Police Department
Coordinating partners: City of East Palo Alto Public Works 179
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 28
LEC3: Graduated Traffic Fine Structure
Through the legislative agenda, advocate for an income-based graduated traffic fine structure at the state level, so they do not disproportionately impact people with lower incomes.

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

Lead agency: City of East Palo Alto Police Department
LF2: Equitable Investment
Prioritize citywide safety investments in disadvantaged communities. Use the presence of disadvantaged communities (as identified with C/CAG Equity Focus Areas, MTC Equity Priority Communities, USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities, and/or USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty) as a factor to elevate funding for certain projects or other safety-related programs.

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

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

Lead agency: City of East Palo Alto Public Works
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
Continue School Travel Fellowship Program to provide the following:
• Technical assistance to schools and planners to implement demonstration projects • ATP Project Specialist to work with educators to provide technical assistance (bike rodeos, parent engagement workshops and resources, walk and bike audits, and additional support for walk/bike to school encouragement events) to schools in EPCs
Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: County Public Health, Sustainability Department, SVBC LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
Develop and distribute educational materials and/or videos demonstrating how to navigate and interact with newer active transportation facilities (e.g., bike boxes, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, separated bike lanes, etc.) Include information about the purpose and goals of this infrastructure.

Lead agency: City of East Palo Alto Public Works
LEO5: Safe City Fleets
Provide educational materials for City staff who drive City vehicles and integrate safety awareness training into contracting process with vendors who provide City services. Other measures include installing safety features (such as pedestrian/obstacle detection and speed tracking) on City vehicles and reporting on correction plans against unsafe driving.
180
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 29
Lead agency: City of East Palo Alto Public Works
LPE1: Annual Review
Provide an annual review of plan implementation progress. This review includes an update and presentation to City Council as well as a written update to the TSAC so that C/CAG may compile county plan implementation status.

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

Lead agency: City of East Palo Alto Public Works
LPE3: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation
Fund a study to address traffic injury and enforcement inequities to inform policies, projects, programs, and needed data quality improvements. Solicit feedback on the report’s equity analysis from groups representing equity priority communities. Topics for the study may include injury related to homelessness, race/ethnicity, language, income, and immigration status, citations by demographics, citation type, and location.

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

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

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

Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: City of East Palo Alto Public Works LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan
Per California Assembly Bill 43 (passed in 2021), identify business activity districts, safety corridors, and in areas with high ped/bike activities to implement reduced speeds.

To the extent possible, complement the speed reduction with design treatments like those identified in this plan to effect reduced speeds by the desired amount.

Lead agency: City of East Palo Alto Public Works
181
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30

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

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

This section identifies recommendations for East Palo Alto and other county-level safety partners to implement the plan. These are aligned with the Safe System Approach and include a framework to measure plan progress over time.

Table 7. City of East Palo Alto Goals and Measures of Success

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

1. Eliminate traffic fatalities and
reduce the number of non-fatal
injury crashes by 50 percent by
2030.
• Number of LRSP project locations advanced through project development, reported at the agency level
• Annual and three-year total reported crashes, fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and crashes by emphasis areas identified
• Distribution at the jurisdiction level for safety projects within equity focus areas (C/CAG EFAs or MTC EPCs)
• versus outside these areas
• Report-backs to the City Council and TSAC regarding community engagement, including information about outreach to
disadvantaged communities where applicable.
• Implementation of a high-visibility media campaign
• Expansion of SRTS and Roadway Safety Education in Schools programs to more schools within the City
• Community engagement included as part of all C/CAG-funded safety project development activities
• Number of engagement touchpoints and number of community member interactions citywide for safety plans or projects. • Report-backs to the City Council and TSAC regarding community engagement, including information about outreach to
disadvantaged communities where applicable
• Percent of school district participation in SRTS and roadway safety education opportunities
• Number of trainings city staff have participated in regarding Safe System elements, available tools, or practices
• Improved data availability or maintenance to enhance safety analysis and practice
182
/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 31
Appendix A
Webmap Comments
City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
183
San Mateo
C/CAG
Countywide
LRSP

FINAL DRAFT
JUNE 2024
184
Kittelson & Associates, Inc
This page intentionally left blank.
185
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Executive
Summary
186
/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Safe Systems Approach ..................................................................................................... 3 Vision & Goals....................................................................................................................... 3 Public Engagement .............................................................................................................4 High Injury Network.............................................................................................................4 Emphasis Areas.................................................................................................................... 5 Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 5 Project Prioritization............................................................................................................ 6 Implementation & Monitoring........................................................................................... 6 187
/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2
The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) created this Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) with the following safety partners:
188
/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

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

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

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

The goals of this plan include the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promote a culture across agencies and communities that puts roadway safety first in all actions.
189
/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4

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

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

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

MAR - APR
Various
Phase 3 Draft Plan
Share the draft plan publicly on
the project website, through
electronic distribution channels,
and with presentations to C/CAG
Committees and the Board.
190
/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5

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

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

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

Organize (O)
Fund (F)
Educate (E)
Research (R) Plan (P)
Coordinate (C)
Pedestrian and bicyclist safety Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes
Nighttime/low light safety High-speed roadways
(35+ mph)
Unsignalized intersections on
arterials/collectors Alcohol involvement
Vulnerable age groups
(youth and aging)
191
/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6

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

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

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

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

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

IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
A key part of achieving C/CAG’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. The Plan includes monitoring strategies that will track the progress of this plan’s implementation.
192
/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
193
Kittelson & Associates, Inc
This page intentionally left blank.
194
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C/CAG Project
Management Team
Jeff Lacap
Eva Gaye
Advisory Group Members
Local Jurisdiction Representatives
Robert Ovadia, Town of Atherton
Matt Hoang, City of Belmont
Tracy Scramaglia, City of Belmont
Karen Kinser, City of Brisbane
Tomas Santoyo, City of Brisbane
Andrew Wong, City of Burlingame
Abdulkader Hashem, Town of Colma
Richard Chiu, Jr.; City of Daly City
Irene Chiu, City of East Palo Alto
Humza Javed, City of East Palo Alto
Anwar Mirza, City of East Palo Alto
Justin Lai, City of Foster City
Francine Magno, City of Foster City
Amy Zhou, City of Foster City
Maz Bozorginia, City of Half Moon Bay
Jonathan Woo, City of Half Moon Bay
Paul Willis, Town of Hillsborough
Matthew Hui, City of Menlo Park
Sam Bautista, City of Millbrae
Lisa Peterson, City of Pacifica
Howard Young, Town of Portola Valley
Malahat Owrang, City of Redwood City
Hae Won, City of San Bruno
Harry Yip, City of San Bruno
Hanieh Houshmandi, City of San Carlos
Steven Machida, City of San Carlos
Bethany Lopez, City of San Mateo
Azalea Mitch, City of San Mateo
Jeff Chou, City of South San Francisco
Matthew Ruble, City of South San Francisco
Yazdan Emrani, Town of Woodside
Sindhi Mekala, Town of Woodside
Diana Shu, County of San Mateo
Partner Agency Representatives
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Sustainability
Department
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jessica Manzi, San Mateo County Transportation
District
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission
195
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 4
Consultant Team
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systemic safety defines an analysis and improvement approach based on roadway and environmental factors correlated with crash risk (rather than targeting locations solely on documented crash history). The approach take a broad view to evaluate risk across an entire roadway system. 197
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................................................3 Glossary of Terms ....................................................................................................................................................................4 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7 List of Tables..............................................................................................................................................................................8 Appendices ...............................................................................................................................................................................8 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................9 What is an LRSP?....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Safe System Approach.......................................................................................................................................................................................................10 Alignment with the SHSP.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Incorporating Vision Zero..................................................................................................................................................................................................13 What’s in the Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................14 Vision and Goals ....................................................................................................................................................................14 Vision...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14 Plan Goals....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 Plan Development ..................................................................................................................................................................17 Existing Safety Efforts............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Project Advisory Group........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Community Engagement and Input.....................................................................................................................................................................19 Countywide Data Analysis Findings ..................................................................................................................................26 Pre-Pandemic versus Pandemic Comparison..................................................................................................................................................27 Hot Spot analysis/ High Injury Network Identification ....................................................................................................................................31 Systemic Descriptive Findings................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 Emphasis Areas................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 Systemic Findings by Mode........................................................................................................................................................................................37 State Highways in San Mateo County............................................................................................................................... 45 Safety on At-Grade State Highways........................................................................................................................................................................ 46 Existing Plans and Directives to Improve Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 48 Caltrans Director’s Policy 36: Road Safety – establishes the VZ commitment....................................................................... 48 Caltrans Road Safety Action Plan 2023-24..................................................................................................................................................... 48 District 4 Bike Plan............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49 District 4 Pedestrian Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 49 Improvements to Date in the County...................................................................................................................................................................... 49 198
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 7
Caltrans Recommendations and Actions ........................................................................................................................................................... 50 Safe System-Aligned Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 51 Engineering.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................51 Policy and Program............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 56 Organize..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................57 Educate....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................57 Coordinate............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 58 Fund .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Research................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 60 Plan..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................61 Project Prioritization..............................................................................................................................................................63 SamTrans Bus Stop Prioritization................................................................................................................................................................................. 72 Implementation and Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................74

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. “Swiss Cheese” Model Demonstrating Layers of Redundancy..................................................................................................13 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool.......................................................................................................................................................................................21 Figure 3. Percentage of Total Respondents by City of Residence..............................................................................................................22 Figure 4. Percentage of Total Responses by Emphasis Areas Selected............................................................................................... 23 Figure 5. Countywide Pedestrian High Injury Network ...................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 6. Countywide Bicyclist High Injury Network............................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 7. Countywide Motor Vehicle High Injury Network................................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 8. Countywide Combined High Injury Network....................................................................................................................................... 35 199
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 8

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

APPENDICES
Appendix A Web Comments received by Agency
Appendix B Phase 2 Engagement Comments
Appendix C Crash Analysis Memo
Appendix D Project Priority Location Memo
Appendix E SamTrans Bus Stop Priority Analysis
200
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the national level, USDOT requires a current LRSP that meets certain criteria in order for an agency to be eligible for implementation funding grant opportunities.1F 2 This plan has been structured to meet those criteria for C/CAG at the countywide level and for each of the 11 participating jurisdictions. 1 FHWA maintains a list of Proven safety countermeasures with documented effectiveness in reducing roadway fatalities and severe injuries (totaling 28 at present). More information is available online at https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures. 2 The most recently published eligibility information is available online at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-03/SS4A-Self-Certification-Eligibility-Worksheet-FY23.pdf. 201
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 10
Safe System Approach
In January 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) released its National Roadway Safety Strategy
(NRSS). In addition to setting the vision for the USDOT, the NRSS adopts the Safe System Approach (SSA) to safety
planning, analyses, and project prioritization and
implementation.2F
3,
3F
4,
4F
5,
5F
6,
6F
7,
7F
8 The SSA aims to eliminate fatal and severe injuries for all road users.3 The SSA views crashes as systematic events that can be mitigated (or avoided completely) through a holistic approach to infrastructure, enforcement,
programs, and policies. A core assumption of this
approach is that roadway users make mistakes while
traveling and that the price of these mistakes should not be death or severe injury.

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

The large role speed plays in determining crash severity suggests the need to design a roadway safety strategy that slows speeds, thereby lessening the kinetic energy transferred to the human body in a crash.3 Recent Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance, which highlights key alignments between the SSA, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), and a State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), focuses on 3 Elissa Goughnour, Kara Peach, Michael Dunn, Meghan Mitman, and Dan Gelinne. Primer on Safe Systems Approach for Pedestrians and Bicyclists. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC, 2021. 4 The Safe System Approach. Washington, DC, 2022.
5 Federal Highway Administration. “Integrating Equity into the Safe System Approach” Presentation. Accessed Apr. 17, 2023:
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/zero-deaths/integrating-equity-safe-system-approach-presentation. 6 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Recommendations of the Safe System Consortium. 2022. 7 National Roadway Safety Strategy. Washington, DC, 2022. 8 Core Elements for Vision Zero Communities. Washington, DC, 2022. 202
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 11
roadway speed—not just speeding behavior—as a general risk factor.8F 9 Similarly, international authorities focus
on a systemic approach—using risk factors to inform a rating system that helps to identify problematic roadways and prioritize projects for addressing safety concerns.9F 10,
10F
11 C/CAG and its 21 jurisdictions do not have full control over all Safe System elements. For example, the agencies cannot directly affect safe vehicle design and regulation. A Safe System would require State and Federal policy—like legislation to allow automated speed enforcement and continued regulation of vehicle safety standards—will be essential to build a system that is truly safe.

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

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

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

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

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

Transportation Safety Advisory Committee on page 55) may include this topic in future meetings for discussion and local coordination.
9 Emily Finkel, Cullen McCormick, Meghan Mitman, Sarah Abel, Jackie Clark. 2020. Integrating the Safe System Approach with the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC. 10 PIARC Road Safety Manual. 2019. Accessed April 17, 2023: https://roadsafety.piarc.org/en 11 New Zealand Ministry of Transport. 2010. Safer Journeys - A National Strategy to Improve Road Safety. 12 National Science & Technology Council and USDOT. 2020. Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle Technology. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-02/EnsuringAmericanLeadershipAVTech4.pdf 203
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 12
Safety and Social Equity
We know that nationwide and statewide, safety impacts and fatal/severe injury crashes affect the population unevenly. The burdens of inequitable infrastructure investments result in more death and severe injury among marginalized populations.

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

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

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

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

Whereas the SHSP has historically used the five “Es” (education, enforcement, engineering, emergency response, and emerging technologies) to organize its strategies, as of 2021 State transportation officials shifted 13 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf 14 1 FARS 2019 data publication, 1st release; Poverty rates and Population data by County, U.S. Census. The fatality rate for the top 40 percent of counties by poverty rate was 14.9 per 100,000 population versus 11.0 for the country. 15 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813118 16 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/shsp/combined-shsp-fact-sheets-april2022-a11y.pdf 204
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 13
focus toward principles that integrate social equity, take a Safe System Approach, and encourage proven countermeasures and emerging technologies. This plan is aligned with the SHSP’s updated guidance.

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

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

Figure 1. “Swiss Cheese” Model Demonstrating Layers of Redundancy Source: FHWA (https://cdn-wordpress.webspec.cloud/intrans.iastate.edu/uploads/sites/10/2021/11/SSA-IowaFHWA.pdf) This plan is aligned with a Vision Zero approach. Although C/CAG does not own local or State roads within San Mateo County, its vision for this plan represents an aggregate of all 21 communities’ visions and would result in significant near-term declines in fatal and severe injuries, with an eventual goal of zero. 205
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 14
MTC passed a Vision Zero policy in 2020 that identified actions to support cities like those in San Mateo County to pursue a Vision Zero commitment. Such a commitment means building a safer transportation system and creating and sustaining a culture where residents, workers, and visitors prioritize traffic safety and minimize the lethality of traffic mistakes. This plan will be implemented through coordination with identified safety partners, including both city agencies and external parties.

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

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

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

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

C/CAG will lead, coordinate, and support its 21 local jurisdictions in achieving their vision to reduce or eliminate fatalities and severe injury crashes across all public roadways. The desired quantitative reductions from each jurisdiction’s plan is summarized below (with links to the current published plans):
• Atherton: Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2050. • Belmont: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2040. 206
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 15
• Brisbane: Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2050; establish and promote a Safe System culture to build overlapping layers of safety.
• Burlingame: Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2050. • Colma: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2040. • Daly City (published 2020)17: Eliminate fatalities and serious injuries by 2035. • East Palo Alto: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal injury crashes by 50 percent by 2050.
• Foster City: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050 as part of a broader effort to promote roadway safety in Foster City’s departments, businesses, and residents.
• Half Moon Bay: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050. • Hillsborough: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050.
• Menlo Park (updated 2024)18: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2040. • Millbrae (adopted 2022)19: Systemically identify and analyze roadway safety problems and recommend improvements.
• Pacifica (adopted 2023)20: Residents and visitors to Pacifica are able to safety travel by car, foot, bicycle, transit, and other modes of transportation to access daily needs and recreational opportunities. • Portola Valley:21 To provide for safe and reasonably expeditious movement for local residents and minimize the disruptive influences of through traffic.
• Redwood City (adopted 2022)22: Eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries for all modes by 2030. • San Bruno (adopted 2023)23: Identify and analyze road safety issues from a systemic perspective and recommend improvements.
• San Carlos: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050. • San Mateo (ongoing): The City is committed to reaching its goal of eliminating all preventable traffic fatalities and severe injuries by 2050.
• South San Francisco (published 2022)24: Support the California vision of moving towards significantly reducing fatalities and serious injuries for all road users. • Unincorporated County (published 2021)25: Reduce the number of fatal crashes to zero by 2035. • Woodside: Achieve 50 percent reduction in fatal and severe injury crashes by 2050.

Plan Goals
This plan acts in the service of achieving several Countywide safety goals. These goals have guided the creation of this plan and serve as markers C/CAG can use to measure the plan’s success moving forward. 17 https://www.dalycity.org/DocumentCenter/View/3369/Vision-Zero-Action-Plan-2020-PDF 18 https://menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Public-Works/Capital-improvement-projects/Vision-Zero-Action-Plan 19 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=15854&repo=r-c2783ec8&searchid=81b66911-b352-477f-ab4f4a776cf7f808 20 https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/15778/638278612505239698 21 From the Town’s Circulation Element
22 https://www.redwoodcity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/25615/638016840641870000 23 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/436/Projects
24 https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/30166/638245818532000000 25 https://www.smcsustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/San-Mateo-County-LRSP3-1.pdf 207
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 16
The goals include the following:
• Regularly review crash history and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages and abilities.
• Partner with local agencies to incorporate roadway safety into all actions. • Implement context-appropriate safety countermeasures systemically and as part of all projects to target emphasis areas and underserved communities.
• Support agencies in providing opportunities for citizen engagement to identify issues and inform Countywide safety solutions.
• Embrace the Safe System Approach to promote engineering and non-engineering strategies in the community.
• Work with agencies to monitor safety projects and implementation to track progress towards goals. 208
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 17

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

The advisory group consisted of the following individuals and organizations:

Table 1. C/CAG Constituent Jurisdictions and Partner Agencies Agency Representative(s) Agency Representative(s)
Town of Atherton Robert Ovadia City of San Bruno Hae Won Harry Yip
City of Belmont Matt Hoang
Tracy Scramaglia
City of San Carlos Hanieh Houshmandi
Steven Machida
City of Brisbane Tomas Santoyo
Karen Kinser
City of San Mateo Bethany Lopez
Azalea Mitch
City of Burlingame Andrew Wong City of South San
Francisco
Jeff Chou
Matthew Ruble
Town of Colma Abdulkader Hashem Town of Woodside Yazdan Emrani Sindhi Mekala
Sean Rose
209
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 18
Agency Representative(s) Agency Representative(s)
City of Daly City Richard Chiu, Jr. County of San Mateo San Mateo County Fire Marshal; Diana Shu
City of East Palo Alto Irene Chiu
Humza Javed
Anwar Mirza
California Highway Patrol Mackenzie Crouch
City of Foster City Justin Lai
Francine Magno
Amy Zhou
Caltrans Greg Currey
Jake Freedman
Sergio Ruiz
City of Half Moon Bay Maz Bozorginia
Jonathan Woo
County of San Mateo
Sustainability
Department
Joel Slavit
Town of Hillsborough Paul Willis Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission
Bryan Redmond
City of Menlo Park Matthew Hui SamTrans Martin Reyes
City of Millbrae Sam Bautista San Mateo County Office
of Education
Theresa Vallez-Kelly
City of Pacifica Lisa Peterson San Mateo County
Health
Liz Sanchez
Town of Portola Valley Howard Young Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission
Anthony Montes
City of Redwood City Malahat Owrang
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support to create a culture of roadway safety. Additional partners may be identified in the future, but the advisory group shown above represents a group of invested parties that can be leveraged for plan implementation.
210
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 19

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

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

Events
The project team hosted a series of public engagement events countywide to support the concurrent development of the Countywide LRSP and each participating jurisdiction’s plan. These events focus on jurisdiction-specific issues and on countywide concerns. The table below lists the events, organized by themed engagement phases, and is followed by the community input themes we heard. 211
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 20
Table 2. Calendar of C/CAG Public Engagement Events
Date Event Location
August 10, 2023 Countywide Virtual Kickoff
meeting – Sharing the purpose
and timing of the plan
Virtual meeting (recorded and
posted to plan website)
August 16, 2023 Phase 1 Pop-up/Tabling Event
Shared crash data analysis;
received input on locations and
safety concerns
East Palo Alto
August 19, 2023 Half Moon Bay Farmers Market
August 20, 2023 Foster City Summer Days
August 27, 2023 San Carlos Block Party
August – September, 2023 Phase 1 Concurrent Online
Input
Online webmap (countywide
input)
December 17, 2023 Phase 2 Pop-up/Tabling Event
Shared draft prioritized
locations and types of
engineering recommendations;
received comments on
locations and votes/input on
types of treatments and
desired locations
Belmont Farmers’ Market
December 20, 2023 Woodside Public Library
January 9, 2024 Colma BART Station
January 16, 2024 Atherton Library
January 18, 2024 Brisbane Farmers’ Market
February 7, 2024 Portola Valley Bicycle,
Pedestrian, & Traffic Safety
Committee
March – April 2024 Phase 3 Draft Plan
Share the draft plan publicly on
the project website, through
electronic distribution channels,
and with presentations to
C/CAG Committees and the
Board.

Various
212
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 21
Online Map Survey
The project team made an online countywide webmap tool and survey available during August and September 2023 for the public to provide comments and respond to questions to guide the plan’s development (see Figure 2). Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.

Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool
Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. Those comments are included in Appendix A, organized by local jurisdiction. Of the 352 respondents:
• 180 respondents mentioned their city of residence. Among the respondents who shared their city of residence, the top three were South San Francisco (19 percent), San Carlos (19 percent) and Half Moon Bay (17 percent). Figure 3 shows the percentage of total respondents by city of residence. (In many cases, respondents would leave a comment within a jurisdiction but not identify their city or town of residence. We have recorded those responses as “none stated.”) • 140 respondents identified their age group. Among the respondents who identified their age group, the top three categories were 35-39 years (26 percent), 30-34 years (24 percent), and 45-49 years (11 percent).
• 116 respondents identified their race/ethnicity. Among the respondents who identified their race/ethnicity, 83 percent were White, 7 percent were Asian, 6 percent were Hispanic, and 4 percent belonged to Other race/ethnicity groups.
• 106 respondents responded to whether they lived in a C/CAG Equity Focus Area. Of these respondents, 55 percent responded as “Yes”, and 45 percent responded as “No”. 213
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 22
Figure 3. Percentage of Total Respondents by City of Residence Of the 528 responses, the following trends emerged:
• Respondents were asked to identify the travel mode for their comment and safety concern. The most frequent travel modes identified were biking (26 percent), driving (22 percent) and walking (20 percent). • Respondents were asked to pick their top three emphasis areas for the plan to focus on. The most frequently selected emphasis areas were pedestrian safety (71 percent of respondents), motor vehicle speed related roadway safety (49 percent), and unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors (24 percent). Figure 4 shows the percentage of total responses by emphasis areas selected. (Because respondents could select multiple, the responses sum to more than 100 percent).
49%
10%
10%
9%
6%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
None stated
San Carlos
South San Francisco
Half Moon Bay
San Bruno
Unincorporated
Brisbane
Redwood City
Daly City
San Mateo
Belmont
East Palo Alto
Burlingame
Foster City
Millbrae
Pacifica
Woodside
Percentage of Total Respondents
214
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 23
Figure 4. Percentage of Total Responses by Emphasis Areas Selected Respondents were also asked which Safe System elements were most important for the plan to focus on (Safer People, Safer Roads, Safer Vehicles, Safer Speeds, or Post-Crash Care). Of those who responded to the question, the top three safe system elements selected were safer roads (70 percent), safer people (46 percent), and safer speeds (34 percent). Some respondents selected more than one, so results sum to more than 100 percent.

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

Biking Concerns/Requests
• Provide a more connected bike network: continuous bike lanes (especially through intersections) and install bike lanes to transit connections (Caltrain) and biotechnology business parks in South San Francisco. • Upgrade or general maintenance concerns of existing bike infrastructure including widening and restriping bike lanes, installing raised barriers on overpasses, installing bike wayfinding signs, installing street lighting to increase visibility of bicyclists, removing speed humps, repairing potholes, and removing debris along bike lanes.
• Add new bike infrastructure such as protected bike lanes, separated bike lanes, road diets, bike tunnels, and bike bridges.
• Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, vehicle speeds, right of way issues, and turning conflicts at intersections. • Upgrade signal timing to provide a leading bicycle interval. • Remove on-street parking to make more way for bikes along the roadway. • Request to provide modal filters: to allow only bicycles and pedestrians on certain streets. 4%
7%
10%
17%
21%
24%
49%
71%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Driving Under the Influence
Aging Drivers/Pedestrians
Hit Object crashes
Broadside Motor Vehicle/Bike Crashes
at Unsignalized Intersections
Nighttime/Low Light Safety
Unsignalized Intersections on
Arterials/Collectors
Motor Vehicle Speed-Related
Roadway Segment Crashes
Pedestrian Safety
Percentage of Total Responses (Respondents selected up to 3, so results sum to >100%)
215
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 24
Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Add new pedestrian infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure such as building new sidewalks, widening existing sidewalks, providing midblock crossings, and high visibility crosswalks. • Requests for sidewalk maintenance and trimming low hanging trees. • Support for additional pedestrian infrastructure including Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, push buttons for WALK signs and pedestrian hybrid beacons (HAWK), increasing pedestrian walk times and modifying signals to include a leading pedestrian interval (especially at intersections near transit connections and schools).
• Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, speeding, and running STOP signs.
• Concerns related to sharing sidewalks with micromobility devices such as bicycles, electric scooters, skateboards, etc.
• Pedestrian visibility concerns: street lighting is absent or insufficient. • Concerns regarding curb ramps being insufficient for wheelchairs or other mobility challenged roadway users.

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

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

Public Transit Concerns
• Improve biking and walking connections to transit stations. • Provide more public transportation options.
• Ensure reliable bus services and routes serving locations such as schools, parks and seniors. 216
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 25
Phase 2 Feedback
Phase 2 outreach included more detailed discussion of the Countywide High Injury Network and draft priority locations within communities. Participants were also asked to weigh in on potential engineering solutions. The project team received over 200 comments on priority locations and proposed countermeasures. The locations and themes of Phase 2 comments are presented in the individual plan chapters included in this plan document.

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

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

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

Motor Vehicle Comments
• Desire for traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps, stop signs, and traffic lights. • Concerns of vehicles speeding, especially in areas with lots of pedestrians 217
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 26

COUNTYWIDE DATA ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

Table 3. Injury/Fatal Crash Data Overview, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Year Total Count
Crashes on
NonFreeway
Roadways
Non-Freeway Injury/Fatal Crash Breakdown
State
Highway
Crashes
State
Highway
Share
(percent)
Local
Roadway
Crashes
Local
Roadway
Share
(percent)
2018-2022 12,526 8,468 2,712 43% 5,756 57%
Source: TIMS 2023
26 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu 218
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 27
Pre-Pandemic versus Pandemic Comparison
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on travel patterns, behaviors, and traffic volumes. The analysis considered crashes that occurred before the pandemic (2017-2019) and during the pandemic years (2020-2022) to observe changes in safety due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

Table 4. Injury/Fatal Crashes by Year, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Year Count
percent of 6-
year Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
percent of
Total F/SI
Crashes
Average
Crash
Severity
Score
2017-
2019
6,109 58% 555 52% 22.8
2020-
2022
4,436 42% 518 48% 27.2
Total 10,545 100% 1,073 100% 24.7
Source: TIMS 2023
Table 5 shows the total number of crashes has decreased from pre-pandemic to pandemic era in most County jurisdictions with the exception of East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, and Woodside. The Cities of Atherton, Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, Woodside, and Unincorporated San Mateo County (64 percent of total jurisdictions) all recorded higher F/SI crashes in the pandemic era.
27 The crash severity score is a normalized measure that scores a crash based on its average societal cost and compares it to a typical reported crash resulting in property damage only (PDO). For example, a crash at a signalized intersection resulting in death or severe injury is weighted 120 times a PDO crash; a crash resulting in a minor injury is weighted 11 times a PDO; and crash resulting in a possible injury is weighted six times a PDO. A higher average crash severity score means that those crashes resulted in more severe outcomes more often.
219
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 28 220
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 29
Table 5. Injury/Fatal Crashes by Year/Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Jurisdiction Year F/SI Other Crashes Total
Atherton 2017-2019 2 116 118
2020-2022 3 41 44
Belmont 2017-2019 5 164 169
2020-2022 5 130 135
Brisbane 2017-2019 8 53 61
2020-2022 8 23 31
Burlingame 2017-2019 3 212 215
2020-2022 11 116 127
Colma 2017-2019 22 9 31
2020-2022 0 1 1
Daly City 2017-2019 4 544 548
2020-2022 39 434 473
East Palo Alto 2017-2019 10 250 260
2020-2022 33 229 262
Foster City 2017-2019 4 106 110
2020-2022 10 74 84
Half Moon Bay 2017-2019 10 77 87
2020-2022 9 82 91
Hillsborough 2017-2019 4 30 34
2020-2022 2 13 15
Menlo Park 2017-2019 23 430 453
2020-2022 15 252 267
Millbrae 2017-2019 11 142 153
221
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 30
Jurisdiction Year F/SI Other Crashes Total
2020-2022 24 107 131
Pacifica 2017-2019 21 249 270
2020-2022 24 167 191
Portola Valley 2017-2019 2 25 27
2020-2022 10 11 21
Redwood City 2017-2019 41 783 824
2020-2022 50 546 596
San Bruno 2017-2019 56 266 322
2020-2022 23 187 210
San Carlos 2017-2019 15 155 170
2020-2022 19 139 158
San Mateo 2017-2019 58 715 773
2020-2022 23 326 349
South San Francisco 2017-2019 66 530 596
2020-2022 43 424 467
Unincorporated 2017-2019 113 625 738
2020-2022 137 529 666
Woodside 2017-2019 14 73 87
2020-2022 30 87 117
Source: TIMS 2023
222
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 31
Hot Spot analysis/ High Injury Network Identification
A hot spot analysis involves analyzing historic crash data for the County and within each local jurisdiction. Hot spot analysis is a valuable method to identify locations with disproportionate histories of crashes, but it is not intended to reveal roadway factors that contribute to high crash risk. To identify the modal High Injury Networks (HINs) for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles, a sliding window analysis was conducted as described in Appendix C
Dynamic maps of all local jurisdiction HINs, as well as of the combined Countywide HIN, can be viewed at this link. Static maps are contained in the body and as part of Appendix C of this plan. On these maps, routes labeled as “Non-Highway” are not part of the State’s highway network. • The pedestrian HIN is represented by 98 miles of the street network that had the highest concentration of weighted crashes on a per-mile basis. The minimum weighted crash threshold was substantially higher along State routes (i.e., Caltrans roadways) compared to local roads. This differential scoring was used to keep State routes from dominating the HIN and precluding insights about locally controlled roadways. The Pedestrian HIN covers just 3.4 percent of the street network for the County but accounts for half of all pedestrian crashes and 69 percent of fatal and severe injury pedestrian crashes from 2018 to 2022. Roughly 12 percent of the pedestrian HIN is along a State route, and 10 percent of the pedestrian HIN is along El Camino Real (SR 82).
• The bicyclist HIN was produced using the same approach as the pedestrian HIN (i.e., evaluating State routes separately from local streets and using the same relative scoring). The bicyclist HIN represents 96 miles of the street network and accounts for 3.3 percent of the street network. Twenty-seven percent of the network is along a State route, with El Camino Real comprising nearly 10 percent of the bicyclist HIN mileage. Most crashes along the bicyclist HIN involved both a bicyclist and a motorist (82 percent of total crashes; 67 percent of F/SI crashes), while the remaining crashes were solo bicyclist crashes. • The Motor Vehicle HIN was developed using the same per-mile weighted analysis as the pedestrian and bicyclist HIN but the crash thresholds for State highways and local roadways. The motor vehicle HIN represents 283 miles of the street network and accounts for about 10 percent of the street network, 63 percent of all injury motor vehicle crashes, and 44 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crashes. Forty-two (42) percent of the network is along a State route.

To consolidate a network of high injury segments for San Mateo County and its specific jurisdictions, motor vehicle HIN, pedestrian HIN and bicycle HIN were combined to identify, for every roadway segment in the County, whether it is part of zero, one, two, or all three of the modal HINs. 223
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 32
Figure 5. Countywide Pedestrian High Injury Network
224
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 33
Figure 6. Countywide Bicyclist High Injury Network
225
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 34
Figure 7. Countywide Motor Vehicle High Injury Network
226
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 35
Figure 8. Countywide Combined High Injury Network
227
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 36

SYSTEMIC DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS
In addition to the spatial and location-based findings, the analysis analyzed the crash data for systemic findings. Those are organized by mode (pedestrian, bicyclist, and motor vehicles). An overview of crashes by mode for the 5-year period is provided in Table 6. The following pages describe high-level Countywide systemic crash findings. Pages 40-41 show countywide findings in relation to the County emphasis areas.

Table 6: Injury/Fatal Crashes by Mode, Countywide (2018-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Mode Count % of 5-year Total Crashes F/SI Count % of Total F/SI Crashes Pedestrians 1,064 13% 208 23%
Bicyclists 1,058 13% 175 20%
Motor Vehicle Alone 6,328 75% 515 57%
Total 8,450 100% 898 100%
Source: TIMS 2023

EMPHASIS AREAS
The project team analyzed crash data countywide to establish emphasis areas. Emphasis areas are crash dynamic, behavioral, or road user characteristics that agencies can focus on to maximize fatal and severe injury reduction on local roads. Countywide emphasis areas are listed below.

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of all injury crashes but 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, showing a disproportionate involvement in the most severe outcomes. Similarly, bicyclists were involved in 13 percent of all injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.

Victims between the ages 50 and 69 and between 75 and 84 are more likely to be severely injured than other groups.

5. Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes. Countywide, motor vehicle crashes were more severe along roadway segments than at any other location type; unsafe speed was the most commonly cited the primary crash factor (27 percent of all injury crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes)
228
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 37

7. Alcohol involvement. Countywide, one in ten (10 percent) of all motor vehicle injury crashes and one in five F/SI motor vehicle crashes (19 percent) involved alcohol.

SYSTEMIC FINDINGS BY MODE
The systemic findings highlight the following topics for modes as appropriate. More detail is provided in a detailed analysis memo provided as Appendix C.
• Crashes by Year
• Lighting Conditions
• Weather Conditions
• Roadway Conditions
• Proximity to Transit Stop
• Crash Locations
• Functional Classification
• Intersection Control
• Number of Legs at
Intersection
• Posted Speed Limit
• Functional Classification
• Pre-Crash Movements
• Violation Types
• Alcohol Usage
• Violation Types
• Victim Age
Pedestrian Findings
Crashes by Year
• There was a sharp reduction in crashes at the start of the pandemic; however, crashes appear to have increased in severity during the core pandemic years.
• Pedestrian crash frequencies increased in 2022 as pandemic-related restrictions eased and travel and activities begin to increase, although the overall share of severe and fatal crashes dropped back to about 16 percent.

Lighting Conditions
• Lighting condition has a strong correlation with F/SI outcomes. Crashes that occurred in darkness or lowlight (i.e., dusk or dawn) conditions were much more likely to result in a F/SI outcome (27 percent) compared to those that occurred during daylight (15 percent), and this disproportionality was even stronger in dark, unlit conditions (32 percent F/SI).

Proximity to Transit Stop
• Intersections within 250 feet of a transit stop had a crash rate of 20 crashes per 100 intersections, compared to just four crashes per 100 intersections for those intersections further away.

Crash Locations
• Most crashes occurred at an intersection (76 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 68 percent of F/SI crashes), with the remainder coded to segment locations (24 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 32 percent of F/SI crashes). • Segment and unsignalized intersection pedestrian crashes tended to be more severe, compared to crashes at signalized intersections. Motorist speeds may be higher midblock than at intersections, resulting in higher kinetic energy and limited reaction time, both of which may contribute to greater injury severity from segment crashes.

Functional Classification
• Primary streets had the highest rate of crashes per 100 miles (340 crashes per 100 miles) and F/SI crashes (81 F/SI crashes per 100 miles), followed by secondary streets (137 crashes per 100 miles; 29 F/SI crashes per 100 229
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 38
miles). This finding supports research showing consistent pedestrian crash risk along major arterials, which generally have higher vehicle speeds, higher vehicle volumes, and greater crossing widths. • At intersections, crashes occurred most frequently at:
– Secondary and residential streets (23 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes), – Primary and residential streets (20 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 23 percent of F/SI crashes), and – Residential and residential streets (19 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 13 percent of F/SI crashes).

Intersection Control
• A majority of intersection crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections (63 percent of injury/fatal and 61 percent of F/SI crashes).
• Crashes were concentrated at signalized intersections (51 crashes per 100 intersections; 9 F/SI crashes per 100 intersections).
• Crashes that involved a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk at a signalized intersection with a motorist going straight accounted for the second largest share of F/SI crashes (23 percent); these crashes were also disproportionately severe when they occurred, with 42 percent resulting in a F/SI outcome.

Posted Speed Limit
• Roadways with 25 mph speed limits are underrepresented in F/SI crashes even though they accounted for the largest share of pedestrian crashes. They accounted for 38 percent of pedestrian crashes and 34 percent of F/SI crashes, but 80 percent of the street network has a speed limit of 25mph or less. • Streets with a posted speed limit of 45 mph had the second largest share of crashes (27 percent) and F/SI crashes (29 percent), followed by 35 mph streets (23 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 27 percent of F/SI crashes). These higher speed streets had some of the highest percentages of crashes resulting in an F/SI outcome, average crash severity scores, and crash severity scores per 100 miles.28 These findings support the current understanding that higher speed roads have serious safety implications for vulnerable road users.

Pre-Crash Movements
• Most pedestrian crashes involved the following:
– A pedestrian crossing at an intersection with a motorist turning left (24 percent). These crashes most frequently occurred at a signalized intersection (45 percent), but most of the F/SI crashes with this crash type occurred at unsignalized intersections. – A pedestrian crossing at an intersection with a motorist proceeding straight (15 percent). These crashes most frequently occurred at unsignalized intersections for overall crashes (77 percent) and F/SI crashes (59 percent).
– A pedestrian crossing not in a crosswalk with a motorist proceeding straight (13 percent). These crashes most often occurred at segment locations (46 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 53 percent of F/SI crashes), followed by unsignalized intersections (39 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 31 percent of F/SI crashes).
28 The crash severity score is a normalized measure that scores a crash based on its average societal cost and compares it to a typical reported crash resulting in property damage only (PDO). For example, a crash at a signalized intersection resulting in death or severe injury is weighted 120 times a PDO crash; a crash resulting in a minor injury is weighted 11 times a PDO; and crash resulting in a possible injury is weighted six times a PDO. A higher average crash severity score means that those crashes resulted in more severe outcomes more often.
230
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 39
• Of those three crash types, those that involved a motorist proceeding straight had a higher share of crashes that resulted in a F/SI outcome and a higher average crash severity score.

Alcohol Usage
• The vast majority of crashes did not have any road user found to be under the influence of alcohol (96 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 94 percent of F/SI crashes).

Victim Age
• Pedestrian victims aged between 15 and 29 years of age and between 55 and 59 years of age accounted for the largest share of victims for all injury severities. However, pedestrian victims aged from 40 to 44 and from 55 to 74 years of age had the largest share of F/SI victims.

Bicyclist Findings
Crashes by Year
• Bicyclist crash frequencies were highest during the first two years of the five-year study period and lowest during the core period of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). • Crash severity appears to be getting worse. Bicyclist injury trends showed that 20-23 percent of crashes resulted in a F/SI outcome in 2021-2022, compared to 11-15 percent of crashes in 2018-2020.

Lighting Conditions
• The vast majority of bicyclist crashes occurred during daylight conditions (84 percent), which fits with when most bicyclist trips occur.
• Bicyclist crashes were more likely to result in an F/SI outcome during dark lighting conditions (21 percent) compared to daylight conditions (16 percent).

Weather Conditions
• More than 90 percent of total crashes and F/SI bicyclist crashes occurred during clear weather conditions.

Roadway Conditions
• Most crashes occurred at locations with no unusual conditions (95 percent of crashes). • Though a comparatively small sample, the majority of F/SI bicyclist crashes that occurred with any type of non-typical roadway condition (n=17) were solo bicyclist crashes (n=13), underscoring the vulnerability of bicyclists and the need for well-maintained roads.

Crash Locations
• Most bicyclist crashes (43 percent) occurred at unsignalized intersections, but most F/SI crashes occurred at segment locations (43 percent). Roughly one-third of the F/SI crashes at unsignalized intersections were solo bicyclist crashes.
• Among the crashes at unsignalized intersections, and excluding solo bicyclist crashes, it was most common for both parties to be traveling in the same direction (e.g., an overtaking or dooring crash) in both overall crashes (45 percent) and F/SI crashes (58 percent).
• Among the unsignalized same-direction crashes, most involved both the bicyclist and motorist going straight (17 percent).
• Most F/SI crashes at unsignalized intersections involved both parties traveling in perpendicular directions, either both going straight (n=7) or the bicyclist going straight and the motorist making a left turn (n=4).

Functional Classification
• Most bicyclist crashes occurred along:
231
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 40
– Secondary streets (39 percent),
– Residential streets (20 percent), and
– Primary streets (20 percent).
• At intersections, crashes occurred most frequently at:
– Secondary-residential intersections (28 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 24 percent of F/SI crashes), – Residential-residential intersections (18 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 13 percent of F/SI crashes), – Primary-residential intersections (17 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 16 percent of F/SI crashes), and – Tertiary-residential intersections (16 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 18 percent of F/SI crashes).

Intersection Control
• Most crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections, accounting for 67 percent of injury/fatal crashes and 70 percent of F/SI crashes. When looking at crashes per 100 intersections, crashes were concentrated at signalized intersections (38 crashes per 100 intersections; 5 F/SI crashes per 100 intersections). The percentage of crashes that resulted in a F/SI outcome was comparable between location types, with 15 percent of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome at unsignalized intersections compared to 13 percent at signalized intersections.

Posted Speed Limit
• Higher-speed streets tend to higher crash severity scores per 100 miles. Most crashes and F/SI crashes occurred along 45 mph roadways (32 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 31 percent of F/SI crashes), while only 8 percent of the network is made up of 45 mph streets.
• Streets with a posted speed limit of 40 mph had the largest rate of crashes per 100 miles (n=166) and F/SI crashes per 100 miles (n=138). Given that these streets comprise less than 1 percent of the network, these statistics indicate that a disproportionate share of overall crashes and F/SI crashes occur on these roads.

Pre-Crash Movements
• Most bicyclist crashes involved:
– Both roadway users proceeding straight at the time of the crash (21 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 18 percent of F/SI crashes). These crashes occurred most frequently at unsignalized intersections (53 percent), whereas F/SI crashes occurred most frequently at signalized intersections (43 percent). – A bicyclist proceeding straight and a motorist turning left (12 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 9 percent of F/SI crashes). Most of these crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections (25 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 46 percent of F/SI crashes).
– A bicyclist proceeding straight and a motorist turning right (11 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 6 percent of F/SI crashes). Most of these crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections (43 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 29 percent of F/SI crashes) and signalized intersections (32 percent of crashes; 53 percent of F/SI crashes).

Violation Types
The most frequent violation types included:
• Automobile right-of-way (19 percent of crashes; 15 percent of F/SI crashes), • Unsafe speed (18 percent of crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes), and • Improper turning (17 percent of crashes; 12 percent of F/SI crashes). 232
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 41
Alcohol Usage
• Few reported crashes identified either the motorist or bicyclist as being under the influence of alcohol (less than 2 percent of injury/fatal crashes; less than 5 percent of F/SI crashes).

Motor Vehicle Findings
Crashes by Year
• Motor Vehicle crash frequencies were highest during the first two years of the five-year period and lowest during the core period of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). • Crash severity has decreased, with the highest crash severity observed in 2018 which then decreased during the pandemic years (2020-2021).

Lighting Conditions
• About 26 percent of motor vehicle crashes were observed to have occurred in the dark—22 percent under street lights and 5 without street lights. Crashes with no streetlights had approximately double the per-crash severity score of daylight crashes and 70 percent higher average score than crashes under street lights.

Crash Locations
• About 39 percent of motor vehicle crashes and 52 of F/SI motor vehicle crashes occurred at a segment or midblock location. Unsignalized intersection and roadway segment crashes are both more severe on average than signalized intersection crashes.

Functional Classifications
• Secondary roadways are overrepresented in in F/SI share (36 percent) compared to total share (29 percent).
• Intersection crashes along primary and secondary roads account for the majority of intersection crashes (36 and 29 percent each) and similarly large shares of F/SI crashes (35 and 29 percent). The highest crash severity scores were at intersections along the trunk and primary roadway system where they intersect with lower-order intersections—particularly at unsignalized intersections. This indicates that unsignalized minorstreet intersections along arterial roadways have a disproportionate severity burden in the county.

Intersection Control
• The majority of motor vehicle crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections, but signalized intersections have a much higher crash rate per 100 intersections.

Posted Speed Limit
• Higher-speed streets tend to have very high crash severity. Most crashes and F/SI crashes occurred along roadways with speed greater than 40 mph roadways (56 percent of all crashes; 70 percent of F/SI crashes). • Notably, almost 47 percent of the 40 mph+ unsignalized intersection crashes occurred along secondary roadways A majority of crashes at 45 mph or higher intersections were at unsignalized intersections (56 percent)
• Roadways with posted speed limits of 40 mph or higher consist of 12 percent of County roadways but make up 44 percent total crashes and the majority (55 percent) of total F/SI crashes. Crashes that occurred on roadways with a posted speed limit of 40 mph or higher had an average crash severity per mile that was more than thirteen times that of crashes occurring on roadways with a posted speed limit of 25 mph or less.

Crash Types
• At intersections, the most frequent and severe motor vehicle crashes were the following types and locations:
233
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 42
– Broadside: 61 percent occurred unsignalized intersections, – Rear-end: 55 percent at occurred at signalized intersections, and – Head-on: 51 percent occurred at signalized intersections. • On roadway segments, the predominant crash types are rear-end (29 percent), hit-object (21 percent), and broadside (18 percent). Weighted by severity, hit-object crashes are disproportionately overrepresented.

Violation Types
The most frequent violation types included:
• Unsafe speed (27 percent of injury/fatal crashes, 23 percent of F/SI crashes), • Automobile right-of-way (19 percent of crashes; 12 percent of F/SI crashes), and • Improper turning (18 percent of crashes; 19 percent of F/SI crashes).

Alcohol Usage
About 10 percent of the motor vehicle crashes included a driver under the influence, but those accounted for 19 percent of F/SI crashes and had an average crash severity score about 1.5 times as high as other motor vehicle crashes.
• Victims between the ages of 10 and 29 are more likely to be injured, including F/SI as result of traffic safety issues on average than other groups. Victims between the ages 15 to 24 are especially overrepresented with victims and F/SI ratios over 2.
• Victims ranging from ages 0 to 14 (children) account for 18 percent of the countywide population and 14 percent of total crashes and 8 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crash victims. • Victims ranging from ages 15 to 24 (young adult) account for 11 percent of the countywide population but account for 22 percent of total crashes and 26 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crash victims.

Victims ranging from ages 65 and up account for 16 percent of the countywide population but account for 10 percent of total crashes and 14 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crash victims. 234
18%
(1,164)
San Mateo County—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in San Mateo County.

Countywide
8% 5%
of reported collisions
in the Countywide
total involved drugs
or alcohol
of reported collisions
in the Countywide
total involved young
drivers1
(625) (472)
29%
(1,858)
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (1,073)
Bicycle Crashes (1,067)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (6,324)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
Total Crashes
Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
In San Mateo County, 8,464 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

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

1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.

2. Young driver crashes are crashes that involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old. 235 San Mateo County—Crash History
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (1,073)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (1,067)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
24%
(256)
Countywide
Countywide
15%
(163)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
Motorist proceeding
straight
Motorist making
left turn
21%
(186)
12%
(106)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
35%
(372)
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (122)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (363)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (1,674) All Injury Crashes (6,324)
All Injury Crashes (1,067)
All Injury Crashes (1,073)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (515)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (176)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (208)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe— especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here are the Countywide crashes in dark conditions:
236
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 45

STATE HIGHWAYS IN SAN MATEO
COUNTY
State Highways are some of the most critical interjurisdictional facilities across the C/CAG region. They connect multiple jurisdictions; move high volumes of people across many travel modes; serve critical freight needs; and in some communities serve as high-activity walking, biking, and commercial corridors.

Any planning and project development requires cross-jurisdictional coordination.

The County includes the at-grade State Highways which run through the jurisdictions shown in Table 7.

Table 7. San Mateo County State Highways and Local Jurisdictions Local
Jurisdictions
At-Grade State Routes Freeways
1 35
(Skyline
Blvd)
82 (El
Camino
Real) 84
92 (Half
Moon
Bay Rd)
109
(University
Ave)
114
(Willow
Rd)
US
101 I-280 I-380
Atherton X
Belmont X X
Brisbane X
Burlingame X X X
Colma X X
Daly City X X X X
East Palo Alto X X X
Foster City X
Half Moon Bay X X X
Hillsborough X X
Menlo Park X X X X X X
Millbrae X X X
Pacifica X X
Portola Valley
Redwood City X X X
San Bruno X X X X X
San Carlos X X
San Mateo X X X
237
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 46
Local
Jurisdictions
At-Grade State Routes Freeways
1 35
(Skyline
Blvd)
82 (El
Camino
Real) 84
92 (Half
Moon
Bay Rd)
109
(University
Ave)
114
(Willow
Rd)
US
101 I-280 I-380
South San
Francisco

X X X X
Unincorporated
County

X X X X X X
Woodside X X X
Total 3 4 13 5 3 2 2 12 11 1
Safety on At-Grade State Highways
At-grade State Highways serve a high volume of traffic to, though, and within San Mateo County. As a result, they account for a considerable share of countywide crashes.

Table 8 provides a breakdown of reported non-freeway crashes from 2018 to 2022 in the County and a share occurring within each jurisdiction on the State Highway network. Overall, the State Highway network accounted for 43 percent of at-grade crashes within the County and was as high as 77 percent within any jurisdiction.

The following jurisdictions showed the highest variation from that share:
 Brisbane (contains no at-grade State Highways): 100 percent local  Portola Valley (SR 35 defines the southwestern boundary, but otherwise contains no at-grade State Highways): 100 percent local
 Hillsborough: 100 percent local
 Half Moon Bay: 23 percent local
 Unincorporated: 37 percent local
 Woodside: 39 percent local
238
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 47
Table 8. Injury/Fatal Crashes by Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Jurisdiction Count
State Highway
Crashes
Percent (%)
State Highway
Crashes
Local
Roadway
Crashes
Percent (%)
Local
Roadway
Crashes
Atherton 121 36 30% 85 70%
Belmont 244 66 29% 178 71%
Brisbane 69 - 0% 69 100%
Burlingame 267 90 30% 177 70%
Colma 11 3 59% 8 41%
Daly City 863 143 29% 720 71%
East Palo Alto 458 150 33% 308 67%
Foster City 150 7 29% 143 71%
Half Moon Bay 145 116 77% 29 23%
Hillsborough 38 - 0% 38 100%
Menlo Park 542 188 33% 354 67%
Millbrae 230 94 38% 136 62%
Pacifica 394 141 56% 253 44%
Portola Valley 39 - 0% 39 100%
Redwood City 1,137 295 26% 842 74%
San Bruno 412 171 36% 241 64%
San Carlos 281 48 18% 233 82%
San Mateo 869 176 29% 693 71%
South San Francisco 866 168 17% 698 83%
Unincorporated 1,147 704 61% 443 39%
Woodside 185 111 61% 74 39%
Total 8,468 2,712 43% 5,756 57%
Source: TIMS 2023
239
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 48
Existing Plans and Directives to Improve Safety
Caltrans has already taken steps to address safety on at-grade State Highways in San Mateo County, as included in the following documents, discussed in more detail below:
• Director’s Policy 36: Road Safety
• Road Safety Action Plan 2023-24
• District 4 Bike Plan
• District 4 Pedestrian Plan
CALTRANS DIRECTOR’S POLICY 36: ROAD SAFETY – ESTABLISHES THE VZ

COMMITMENT
Director’s Policy 36, issued in February 2022, establishes a vision for Caltrans to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries (F+SIs) on California’s roadways by 2050.20F
29 The statement includes the following intended results:
• “….to establish a corporate expectation to prioritize safety in order to achieve its goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries by 2050.”
• “All Divisions shall align their programs, plans, policies, procedures, and practices with the Safe System Approach as appropriate to their division.”
• This statement includes a commitment to:
• A safety first mindset
• Prioritize eliminating F+SIs through existing programs and the development of new programs. • Eliminate race-, age-, ability- and mode-based disparities in road safety outcomes.

The policy statement also formally adopts the Safe System Approach, which aligns with this Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan.

CALTRANS ROAD SAFETY ACTION PLAN 2023-24
The Caltrans Road Safety Action Plan 2023-24 lays out a coordinated plan to support Caltrans’ goal of eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes by 2050.21F 30 Importantly, the Plan includes the following actions relevant to this Countywide LRSP.
29 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/policy/dp_36-a11y.pdf 30 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/safety/road-safetyaction-plan-2023-24-a11y.pdf 240
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 49
Table 9. Caltrans SAP Actions Related to LRSP
Action Relevance to this Plan

1.5 Propose to extend Caltrans’ delegation to
approve proactive safety projects in addition
to reactive projects.

This plan includes countywide and jurisdiction-specific priority locations identified through a combination of
reactive and proactive measures. C/CAG and local
jurisdictions will look for opportunities to coordinate with Caltrans to identify proactive safety projects (i.e., the locations may not have risen to the top of Caltrans’ own prioritization process).

2.1 Develop best-practice guidance to
improve the safety of pedestrians and
bicyclists on the State Highway System.

This plan includes a list of context-appropriate
recommended countermeasures, including for pedestrians
and bicyclists, for each jurisdiction to improve safety. This list of countermeasures aligns with the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, and jurisdictions may cross check available countermeasures against forthcoming Caltrans bestpractice guidance to identify alignment and, therefore, opportunities to coordinate on projects.

3.1 Develop a statewide inventory of safety
devices to support proactive safety initiatives
and create a framework to extend the
database to include additional roadside
safety features.

DISTRICT 4 BIKE PLAN
The 2018 District 4 Bike Plan includes a list of top tier bicyclist/pedestrian projects on Caltrans facilities.22F 31 The
plan includes over 100 bicycle/pedestrian projects on Caltrans facilities based on how they address safety, mobility, and/or equity. Many of these projects are located on at-grade State Highways. Those are included as an attachment. For those that have not yet been implemented, Caltrans and the relevant jurisdictions will use the advisory group to be formed as a recommendation from this plan to coordinate and bring forward pathways to implementation.

DISTRICT 4 PEDESTRIAN PLAN
The 2021 District 4 Pedestrian Plan includes an assessment of walking conditions and a tiered ranking of priority highway segments and crossings for pedestrian improvements.23F 32 The plan also includes recommendations for
local coordination to advance pedestrian projects.

Improvements to Date in the County
Local jurisdictions have successfully partnered with Caltrans to bring forward safety projects on State Highways in the County. The following projects can serve as a model for cross-jurisdictional coordination in the name of safety improvements:
 Town of Colma – El Camino Real
31 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-4/documents/d4-bikeplan/caltransd4bikeplan_report_lowres-r6.pdf 32 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/activetransportation-complete-streets/district4-finalreport-a11y.pdf 241
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 50
The Town of Colma worked closely with Caltrans to develop the 2021 El Camino Real Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Plan which proposes a series of projects along the corridor along with potential funding sources.24F
33 The Town has successfully received SMCTA and OBAG funding to improve the El Camino Real/Mission Road intersection as a result of this plan. The Town is continuing to look for funding and implementation opportunities.
 South San Francisco El Camino Real
The City of South San Francisco has teamed with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, the San Mateo County Office of Education, and the Silicon Valley Bike Coalition to install a demonstration project along a 0.3-mile stretch of El Camino Real. The project includes a class IV separated bike lane, a newly striped crosswalk, and a boarding platform for SamTrans buses. The project proceeded with Caltrans coordination.

Caltrans Recommendations and Actions
Given the nature and scale of crash history along at-grade State Highways, and in light of C/CAG’s and Caltrans’ Vision Zero commitment, Caltrans will participate in the recommended County Safety Advisory Group and will work with the group to achieve the following outcomes:
• Consult the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan and Pedestrian Plan Project list to further advance projects not yet funded.
• Develop a list of safety treatments or project types meeting each of the following three criteria:
– “Caltrans maintained” – Local jurisdictions would be able to install these treatments provided they reach agreement with Caltrans for Caltrans to maintain the treatments. – “Locally maintained” – Local jurisdictions would be able to install these treatments and would be required to maintain on at-grade State Highways without the need for a maintenance agreement. – “Coordination required” – Caltrans would be generally supportive of such a project, but some maintenance details would need to be negotiated.
• Develop a template or exemplar for a maintenance agreement that agencies can use in an “off-the-shelf” fashion to more easily advance safety projects in partnership with Caltrans. • Caltrans will proactively identify when projects are moving into certain project development phases or project streams, to provide the opportunity for local jurisdiction input and coordination to improve safety. • Caltrans will listen to input and help shape areas of need and project opportunity countywide, including proactive safety projects.
33 Available online at https://www.colma.ca.gov/documents/ecr-improvement-plan/ 242
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 51

SAFE SYSTEM-ALIGNED

RECOMMENDATIONS
This section offers engineering recommendations, which include physical countermeasures to be implemented onto roadways, as well as policy and program recommendations, which work to increase safe travel behavior in roadway users through action-based outreach, strategic funding, and equitable prioritization of resources.

Each individual recommendation is designed to bring the Countywide roadway network and its users into better alignment with the values and practices of the Safe System Approach. When implemented in tandem, however, these twin tracks of recommendations will create the holistic, layered protection in the Countywide roadway network that the Safe System Approach requires.

Engineering
C/CAG does not own any local roadways and therefore will not design, implement, or maintain engineering countermeasures. However, through this project it has coordinated with the participating jurisdictions to develop lists of city- or town-approved countermeasures. The following table presents the cumulative list of countermeasures developed among agencies
243
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 52
Table 10: Engineering Countermeasures
Location
Type [1]
Countermeasure Crash Types Cost
All Lighting [2] Nighttime $$
All Roadside Design Features [4] All Varies
SI Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number [2]
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections $
SI Install left-turn lane and add turn phase [2] Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $-$$
SI Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) [2] Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $$$
SI Install raised median on approaches [2] Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and Uturns (signalized intersection) [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized
Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install raised pavement markers and striping [2] Wet, Night, all $ SI Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) [2] read-end, broadside $$$ SI No Right Turn on Red (RTOR) Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Centerline Hardening or Continuous Raised Median [3] All crashes $ SI Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) [2] Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $$$
SI Install pedestrian countdown signal heads [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install pedestrian crossing [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
244
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 53
Location
Type [1]
Countermeasure Crash Types Cost
SI Install pedestrian scramble [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install Bicycle Box [2] Bicyclist Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install painted safety zone Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install Protected Intersection Elements Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Extend pedestrian crossing time Pedestrian $
SI Pedestrian Phase Recall Pedestrian $
SI Extend green time for bikes Bikes $
SI Extend Yellow and All Red Time All $
SI Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint) Bikes $
SI Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase Bikes $
SI ADA-compliant directional curb ramps and audible push buttons Pedestrian $ SI,UI Splitter Islands [4] All $
SI,UI Approach Curvature [4] All Varies
SI,UI Curb Radius Reduction [3] All $-$$
245
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 54
Location
Type [1]
Countermeasure Crash Types Cost
UI Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) [2] All $$$ UI Convert intersection to roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road) [2] All $$$
UI Convert intersection to mini-roundabout [2] All $$$
UI Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and uturns (unsignalized intersections) [2] All $ UI Install raised medians (refuge islands) [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $ UI Install pedestrian crossings (signs and markings only) [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $ UI Install pedestrian crossings (with enhanced safety features) [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $$$ UI Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning or regulatory signs [2]
Rear-end, right-angle, or
turning crashes related to lack
of driver awareness
$
UI Install flashing beacons at stop-controlled intersection [2] Broadside, Rear-end $$$ UI Install Pedestrian Signal, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon [2] Pedestrian and Bicycle $$$
UI Install transverse rumble strips on approaches [2] All $ UI Install splitter islands on the minor road approaches [2] All $ UI Curb Extensions All $
UI,SI Splitter Islands [4] All $
UI,SI Approach Curvature [4] All Varies
246
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 55
Location
Type [1]
Countermeasure Crash Types Cost
UI,SI Curb Radius Reduction [3] All $-$$
R Road diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) [2] All Varies
R Corridor access management [2] Varies
R Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes [2] All Varies R Install separated bike lanes [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $$$ R Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $$$ R Install raised pedestrian crossing [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $ R Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone [2] Hit Object Varies R Install delineators, reflectors and/or object marker [2] All $ R Install/upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) [2] All $
R Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs [2] Driver Behavior Varies R Lane Narrowing All $
1: UI = Unsignalized Intersection; SI = Signalized Intersection; R = Roadway segments; All = All of the above Sources: [2] Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (2022); [3] NCHRP Report 926; [4] NCHRP Report 613 $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000 247
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 56
Policy and Program
Based on the goals, existing conditions, and opportunities identified in the development of this plan, this section identifies categories of actions C/CAG and identified partners can take to support LRSP implementation. The recommendations fall into a few categories, as shown in Table 11.

The recommendations are described in more detail following the table, and Table 12 on page 62 provides a list of recommendations and partner roles.

Table 11. Recommendations and Categories
Category Near-Term
Recommendations
Ongoing
Recommendations
Long-Term or Ongoing
Recommendations
Organize (O) O1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee O2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Educate (E) E1: Best Practices Training
E2: Law Enforcement Training
E3: Technical Assistance for Safety Education in Schools E4: Communication Protocol
Coordinate
(C)
C1: AB413 Implementation C2: Safe System Enabling
Legislation
C3: Graduated Traffic Fine
Structure
Fund (F) F1: Dedicated Funding F2: Equitable Investment F3: Prioritize Investments
F4: Identify Targeted Enforcement Funding
Research (R) R1: Safety and Equity Impacts
Evaluation
R2: Data Quality Improvements
R3: Crash Data Enhancements
R4: Big Data
Plan (P) P1: Safe Routes to School
P2: Annual Review
P3: Plan Update
248
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 57

ORGANIZE
O1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee
Convene the Plan’s Advisory Group as the newly-established San Mateo County Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) to coordinate on safety plan implementation and discuss relevant safety topics in the region, like enforcement coordination and AVs. The TSAC will include seats for the agencies listed in this table and will identify additional seats dedicated to representatives of equity priority communities, vulnerable road users, youth, older adults, parents of school-age children, local businesses, traffic violence victim families, etc.

The TSAC will include representation from Caltrans to allow coordination on State Highway locations in the County. As a member of the TSAC, Caltrans will proactively identify when projects are moving into certain project development phases or project streams, to provide the opportunity for local jurisdiction input and coordination to improve safety. Caltrans will also listen to input and help shape areas of need and project opportunity countywide, including proactive safety projects.

Convene meetings quarterly. Expected agenda topics include (but are not limited to):
• Scheduling and developing and approach for interim evaluations and updated plans (at the jurisdiction and county level)
• Tracking and coordinating funding opportunities, especially where cross-jurisdiction collaboration is desirable
• Keeping agencies apprised of Caltrans, MTC, USDOT, SMCTA, and other funding guidelines and requirements
• Prioritizing items among the remaining recommendations within this plan Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Constituent jurisdictions, County Public Health, Sustainability Department, County Office of Education, SMCTA, California Highway Patrol, MTC, SVBC, Caltrans, County Sheriff’s Office, BART O2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Conduct a safety media campaign. This may be exclusively a media campaign to raise awareness about the emphasis areas identified in this plan, or this may be a high-visibility enforcement campaign. If the latter, the campaign includes dedicated law enforcement with media supporting the enforcement activity to ensure public awareness. Potential communication tools:
 Bus ads
 Social media
 Text messages
Lead agency: County Public Health
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff's Office, California Highway Patrol, Sustainability Department, San Mateo County Office of Education

EDUCATE
E1: Best Practices Training
Through the TSAC, convene best practices training to keep local jurisdictions informed of state-of-the art practices related to safety planning and implementation. Example education session topics may include: (1) support for developing competitive grant applications, (2) share safety best practices including updated safety countermeasure recommendations, (3) training on available data sources. 249
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 58
C/CAG will organize and schedule the workshops and will seek assistance from MTC and Caltrans in identifying relevant topics and training resources (especially related to grant-related topics).

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: MTC, Caltrans, constituent jurisdictions E2: Law Enforcement Training
Integrate safety into training for new officers (e.g., NHTSA’s pedestrian training for law enforcement).

Lead agency: County Sheriff’s Office
Coordinating partners: California Highway Patrol
E3: Technical Assistance for Safety Education in Schools Continue to fund School Travel Fellowship Program to provide the following:
• technical assistance to schools and planners to implement roadway safety demonstration projects • ATP Project Specialist to work with educators to provide technical assistance (bike rodeos, parent engagement workshops and resources, walk and bike audits, and additional support for walk/bike to school encouragement events) to schools in EPCs
Lead agency: San Mateo County Office of Education
Coordinating partners: C/CAG, County Public Health, Sustainability Department, SVBC E4: Communication Protocol
Adopt and develop safety-related communication protocols in coordination with the TSAC. The protocols will promote consistent public communication regarding language usage and statements related to transportation safety. Encourage language in line with Vision Zero and Safe System principles that acknowledges mistakes are inevitable but death and severe injury are preventable. For example, promote use of the word crash rather than accident to emphasize shared responsibility.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Constituent jurisdictions

COORDINATE
C1: AB413 Implementation
Coordinate among jurisdictions through the TSAC to provide an implementation pathway for Assembly Bill 413, which prohibits the stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle within 20 feet of the approach of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, or 15 feet where a curb extension is present. Prior to January 1, 2025, jurisdictions may only issue warnings unless the violation occurred where red paint or signage prohibits the stopping, standing, or parking.

Communicating and enforcing AB413 presents logistical challenges for local jurisdictions, but through the TSAC they may prepare common and individualized implementation pathways.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Constituent jurisdictions
C2: Safe System Enabling Legislation
Consider advocating for legislation that could support the Safe System Approach—for example, authorization to implement automated enforcement. Include public engagement and input from constituent jurisdictions while the implementation of Assembly Bill 645 brings speed cameras to Glendale, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Jose, and San Francisco.
250
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 59
Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: MTC, Caltrans, California Transportation Commission (CTC) C3: Graduated Traffic Fine Structure
Through legislative agenda, consider advocating for an income-based graduated traffic fine structure at the state level, so fines do not disproportionately impact people with lower incomes. Such a change would allow traffic enforcement to occur where necessary while tempering disproportionate burdens.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: TSAC members
FUND
F1: Dedicated Funding
Propose ongoing, dedicated funding and staffing for implementation and monitoring of the safety plan, including presiding over the TSAC. This role may be fulfilled by a partial FTE or through staff augmentation.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: SMCTA, MTC, Caltrans, CTC
F2: Equitable Investment
Prioritize investments in disadvantaged communities. Include social equity criteria in scoring when making funding available. Consider using a combination of indices in allowing local agencies to identify disadvantaged communities. For example, consider including C/CAG Equity Focus Areas, MTC Equity Priority Communities, USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities, USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty, and other relevant indices subsequently developed locally, regionally, or federally.

Lead agency: C/CAG
F3: Prioritize Investments
Incorporate the regional High Injury Network and local jurisdictions’ prioritized locations when allocating and scoring funding opportunities for local jurisdictions. (This includes identified locations for the 11 jurisdictions with safety plan updates as part of the regional LRSP and for the ten jurisdictions not included in this plan document.) Award points or a similar priority mechanism for projects that improve conditions in these identified locations. Stipulate community engagement requirements for projects receiving funding.

Lead agencies: C/CAG, SMCTA
F4: Identify Targeted Enforcement Funding
Identify grant opportunities to expand targeted traffic enforcement of emphasis areas or other targeted behaviors associated with fatal/severe injury outcomes. Local jurisdictions lack discretion over law enforcement priorities and some cities who contract with the County Sheriff’s Office would benefit from additional resource allocation dedicated specifically to target behaviors. One such funding opportunity would be through the California Office of Traffic Safety, which has a grant program related to priority program areas provided documented crash data are available: alcohol impaired driving, distracted driving, drug-impaired driving, emergency medical services, motorcycle safety, occupant protection, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and police traffic services.

Lead agency: C/CAG, SMCTA
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff’s Office
251
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 60

RESEARCH
R1: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation
Conduct a study to address traffic injury and enforcement inequities to inform policies, projects, programs, and needed data quality improvements. Solicit feedback on the report's equity analysis from groups representing equity priority communities. Topics for the study may include injury burdens related to homelessness, race/ethnicity, language, income, and immigration status, citations by demographics, citation type, and location.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: MTC, County Sheriff’s Office
R2: Data Quality Improvements
Conduct one or more studies and/or convene working groups to address the following challenges:
• Integrating hospital and police data
• Providing a means to collect and incorporate near-miss data into safety analysis • Collecting and incorporating crash data where AVs are involved • Developing a consistent countywide crash database that would prevent the time lag present in SWITRS, provide accurate and timely monitoring of crashes and allow monitoring of injury trends over time.

Some agencies have successfully used video-based conflict monitoring algorithms to capture near-miss information at select locations. The techniques show promise for identifying conflicts that correlate to crashes, but the ability to scale the technology is still unclear.34 Funding may be available through the California Office of Traffic Safety grant program, which lists Roadway Safety and Traffic Records as a category among its priority program areas.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: County Public Health, County Sheriff’s Office, constituent jurisdictions, local police departments
R3: Crash Data Enhancements
Study integrating crash data with Police Department's tracking system for timely, efficient reporting and sharing of injury crashes, including geolocated data. Review current crash data form and study existing best practices.

Consider adding select visible disability statuses to the crash data form. If feasible and prudent, add this field to the crash data form.

Lead agency: County Sheriff’s Office
Coordinating partners: California Highway Patrol, C/CAG, MTC R4: Big Data
Identify a pathway for obtaining and incorporating integrated curb-level activity data including volumes, paths, speeds, and behaviors of pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, etc. These data are available from a number of big data sources on the market. The goal would be to enable improved data availability for safety planning.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: MTC, SMCTA, Constituent Jurisdictions 34 For example, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation evaluated the technology as part of its SMART intersections project. More information is available online at https://www.penndot.pa.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/Planning/Research-AndImplementation/Documents/Smart%20Intersections.pdf 252
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 61
PLAN
P1: Safe Routes to School
Continue to conduct school safety assessments at all public and private schools, develop implementation plans for improvements up to one quarter mile from the schools.

Lead agency: San Mateo County Office of Education
P2: Annual review
Provide an annual review of plan implementation progress. This review includes an update and presentation to the C/CAG board and information posted on the C/CAG website.

Lead agency: C/CAG
P3: Plan Update
Update the plan within five years of publication and approximately every subsequent five years. The plan update will revise actions to reflect current crash trends and will integrate technological advancements and changes in best practices as needed.

Alternately, coordinate with all 21 jurisdictions to see that local plans are pursued and updated consistent with best practices within the five-year timeframe.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Constituent jurisdictions
253
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 62
Table 12: Policy/Program Recommendations and Partner Roles Recommendation
Agency Involvement (L = Lead; P = Participate)
C/CAGCalifornia Highway PatrolCaltransConstituent JursidictionsCounty Office of EducationCounty Public HealthCounty Sheriff’ s Office Sustainability DepartmentMTCSMCTASVBC O1: Transportation Safety Advisory
Committee

L P P P P P P P P P P
O2: High-Visibility Media Campaign P P L P P
E1: Best Practices Training L P P P
E2: Law Enforcement Training P L
E3: Technical Assistance for Safety
Education in Schools

L P P P
E4: Communication Protocol L P
C1: AB413 Implementation
C2: Safe System Enabling Legislation L P P
C3: Graduated Traffic Fine Structure L P P P P P P P P P P F1: Dedicated Funding L P P P
F2: Prioritize Investments L P
F3: Equitable Investment L
F4: Identify Targeted Enforcement Funding L L
R1: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation L P
R2: Data Quality Improvements L P P P
R3: Crash Data Enhancements P P L P
R4: Big Data L P P
P1: Safe Routes to School P L
P2: Annual Review L P
P3: Plan Update L P
254
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 63

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
The spatial HIN analysis identified the regionally highest-crash locations by frequency and severity. Based on that work and the accompanying systemic analysis, the plan development team worked with participating jurisdictions to identify priority project locations. The methodology and jurisdiction-specific results are included as Appendix D.

For those jurisdictions, the prioritization used the following three factors:
• Crash history – used to identify the locations with the highest reported five-year crash frequency and severity.
• Social equity – used to identify locations where projects would benefit disadvantaged populations and align with future grant funding opportunities that emphasize social equity. • Systemic factors – used to identify locations that have roadway and land use characteristics associated with crash frequency and severity. Using systemic factors emphasizes a proactive rather than purely reactive approach. Each factor was weighted relative to the other factors based on the average severity of relevant crashes (for example, if pedestrian crashes on arterials/collectors were overall twice as severe as pedestrian crashes at unsignalized intersections overall, then the former would be weighted twice the latter).

In line with this plan’s goals, C/CAG supports the development of safety projects and solutions along countywide HIN corridors or along subsequently identified project priority locations. For the 11 participating jurisdictions, those remaining priority locations are included in subsequent chapters. For the 10 jurisdictions with existing or developing plans, refer to those plans documents for identified priority project locations.

This plan places particular emphasis on locations where projects could provide safety benefits to disadvantaged neighborhoods. Accordingly, Table 13 and Table 14 provide summary statistics on the mileage of the Countywide HIN by modal emphasis and by the jurisdictions they are located within. The tables also provide the percentage of each HIN corridor that passes through identified social equity areas:
• C/CAG Equity Focus Areas, as defined in the C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. • MTC Equity Priority Communities (formerly called “Communities of Concern”) as guided by MTC’s Equity Platform.
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty, as defined by the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) developed by the Council on Environmental Quality.
• USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities, as defined by the CEJST.

This plan identifies the following emphasis areas which local agencies may use to define systemic treatments for safety problems town- or city-wide, or to further screen locations among those on the Countywide HIN or on their priority project lists.

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety

2. Nighttime/low light safety

3. Unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors

4. Vulnerable age groups (youth and aging)

5. Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes

6. High speed roadways (35+mph)

7. Alcohol involvement
255
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 64
Table 13: Local HIN Segments by Mode, Jurisdiction, and Social Equity Neighborhoods Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Total 87.7 70.8 167.7 231.7 3.4 5.4 4.2 9.1 2.2 24.4 8.5 5.5 2.2 0.0 11.5 5.4 6.7 5.7 27.2 10.0 11.6 25.4 30.9 36.4 5.6 2nd 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 554 0.6 89% 29%
3rd 1.8 0.0 0.7 1.8 569 0.7 1.1 28% 18%
42nd 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 339 0.7 100%
4th 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 384 0.4 100%
5th 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 571 1.1 45% 29%
87th 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 352 0.3 1.0 87% 78%
9th 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 389 0.8 64%
Adams 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 499 0.1 100% 100%
Airport 2.6 0.0 2.9 3.0 991 3.0 93% 97% 57%
Alameda De Las Pulgas 2.0 3.5 1.7 6.7 732 1.0 0.3 0.5 1.6 3.0 0.7 Alpine 0.0 4.5 3.0 7.5 628 0.5 3.3 4.1 15%
Amphlett 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 572 0.1 1.5 100% 20%
Avalon 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 264 0.1 1.0 74%
Baden 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.3 1,075 1.3 8% 100% 100%
Bay 1.8 0.0 3.3 3.3 1,051 1.8 0.7 1.2 27% 55% 100% 70%
Bayshore 2.0 0.8 4.7 4.7 1,177 2.7 0.3 1.7 0.1 9% 37% 31% Beech 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 601 0.2 100% 100%
Belmont 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 268 0.6
Brewster 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 527 1.5
256
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 65
Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Brittan 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 1,383 1.4
Broadway 3.3 2.4 3.2 3.8 1,647 1.3 2.5 37% 8% 42% 34%
California 0.0 2.5 1.3 2.5 789 2.5 0.1 48%
Canada 0.0 6.3 3.2 7.1 554 5.5 1.7
Capitol 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 506 0.2 100% 100%
Carlos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 352 0.0
Chester 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 407 0.4 0.1 68%
Chestnut 0.9 0.8 1.4 1.8 714 0.8 0.9 0.0 35% 63% 65%
Claremont 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 275 1.2 58% 33% 17%
Clarke 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 286 0.3 100% 100%
Coast 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 1,067 1.4
Commercial 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 686 1.3 94% 94%
Crocker 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 418 1.1 61%
Crystal Springs 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 400 1.1 9% 9%
Cypress 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 231 0.5 43% 100% 100%
Delaware 2.3 1.4 1.1 3.6 569 3.6 11% 39% 9%
Donohoe 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 888 0.5 100% 100%
Dwight 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 448 0.6 0.1
Eastmoor 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 737 0.7 85% 85%
Edgewood 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 635 2.5
Eucalyptus 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 488 0.5 55% 82%
257
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 66
Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Farm Hill 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 565 1.4 0.5
Foster City 1.7 0.0 1.2 1.7 678 1.7
Gellert 1.2 0.0 2.7 2.7 527 1.7 1.1 33%
Geneva 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 1,241 0.8 100% 13% 100%
Grand 1.9 1.8 3.4 3.4 1,347 3.4 50% 89% 48%
Grant 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 356 0.6 71% 35%
Guadalupe Canyon 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 719 0.1 0.4 2.2 8%
Harvey 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 829 0.1
Haven 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 275 0.3 100% 100%
Hickey 1.3 0.0 2.8 2.8 759 1.9 0.9 0.2 18% 18% 25%
Hillcrest 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 329 0.4 100%
Hillsdale 3.1 2.6 2.4 3.9 953 1.9 2.1 13% 18%
Hillside 1.4 0.0 1.9 3.3 531 0.7 1.2 1.1 0.5 14% 46%
Holly 0.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 713 0.2 0.9 20%
Hopkins 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 461 1.3
Howard 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 536 1.1 0.1 9%
Hudson 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 385 1.4 71% 43%
Humboldt 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 2,172 0.4 1.7 20% 85% 15%
Huntington 1.1 1.0 0.0 1.2 758 1.0 0.3 28% 60% 60%
Industrial 1.7 0.0 2.4 2.4 881 0.5 2.0
James 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 361 1.2
258
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 67
Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Jefferson 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.7 942 1.7 35% 24%
Jenevein 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 494 0.8 13% 49%
John Daly 1.8 0.0 1.9 1.9 1,152 1.9 32% 32% 11% 32%
Junipero Serra 2.0 1.6 5.4 5.8 935 1.3 1.7 3.1 9% 27%
King 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 785 1.3 0.0 0.1 82%
Kings Mountain 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 528 2.1 1.7
Laurel 1.5 1.0 0.0 2.5 406 0.2 1.0 1.5
Lincoln 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 668 0.5 100% 76%
Linda Mar 1.1 1.6 1.9 1.9 880 1.9 21%
Linden 1.6 0.0 1.8 1.8 1,195 0.1 1.8 83% 100% 100%
Lyall 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 246 0.3
Magnolia 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 454 0.3 1.3 13% 47%
Main 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 451 1.1 0.9 31% 75%
Maple 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.9 889 1.2 0.7 26% 16% 79% 74%
Market 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 356 0.8 91%
Marsh 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 543 0.4 0.7 0.5 47% 47% 38%
Menlo 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 449 0.3
Metro Center 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 361 0.7
Middle 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 416 1.1
Middlefield 2.2 2.2 3.8 3.8 2,166 1.2 0.6 1.5 1.0 26% 8% 39% 24% Millbrae 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 878 1.5 39% 20%
259
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 68
Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Miller 1.3 0.0 1.1 1.3 682 1.3 23% 45%
Mission 1.9 0.0 1.9 1.9 1,062 1.8 0.2 5% 68%
Newbridge 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,089 0.4 0.7 70% 100% 100%
Norfolk 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.9 384 1.9 9%
Oak Grove 1.1 1.2 0.0 1.2 527 0.4 0.9
O'Connor 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 319 0.6 100% 72%
Old Bayshore 1.3 0.0 1.4 1.4 815 1.2 0.3 85%
Old Canada 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 606 1.1
Old County 0.0 1.9 3.4 3.4 884 1.2 0.1 2.2 0.3
Old Page Mill 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 393 0.5 100%
Orange 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 330 1.0 60% 80% 70%
Oyster Point 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 482 1.1 100% 100% 9%
Palmetto 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1 635 2.1
Park Plaza 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 362 0.4 100% 100% 100% 100%
Peninsula 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1,101 0.1 1.0 10%
Pescadero Creek 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 341 1.4 100%
Poplar 1.4 0.0 0.9 1.4 1,361 1.4 37%
Portola 0.0 4.2 2.4 4.2 1,277 2.4 0.4 1.7
Price 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 264 0.8 0.1 93%
Pulgas 1.3 0.0 1.5 1.5 862 1.5 13% 100% 20%
Railroad 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 253 0.7 41% 100% 100%
260
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 69
Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Ralston 0.0 2.5 3.5 3.5 488 3.5 0.1
Randolph 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 539 0.8 38% 38%
Ravenswood 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 580 0.2 0.6
Redwood Shores 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 444 2.0 35%
Rollins 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4 407 2.4 0.1 38% 4%
Roosevelt 0.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 429 1.2 58% 33%
Runnymede 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 449 0.9 100% 86%
San Anselmo 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 363 0.4 0.6 68% 21%
San Bruno 1.7 0.0 0.8 1.7 1,940 1.7 23% 23%
San Carlos 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 471 1.4
San Marco 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 356 0.0 100%
San Mateo 1.4 0.0 9.8 9.8 1,101 1.1 1.4 1.2 0.6 5.6 10% 13% 34% San Pedro 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 839 0.5 16% 100%
Sand Hill 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.6 734 1.1 1.7 4%
Santa Cruz 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 503 1.6
Santa Domingo 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 532 0.0 100%
Santa Inez 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 499 0.3
Scofield 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 374 0.1 100% 100%
Sequoia 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 363 0.4 0.6 64%
Serramonte 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 253 0.1 1.0 33% 33% 33%
Sharp Park 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1 858 1.6 0.6 69%
261
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 70
Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Shell 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 641 1.1
Sierra Point 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 352 1.4
Sister Cities 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 570 0.9 11%
Sneath 1.0 0.0 1.3 1.8 418 1.8 5%
Southgate 3.1 0.0 2.7 3.1 792 0.1 3.1 10% 52% 26% 61%
Spruce 1.7 0.0 1.7 1.7 817 1.7 60% 72% 84%
Stafford 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 11 0.4 0.1
Sullivan 0.5 0.0 1.3 1.3 781 1.2 0.2 100% 1% 100%
Tilton 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.8 758 0.8 43% 69%
Valota 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 395 1.2
Veterans 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.7 877 1.7 17% 17%
Walnut 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 235 0.3 25% 63% 63%
Washington 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.9 758 0.4 0.6 89% 43%
Westborough 1.8 0.0 2.7 2.7 1,501 0.1 2.3 1.2 64%
Westmoor 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 396 0.4 75% 100%
Whipple 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 1,057 1.8
Willow 0.0 2.3 1.8 2.3 504 0.5 2.1 25% 43% 43%
Winslow 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 330 0.8
262
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 71
Table 14: State Highway HIN Segments by Mode, Jurisdiction, and Social Equity Neighborhoods Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Total 15.2 27.1 120.1 122.6 3.4 5.4 4.2 9.1 2.2 24.4 8.5 5.5 2.2 0.0 11.5 5.4 6.7 5.7 27.2 10.0 11.6 25.4 30.9 36.2 5.6 El Camino Real 10.2 9.3 23.2 23.5 2,670 1.5 1.6 3.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.5 2.1 2.0 4.3 2.9 0.8 17% 13% 18% Golf Course 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 246 0.2
John Daly 1.8 0.0 1.9 1.9 1,152 1.9 32% 32% 11% 32%
La Honda 0.0 1.1 13.7 14.0 1,874 10.5 3.5 59%
Marsh 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 543 0.4 0.7 0.5 47% 47% 38%
Mission 1.9 0.0 1.9 1.9 1,062 1.8 0.2 5% 68%
San Jose 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 279 0.2 100%
San Mateo 1.4 0.0 9.8 9.8 1,101 1.1 1.4 1.2 0.6 5.6 10% 13% 34% Skyline 0.0 3.0 24.2 25.3 1,160 7.0 2.5 2.3 0.6 14.8 0.5 24% 6% 15% State Highway 1 0.0 4.2 26.7 26.7 1,511 5.3 5.4 16.8 34% 16% State Highway 84 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6 658 2.2 0.4 83% 83% 4% State Highway 92 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 844 0.1 1.7
Tom Lanos Tunnel 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.2 407 2.2
University 0.0 2.1 1.8 2.1 2,597 1.7 0.5 56% 100% 100%
Willow 0.0 2.3 1.8 2.3 504 0.5 2.1 25% 43% 43%
Woodside 0.0 5.2 6.9 7.0 1,666 3.1 0.5 3.6 11% 23% 8%
263
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 72
SamTrans Bus Stop Prioritization
The plan development team analyzed bus stop data provided by SamTrans to identify correlation of roadway and intersection risk factors with crash history around high-ridership bus stops. Systemic roadway and intersection characteristics were identified and used to develop a priority list of bus stops for SamTrans. The detailed methodology and results are included in Appendix E. Table 15 presents the priority bus stop locations as they relate to pedestrian and bicycle crash history, equity, and systemic risk factors. 264
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 73
Table 15. Priority Bus Stop Locations for Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements

RANK STOP ID STOP LOCATION JURISDICTION

CRASH HISTORY EQUITY SYSTEMIC CHARACTERISTICS
TOTAL
SCORE
(0-1)
Ped & Bike
Crash
Severity
Score
(0-432)
Ped HIN Bike HIN Ped & Bike Crash
History Score
(Normalized 0-1)
Equity
Score (0-1)
Uncontrolled
Location
(0-1)
Absence of
Sidewalks
(0-1)
> 35 MPH
(0-1)
Char. Score
(Normalized 0-1)
1 344658 Jefferson Ave at Adams St Redwood City 235 1 1 1.27 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.97 2 344657 Jefferson Ave at Adams St Redwood City 224 1 1 1.26 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.97 3 344086 El Camino Real & Lincoln Ave Redwood City 219 1 1 1.25 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.96 4 344095 El Camino Real & Winklebleck St Redwood City 202 1 1 1.23 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.96 5 344203 Middlefield Rd & Dumbarton Ave North Fair Oaks 399 1 1 1.46 1 1 0 0 0.33 0.92 6 344204 Middlefield Rd & Dumbarton Ave North Fair Oaks 399 1 1 1.46 1 1 0 0 0.33 0.92 7 344207 Middlefield Rd & Flynn Ave Redwood City 28 1 1 1.03 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.89 8 341111 N Delaware St & Tilton Ave San Mateo 22 1 1 1.03 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.89 9 344087 El Camino Real & Main St Redwood City 22 1 1 1.03 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.89 10 351002 3745 Bayshore Blvd-Andrys Trailer Park Brisbane 165 1 0 0.69 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.89 11 344085 El Camino Real & Jefferson Ave Redwood City 11 1 1 1.01 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 12 344195 Middlefield Rd & Cassia St Redwood City 0 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 13 344196 Middlefield Rd & Elm St Redwood City 0 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 14 344659 Jefferson Ave at Grand St Redwood City 0 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 15 335099 Huntington Ave & Sneath Ln San Bruno 0 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 16 361094 E Hillsdale Blvd & Center Park Ln Foster City 285 1 1 1.33 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.88 17 334127 Grand Ave & Maple Ave South San Francisco 263 1 1 1.30 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.87 18 334128 Grand Ave & Maple Ave South San Francisco 263 1 1 1.30 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.87 19 336039 El Camino Real & Silva Ave Millbrae 371 1 0 0.93 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.86 20 334122 Grand Ave & Eucalyptus Ave South San Francisco 224 1 1 1.26 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.86 21 334123 Grand Ave & Eucalyptus Ave South San Francisco 224 1 1 1.26 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.86 22 344193 Middlefield Rd & 5th Ave North Fair Oaks 213 1 1 1.25 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.85 23 334131 Grand Ave & Spruce Ave South San Francisco 153 1 1 1.18 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.83 24 334132 Grand Ave & Spruce Ave South San Francisco 153 1 1 1.18 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.83 25 344900 El Camino Real & Dumbarton Ave North Fair Oaks 0 0 1 0.50 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.83 26 341278 Peninsula Ave & Humboldt St San Mateo 131 1 1 1.15 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.82 27 344082 El Camino Real & Hopkins Ave Redwood City 120 1 1 1.14 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.82 28 344083 El Camino Real & Hopkins Ave Redwood City 120 1 1 1.14 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.82 29 332221 Mission St & Evergreen Ave-Daly City Daly City 252 1 0 0.79 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.81 30 334124 Grand Ave & Linden Ave South San Francisco 55 1 1 1.06 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.79 265
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 74

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

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

This section identifies recommendations for C/CAG and other county-level safety partners to implement the plan. These are aligned with the Safe System Approach and include a framework to measure plan progress over time.
266
/ City/County Association of Governments
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 75
Table 16. Implementation Goals and Measures of Success
Goal Measure of Success
 Regularly review crash history and community
needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to
reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages
and abilities.
 Partner with local agencies to incorporate
roadway safety into all actions.
 Convene TSAC meetings 2-4 times per year.
 Number of project locations identified in this plan
advanced through project development, reported
at the agency level, and aggregated regionally.
 Annual and three-year total reported crashes,
fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and
crashes by emphasis areas identified.
 Improved data availability or maintenance to
enhance safety analysis and practice.
 Amount of grant funding money awarded for safety
projects.
 Implement context-appropriate safety
countermeasures systemically and as part of
all projects to target emphasis areas and
underserved communities.
 Share of project locations identified in this plan
advanced through project development by
presence within equity focus areas, reported at the
agency level, and aggregated regionally.
 Support agencies in providing opportunities for
citizen engagement to identify issues and
inform Countywide safety solutions.
 Implementation of a high-visibility media campaign
 Percent of school participation in SRTS and roadway
safety education opportunities.
 Quantification of education campaigns, through
number of participants reached, events held, and
similar measures.
 Number or percent of C/CAG-funded safety project
development activities that include community
engagement.
 Number of engagement touchpoints and number of
community member interactions countywide for
safety plans or projects.
 Report-backs from local jurisdictions to the TSAC
regarding community engagement, including
information about outreach to disadvantaged
communities where applicable.
 Embrace the Safe System Approach to
promote engineering and non-engineering
strategies in the community.
 Number of trainings conducted regarding Safe
System elements, available tools, or practices.
267
CONSENT ITEM 3.7

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3 ,2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Humza Javed, Public Works Director
Richard Perez, Utility Manager
SUBJECT: Approve purchase of water meters for the Water Meter Replacement Program Recommendation
Adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing Veolia North America to purchase water meters the appropriation of $416,483.12 from the water meter fund to purchase water meters; and

2. Waiving the formal bid procedure pursuant to East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section

2.84.070(D); and

3. Finding that the proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Repair, maintenance and/or minor alteration of an existing facility) and Sections 15303 (construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures).

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority 2: Improve the City's Water Infrastructure
Background
268
CONSENT ITEM 3.7
On January 21, 2020, The City of East Palo Alto City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-2020 authorizing Veolia North America (Veolia), the City’s water system lease holder, to purchase of 2,800 meters with a not to exceed dollar amount of $467,000; and a not to exceed dollar amount of $500,000 for the installation, under Resolution No. 08-2020.

The Water Meter Replacement program began July 2022 with a focus on replacing the older non-radio transmitting water meters first. Water meters have a typical useful lifespan of 15 years.

Like other mechanical devices, water meters slow down with age, under-register consumption, and eventually stop registering completely. This is problematic for a number of reasons as water consumption cannot be precisely measured or billed for.

For the last three years, Veolia has been regularly replacing water meters citywide. Their latest schedule shows that all meters in the City can be replaced within six months pending meter purchases. The City has installed 2,200 Neptune water meters citywide. These water meters have digital displays, are able to detect the smallest amounts of consumption, and store 96 days of information that can help our residents understand their water consumption and provide information on possible leak detection.

Analysis
There are approximately 4,000 water meters in the City. As of November 2024, Veolia has installed 2,200 of these water meters. Approximately 600 of the new water meters remain in stock in the City; however, this number includes meters ranging from sizes of 3/4” to 6”. The majority of residential meters are being replaced with 3/4” meters.

As of now, approximately 1,800 residential 3/4” meters need to be replaced (4,000-2,200). Out of the 600 in stock, approximately 500 are 3/4” meters; therefore, an additional amount of 1,300 3/4” size meters are needed.

Additionally, 1”, 1.5”, and 2” meters are being purchased for restocking, which is used in case a meter breaks or for new customers. The total number of meters purchased through this action would be 1,522 based on the estimate from Veolia.

Staff is requesting a bid exemption for the water meter purchase as it is important to retain consistency of this citywide asset. Furthermore, the City receives a bulk discount rate if purchased through Veolia under its national account with Neptune. The new meters shall be of the same standard make, model and technology by Neptune and will ensure the accurate and efficient reading of meters. Accordingly, staff does not believe competitively bidding the purchase of water maters for the City’s water system will yield savings on a product that will work cohesively with the City’s existing water system.

Fiscal Impact
Staff is requesting Council to appropriate $416,483.12 from Water Meter Fund, which has an approximately $1.8M capital reserve available as of June 30, 2024. 269
CONSENT ITEM 3.7
Public Notice
The public was provided notice of this agenda item by posting the City Council agenda on the City’s official bulletin outside City Hall and making the agenda and report available at the City’s website and the San Mateo County Library at 2415 University Avenue.

Environmental
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Repair, maintenance and/or minor alteration of an existing facility) and Sections 15303 (construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures).

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: Yes.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: [Anthony Harper], Certified Operator in Charge, Veolia Water, North America; [Mathew Emslie] Territory Manager – Northern CA & Northern NV, Neptune Technology Group, would be a party to any contracts or related documents. Apart these individuals, staff are unaware of any other parties, participants, or contributions relevant to the Council’s consideration of this item.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Veolia – East Palo Alto Quote
270
1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. X

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA TO PURCHASE WATER METERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $416,483.12 DRAWN FROM THE WATER METER FUND; AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $416,483.12 FROM THE WATER METER FUND TO PURCHASE WATER METERS; WAIVE

FORMAL BID PROCEDURES PURSUANT TO EAST PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION

2.84.070(D)
WHEREAS, the water meter replacement program began July 2022 with a focus on replacing non-radio transmitting water meters, and;
WHEREAS, Veolia has stated current inventories are low and the purchase of 1,522 additional meters are needed to complete the water meter replacement project; and WHEREAS, the City has previously purchased all of its water meters from Neptune Technology Group (Neptune); and
WHEREAS, the City’s water operator, Veolia, has a national account with discounted pricing with Neptune and the purchase would continue the uniformity, size, make and model of meters used in the City, and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends the purchasing of additional water meters by the end of 2024 due to pricing increase, and
WHEREAS, the cost to purchase additional meters is $416,483.12.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY:

1. Authorizes Veolia North America to purchase water meters;

2. Appropriates $416,483.12 from the water meter fund for the purchase of water meters;

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
271
1 of 1
Antonio López, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D Lê., City Attorney
272
1 NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGY GROUP
1600 Alabama Highway 229 South,
Tallassee, AL 36078
Telephone: (800) 633-8754 Fax: (334) 283-7293
www.neptunetg.com
Sold To: Topic: 24/25 Pricing
Veolia – East Palo Alto, CA Customer: Veolia – East Palo Alto, CA USA
Item Item Number Description Quantity Unit Price Extended Price 1 ED2D22RWF3S2638 3/4 SL T-10 BRZ 316
ECODER)R900i V4

PIT C/F
1338.00 $229.75 $307,405.50
2 ED2F22RWF3S2638 1 T-10 BRZ 316
ECODER)R900i V4 PIT
C/F
126.00 $293.01 $36,919.26
3 ED2H11RWF3S2638 1 1/2 T-10 OVAL ECODER)R900i V4 PIT
C/F

19.00 $512.00 $9,728.00
4 ED2J11RWF3S2638 2 T-10 OVAL ECODER)R900i V4 PIT
C/F

39.00 $641.00 $24,999.00

Est sales tax
(9.875%)
$37,431.36

Total (including estimated local tax): $416,483.12
Salesperson: Matthew Emslie
Mobile: 2095093756;
Email: [email protected]
Customer Number
273
2 Thank You
#WIN YOUR DAY
This quote is valid for 30 days, acceptance will require a valid Purchase Order (PO) number. Neptune Terms and Conditions of Sale and/or Master Services Agreement will apply. Refusal or cancellation may result in a cancellation fee.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide pricing. For more details on Neptune Technology Group and our products, please contact your salesperson or visit our website at www.neptunetg.com.

Comments: .
274
3 275
CONSENT ITEM 3.8

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Michael Cortez, Assistant Engineer
Humza Javed, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Award the Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project No. WS-09) to EKI Environment & Water, Inc.

Recommendation
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to award, negotiate, and execute an agreement with EKI Environment & Water, Inc. in a form approved by the City Attorney, for a contract amount of $139,590.00, and to establish a 10% contingency of $13,959.00, for a total not-toexceed project budget amount of $153,549.00 for professional engineering services to complete the East Palo Alto Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project No. WS-09).

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority: Improve the City's Water Infrastructure
Background
In 2022, a Water System Master Plan (WSMP) was prepared by EKI Environment & Water, Inc.

This WSMP provided the City with an overall plan for potable water infrastructure improvements over the next twenty years, which would aid in maintaining water system reliability and support anticipated development within the City’s service area.

This WSMP included discussions on multiple items relating to City-owned water infrastructure, including its existing water system facilities, existing and future water demands, water system hydraulic model development and evaluation, and, most notably, an evaluation of the City’s existing water supply and storage capacity.
276
CONSENT ITEM 3.8
The evaluation of the City’s existing water supply addressed the City’s existing and future supply capacity, the supply capacity from each of its supply sources, storage tanks and their ability to meet both peak hour demands, and maximum day demands plus fire flows under existing and future conditions. As of now, the only other alternative supply sources within the City include the Gloria Way groundwater well and the Pad D storage tank. Planned projects that will increase supply include the Pad D standby well and the proposed tank at 375 Donohoe.

Based on the supply and storage evaluations presented in the WSMP, the City’s current required storage capacity is 3.02 million gallons (MG). (For reference, a pool holding a million gallons would have to be approximately 267 feet long (almost as long as a football field), 50 feet wide, and 10 feet deep.) The City receives a groundwater credit in the amount of 0.16 MG from Gloria Way well. Hence, the City is currently in a water storage deficit of 2.86 MG (3.02 MG-0.16 MG).

In the future, the City’s storage capacity requirement increases to 5.2 MG. With a groundwater credit of 0.16 MG from Gloria Way Well, the future need comes down to 5.04 MG. If projects such as the Light Tree Water tank, Donohoe Water tank, and PAD D well are built and designated for City use, a further credit of 2.19 MG is achieved, leaving a future deficit of 2.85 MG (5.04MG-2.19MG). This information is detailed in the table below:

The proposed water storage tank study will identify viable locations within the City for the proposed storage tank, configurations of the proposed storage tank, and a tentative plan for 277
CONSENT ITEM 3.8
operations and maintenance of the proposed storage tank facility. Future development will be considered as a part of the study.

The scope of work of the contract for the Water Storage Tank Siting Study includes, but is not limited to, the following:
 Preparation of a Supplemental Technical Memorandum (STM), which identifies the recommended location(s) of the water storage tank and relevant appurtenances;  Identification of potential environmental issues for compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements;
 Presentation of the STM to City Council at the 50% and 100% design phases.

The scope of work is attached as Attachment 2. Upon award and execution of the contract, staff will coordinate with EKI’s staff to establish a baseline schedule for the timely completion of the aforementioned scope of work above.

Analysis
The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) on June 7, 2024, for the Water Storage Tank Siting Study (WS-09). On July 18, 2024, the City received two (2) proposals.

The two proposals were reviewed and ranked by a panel of staff members from the Public Works Department. Proposals were ranked on a set list of criteria, which included the overall quality of the proposal, the firm’s qualification and delivery of similar projects, the proposed scope of work, the firm’s client references, and schedule/manpower allocation. The highest-ranking proposal was submitted by EKI Environment & Water, Inc. The ranking summary has been tabulated below:

PROPOSAL RANKING SUMMARY

FEE PROPOSAL SCORE FEE PROPOSAL
EKI Environment & Water, Inc. 95 $139,590
Freyer & Laureta, Inc. 88 $143,937
EKI Environment & Water, Inc. has a long-standing history of delivering high-quality works, and its team consists of highly qualified technical staff with a demonstrated reputation for delivering results based on sound science and engineering principles. Combined with their staff’s extensive experience in conducting a myriad of similar siting studies for neighboring jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area, EKI had also completed the City’s Water System Management Plan (WSMP) for the City of East Palo Alto, which has acquainted EKI’s team with the issues and opportunities for improvement within the City’s existing water infrastructure.

Fiscal Impact
The total project cost is $153,549.00. $150,000 is budgeted in the water capital fund for FY 24/25 and an additional appropriation in the amount of $3,549 is needed from the fund. 278
CONSENT ITEM 3.8
Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not entail an entitlement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. EKI Proposal
279
Resolution No. XX-2024 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX– 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD, NEGOTIATE, AND EXECUTE A

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH EKI ENVIRONMENT & WATER, INC., IN A FORM TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEYIN THE AMOUNT OF $139,590.00; ESTABLISH A CONTRACT CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $13,959.00, FOR A TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED PROJECT BUDGET OF $153,549.00 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES TO COMPLETE THE WATER STORAGE TANK SITING STUDY (CIP PROJECT.

WS-09)
WHEREAS, the 2022 Water System Management Plan (WSMP) identified the need for water storage within the City; and
WHEREAS, a water tank siting study is needed as a first step towards meeting the needs for water storage within the City; and
WHEREAS, the water storage tank siting study was advertised on June 17, 2024, for the solicitation of proposals; and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2024, two proposals were received and scored by a panel of staff from the Public Works; and
WHEREAS, EKI Environment & Water, Inc. was the highest-scoring proposer with a proposed amount of $139,590.00.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of East Palo Alto hereby:

1. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference into this action; and

2. Authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with EKI Environment & Water, Inc. in a form approved by the City Attorney, for $139,590.00; establish a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $13,959.00, for a total not-toexceed contract budget of $153,549.00; and

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
280
Resolution No. XX-2024 2 of 2
ABSTAIN:

Antonio D. Lopez, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
281
EKI C40163 | 18 July 2024

PROPOSAL FOR
Engineering Services to
Conduct Water Storage
Tank Siting Study
282
2001 Junipero Serra Boulevard, Suite 300
Daly City, CA 94014
(650) 292-9100
ekiconsult.com
Davis, CA ● Irvine, CA ● Marin, CA ● Oakland, CA
Centennial, CO ● Glastonbury, CT ● Dedham, MA ● Holyoke, MA 1

1. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
18 July 2024
Michael Cortez
City of East Palo Alto, Public Works Department
1960 Tate Street
East Palo Alto, California 94303
Subject: Proposal for Water Storage Tank Siting Study (EKI C40163.00) Dear Mr. Cortez:

EKI Environment & Water, Inc. (EKI) has assembled a highly qualified team with the experience and expertise required to successfully provide engineering services for the Water Storage Tank Siting Study Project (Project). EKI brings the following benefits to the City of East Palo Alto (City):
 Local Team with Work Experience with the City. Our proposed team recently completed the City’s Water System Master Plan in which EKI assisted the City assess its existing and future water supply and storage capacity needs.

Having studied and modeled the City’s system to develop capital improvements to increase its hydraulic capacity, our proposed team has a good grasp of the issues and opportunities within the system.  Strong Technical Qualifications. The EKI team includes highly qualified technical staff with a demonstrated reputation for delivering results based on sound science and engineering principles. Collectively, we have extensive experience planning infrastructure projects with a focus on constructability and future operations. Our team provides tested and rigorous alternatives assessment that helps narrow down implementable solutions.
 Trusted Team. Our Project Manager Jonathan Sutter, PE is particularly experienced in tank location studies, having completed several similar studies for other Bay Area municipalities. Jon was also the technical lead for the City’s WSMP. Tyler Colyer, PE, who was the project manager for the City’s WSMP, will be the Technical Lead on this project. Tyler has completed similar studies, as well as design and construction support for water storage tank construction and rehabilitation projects. Dave Umezaki, PE, who has successfully led and completed similar projects over his twenty-nine years of experience, will be the Principal in Charge. Understanding the needs of this project, we have included our CEQA subconsultant - Environmental Science Associates (ESA) to provide a fully rounded team for the proposed scope of work. Our proposed team has decades of combined experience in planning, design, and construction services for potable water projects.  Responsiveness and Commitment. EKI’s Daly City office is located a 30-minute drive away from both the project site and the City’s office. The proposed EKI team members work out of our Daly City headquarters and will always be easily accessible for in-person check-ins or probable site meetings. As a 100+ employee firm, we take pride in being nimble and working at the capacity required, whether it be a large or small effort.

We look forward to continuing our relationship with the City and assisting in achieving the goals of this important project.

Very truly yours,
EKI ENVIRONMENT & WATER, INC.

C. David Umezaki, PE Jonathan Sutter, PE
Principal in Charge Project Manager
Contact Information
Jonathan Sutter, PE
Project Manager
EKI Environment & Water, Inc.
2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Ste. 300
Daly City, California, 94014
Tel: (650) 292-9100;
[email protected]
283
City of East Palo Alto
Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project WS-09) 2

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.Letter of Transmittal ................................................................................................................................................ 1

2.Table of Contents..................................................................................................................................................... 2

3.Work Plan and Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 3

4.Key Personnel Background.....................................................................................................................................10

5. Team Experience ...................................................................................................................................................14

6. References.............................................................................................................................................................18

7. Manpower Allocation............................................................................................................................................19

8. Schedule ................................................................................................................................................................20

9. Cost........................................................................................................................................................................21 Appendices................................................................................................................................................................22 284
City of East Palo Alto
Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project WS-09) 3

3. WORK PLAN AND APPROACH
Project Understanding
EKI understands that the City would like to identify suitable locations for the construction and operation of water storage tanks and associated pump stations to provide critical operational, emergency, and fire water storage within the City’s distribution system. EKI recently prepared the City’s Water System Master Plan (WSMP) and identified the need for an additional 3 million gallons (MG) of water storage under both the current and future water use scenarios.
1 The location(s) of the water storage tank(s) may be within a City-owned parcel, a privately owned parcel, schools, parks, public-private partnerships, or other suitable parcels.

This project includes preparation of a tank siting study (Supplemental Technical Memorandum) that provides recommendations for the location(s) of above and/or below grade tanks, identifies potential environmental issues and primary tasks required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and prepares threedimensional (3D) renderings of the proposed improvements at the final selected sites. The initial and final findings will be presented to the City Council and their feedback incorporated into the final Supplemental Technical Memorandum.

Our Approach
Our approach to the Storage Tank Siting Study is centered around three key strategies.

Leverage Our Prior Knowledge and Study
EKI’s recent preparation of the City’s WSMP and the associated water system hydraulic model allows us to hit the ground running on this tank siting study by building off the preliminary tank siting evaluation that was included in the WSMP. Utilizing the City’s water system hydraulic model will be critical to selecting tank sites that will improve the City’s system reliability and provide the most benefit to peak and fire flows.

Modeling for Cost-Efficient Improvements
This study is an opportunity to further refine the City’s water system hydraulic model and potentially reduce the extent of piping improvements identified in the WSMP to improve fire flow availability. Due to the uncertainty of tank locations, the WSMP conservatively modeled the City’s system without the 3 MG of water storage included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). However, locating tanks in many parts of the city would significantly improve fire flows, which was the main driver for upsizing of pipes in the WSMP. This will allow us to utilize the City’s water system hydraulic model to select tank locations that optimize the City’s CIP budget.

Additionally, EKI recognizes that cost will be a major driver in evaluating tank locations. It is critical that the recommended tank locations fit within the City’s CIP budget. Therefore, EKI will prepare conceptual-level cost estimates and then use these costs as part of the site evaluation. These conceptual-level cost estimates can also be compared against the estimated costs for CIP projects that may no longer be needed based on modeling of the City’s system with additional water storage. This cost comparison will allow the City to understand the overall impact to its CIP budget for the tank and could provide the City more flexibility to utilize more expensive construction methods (such as construction of below ground tanks). 1 The City is currently working with two developers to construct a 1.5 MG Tank at 375 Donohoe Street and a 0.15 MG tank at the Pad D site. The future scenario assumed that both these tanks would be operational. 285
City of East Palo Alto
Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project WS-09) 4
Provide a Systematic and Transparent Alternatives Evaluation Process Throughout the preparation of the tank siting study, EKI will engage City staff and obtain concurrence with evaluation methodology and recommendations prior to moving on to the next step in the evaluation process. Our scope of work includes stepwise screening of alternatives to ensure that all options are considered prior to providing recommendations for tank locations. EKI will identify all possible tank sites through an initial mapping study and then whittle down the list of potential sites based on criteria reviewed and agreed upon with City staff.

EKI will review results of each evaluation step during monthly progress meetings so that the City is involved in the decision-making process and is well-informed about study progress.

Project Management Approach
For all infrastructure planning projects, EKI’s goal is to successfully resolve project challenges while providing the quality that accomplishes the City’s requirements and objectives in a timely manner and within the City’s budget.

EKI’s approach to the management of this project will include the following:
 Frequent and clear communications between the EKI team members and with the City;  Risk, cost, and schedule control by identifying issues early in the project to be able to implement effective corrective measures;
 Regular project cost monitoring to be able to proactively identify cost trends early such that corrective measures can be implemented to maximize potential cost savings; and  Implementation of quality control throughout the project duration.

Communications: EKI believes that communication is key to an effective client relationship. Frequent and clear communication between EKI and the City will be vital to keeping tasks on track, presenting findings, making efficient decisions, and keeping all parties apprised of issues that could affect project schedule and budget.

For all meetings, EKI will compile meeting minutes to memorialize findings and decisions a distribute these minutes within 5 business days. Meetings will include discussions of interim work products as well as a report on budget status and schedule. EKI has found that regular meetings are invaluable to keeping projects on schedule and within budget, as well as ensuring that there will be no surprises when work products are delivered to the City. EKI can be readily available to the City throughout the project duration with key staff in our Daly City office located less than 30 minutes away.
286
City of East Palo Alto
Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project WS-09) 5
Project Risk and Value Review: EKI’s experience is that the planning and preliminary project phases are the key periods for monitoring and maintaining cost controls, as well as mitigating project risk. This is the time in the project life cycle where the highest reduction in project cost and risk can be achieved for the benefit of the client. EKI will work with the City staff to determine the best approach and best value to the City for this project. We strive to achieve this as demonstrated by our approach to projects. Project timing, market timing, and project urgency will be considered in the project risk and value review process.

Monitoring Project Costs: Procedurally, EKI will update the City of budget status as part of our monthly billings and at key project milestones. The Project Manager will prepare a Progress Summary Report with each invoice that summarizes progress made during the billing period, problems identified or anticipated, activities scheduled for the next reporting period, results of significant activities, as well as general progress status. The report will be accompanied by a table summarizing current and cumulative project expenditures to date, total approved budget, estimated cost at project completion, any variance in planned budget, and estimated date of completion.

Schedule Management: EKI has demonstrated our ability to manage complex projects with multiple team members. At the start of the project, EKI will develop a detailed schedule based on the proposed schedule with durations and interdependencies as included in our proposal. Documenting the baseline schedule assumptions will (1) determine and track project milestones/development; (2) allow all involved parties to be on the same page when completing project deadlines, and (3) help in the identification of schedule variances, facilitating mitigation to limit schedule impact. If schedule variances are identified, mitigation plans will be developed in conjunction with City staff to help ensure that corrective measures are implemented within the framework of the overall project schedule. EKI will update the project schedule on a monthly basis.

Quality Control Procedures
Quality control is extremely important to us, and it is EKI’s policy to provide senior technical review throughout the duration of all our projects. A Quality Control Manager will provide internal review of all major deliverables, consult on special problems, and work with the team to provide overall technical guidance and direction. The Quality Control Manager will be engaged from the early stages of the project, prior to the preparation of any technical submittal, so that potential major issues can be anticipated and dealt with early in the preliminary design effort.

Once the project is underway, quality control will then be an ongoing process throughout the project duration. A summary of quality control procedures and tools is provided in the table below.

QA/QC Component Purpose/Description
Kickoff Meeting  Confirm City’s goals/concerns/constraints/new issues  Focus the Project at the onset
Deliverable Reviews  EKI QA/QC staff perform internal reviews of all major deliverables at each major milestone, prior to submittal to the City
 Deliverable markups are backchecked to ensure comments are addressed  Each deliverable will be signed off on by the project manager, QA/QC reviewer and principal-in-charge.

City Comment Tracking  Maintain log of City’s comments on previous deliverable and document how the comments have been addressed
Decision Log  Document key decisions to make and memorialize decisions made with reference to supporting documentation (e.g., memoranda, emails, etc.) 287
City of East Palo Alto
Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project WS-09) 6
Scope of Services/Work Plan
Task 1 - Project Management
Subtask 1.1 – General Project Management
EKI will provide project management and general consultation services to the City. Frequent and clear communication with the City throughout the Project will be important to ensure that the Project meets the City’s expectations and stays on schedule. EKI will perform general project management tasks including coordinating with City staff or stakeholders, monitoring and coordinating the work of our subconsultant ESA, as-needed communications and general consulting services, schedule and budget tracking, and invoicing. Each monthly invoice will include a progress summary report describing the work performed during that month and the next steps for the Project.

Subtask 1.2 – Project Meetings
Good communication begins with the initial kickoff meeting and will continue with monthly progress meetings, as specified in the RFP. EKI understands that these meetings are opportunities to focus future project efforts to boost productivity. EKI will provide an agenda and meeting minutes for each of these meetings to guide each meeting’s discussion and document all issues, decisions, and action items. All meeting minutes will be provided within five (5) working days of the meeting.

Subtask 1.3 – Stakeholder and Property Owner Coordination Following detailed evaluation of potential tank sites (see Subtask 2.1) and prior to the first City Council meeting presentation (see Task 3), EKI will coordinate with stakeholders and property owners to notify them of the draft study results. EKI assumes that coordination will consist of preparing emails and making phone callsto stakeholders and property owners to notify them that the properties have been identified as potential storage tank locations as well as inform them of the upcoming City Council meeting.

Task 1 Deliverables:
 Agenda and meetings minutes for each meeting, with a list of attendees.  Project schedule, provided at the kickoff meeting and updated on a monthly basis.  Monthly progress summary reports, provided with invoices.  Emails to stakeholders and property owners.

Task 1 Assumptions:
 All meetings are assumed to be virtual via Microsoft Teams (or similar software).  EKI will attend one kickoff meeting and up to five (5) monthly progress meetings.  This task does not include EKI drafting agreements or memoranda of understanding with stakeholders or property owners.
 Stakeholder and property owner coordination is assumed to require up to four (4) hours of staff time per property, and include up to five (5) properties.
288
City of East Palo Alto
Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project WS-09) 7
Task 2 – Supplemental Technical Memorandum
Subtask 2.1 – Preparation of Supplemental Technical Memorandum EKI will identify suitable locations for water storage tanks within the City by mapping available parcels, performing an initial screening of the parcels to determine their suitability as a tank site, and performing a detailed evaluation of up to five (5) parcels to select final recommendations for the City. The findings of these evaluations will be summarized in the Supplemental Technical Memorandum (Memorandum). Anticipated tasks are as follows:
• Parcel Mapping and Initial Screening Evaluation: EKI will perform a geographic information system (GIS) analysis utilizing data from the City, publicly available data, and satellite imagery to identify parcels that may be available for water storage tanks. These are anticipated to include vacant parcels (publicly or privately-owned), parks, schools (with fields), and areas of known development or redevelopment within the City. For each of these parcels, EKI will summarize available parcel information and perform an initial screening analysis based on criteria developed during a meeting with City staff (either kickoff meeting or one of the progress meetings).

Criteria is anticipated to include property ownership, the maximum tank size that could fit on the parcel (i.e., parcel size and shape), existing and neighboring land uses, proximity to water transmission mains, qualitativelevel cost, whether a tank at the site could provide hydraulic improvements to the City’s water system, and general implementability.
• Detailed Evaluation: Based on the initial screening, EKI will perform detailed evaluations of up to five (5) parcels.

It is assumed that after the detailed evaluation has been completed, EKI will present the findings to City staff during one of the monthly progress meetings (see Task 1). The detailed evaluation will include the following:
– Preparation of preliminary site layouts for the tank, pump station, and other appurtenances (e.g., emergency generator, motor control center, etc.);
– Hydraulic modeling based on the City’s “future scenario” defined in the WSMP to determine the effect of a tank at each location on the City’s water distribution system performance. Modeling will include determining the appropriate operating tank levels and pump station settings, identifying what off-site improvements are needed to provide adequate transmission to and from the proposed tank (or which CIP project may no longer be required), and evaluating how the tank and other off-site improvements would affect peak hour operational conditions and fire flow availability;
– Preparation of conceptual-level cost estimates for each site, both for comparison purposes and to confirm that the anticipated costs fall within the City’s CIP budget; and – Performing a qualitative analysis to compare the potential tank sites based on criteria such as ease of operations/maintenance, ownership status of land, construction and aesthetic impacts to residents and other stakeholders, CEQA considerations (see Subtask 2.2); climate change/sea-level rise resilience; and geologic considerations.
• Prepare Supplemental Technical Memorandum: The analyses described above will be summarized in the draft Memorandum. The Memorandum will identify and recommend up to three (3) locations for waterstorage tanks in order to meet the City’s required storage of 3 MG. The draft Memorandum will be provided to City staff and City Council for review, and the findings will be presented to City Council as part of Task 3. Following the preparation of the Memorandum, EKI will perform coordination with property owners as described in Task 1.3.

Based on feedback from City staff and City Council, EKI will finalize the Memorandum, including preparation of three-dimensional rendering of the proposed improvements at the recommended locations (see Subtask 2.3).

These renderings, along with the final findings, will be presented to City Council as described in Task 3. 289
City of East Palo Alto
Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project WS-09) 8
 Parcel map and initial screening evaluation.
 Draft and final Supplemental Technical Memorandum, including the CEQA evaluation included in Subtask

2.2. Task 2.1 Assumptions:
 City will provide a list of parcels that are planned to be developed or redeveloped.  Up to five (5) parcels will be included in the detailed evaluation.  Up to three (3) parcels will be recommended for water storage tanks in the Supplemental Technical Memorandum.

Subtask 2.2 – Screening of CEQA Requirements
EKI’s subconsultant ESA will perform a desktop environmental screening to support the selection of potential water storage tank locations. The environmental screening will examine up to five (5) potential tank sites included in the detailed evaluation described in Subtask 2.1. The screening will assess whether development of a storage tank on the potential sites could result in substantial adverse effects that would complicate CEQA review. The analysis will consider the results of state and federal environmental database searches (i.e., the California Natural Diversity Database, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC, State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker, California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List, Northwest Information Center’s California Historical Resources Information System, and California Department of Transportation’s Scenic Highways System Lists) and aerial photographs. No field work is proposed for this assessment.

The environmental screening will be summarized in a memorandum presenting available project information, extent of work, timing of activities, and sites evaluated. The memorandum will describe the screening methodology, resources consulted, and potential environmental issues and tasks required to comply with CEQA for the sites evaluated. This environmental memorandum will be incorporated into the Supplemental Technical Memorandum described in Subtask 2.1.

Subtask 2.2 Deliverables:
 Draft and final Environmental Screening Assessment Memorandum as attachments to the draft and final Supplemental Technical Memorandum
Subtask 2.2 Assumptions:
 Prospective storage tank sites will generally consist of previously developed or denuded areas, distant from wetlands and water bodies, and not require substantial vegetation removal or landform alteration.

Subtask 2.3 – 3D Rendering of Proposed Improvements
Following the first City Council meeting and prior to the secondary City Council meeting (see Task 3), EKI will prepare 3D renderings of the proposed improvements at the three (3) sites recommended in the draft Supplemental Technical Memorandum. EKI will coordinate with City staff to determine the final vantage points of the renderings, which will be included in the final Supplemental Technical Memorandum and in the second presentation to the City Council (see Task 3).

Subtask 2.3 Deliverables:
 Draft and final renderings at each recommended tank site.

Subtask 2.3 Assumptions:
 EKI will prepare 3D renderings of the proposed improvements at up to three (3) locations.

Task 2.1 Deliverables:
290
City of East Palo Alto
Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project WS-09) 9
Task 3 – City Council Presentations
To keep the City Council informed about the tank siting study and obtain feedback from Council Members, EKI will prepare Powerpoint slides for, and present at, two City Council meetings. As requested in the RFP, the first presentation to the City Council will present information included in the draft Supplemental Technical Memorandum, and the second presentation to the City Council will present the final Supplemental Technical Memorandum, included the 3D renderings of each site. It is assumed that both meetings will be attended remotely.

Task 3 Deliverables:
 Draft and final Powerpoint presentations for City staff review.

Task 3 Assumptions:
 It is assumed that the City Council meetings will be attended remotely. 291
City of East Palo Alto
Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project WS-09) 10

4. KEY PERSONNEL BACKGROUND
About EKI
Headquartered in Daly City, California, EKI Environment & Water, Inc. (EKI) is an employee-owned company that provides comprehensive water resources and engineering services to public and private sector clients since our founding in 1989. Our staff includes over 120 civil engineers, environmental engineers, chemical engineers, chemists, geologists, hydrogeologists, environmental scientists, computer-aided designers, geographic information system (GIS) and database specialists, and support staff in offices throughout California and the United States.

EKI has a strong presence in the Bay Area. In addition to our recent work with the City of East Palo Alto on the Water System Master Plan and CIP Development project and under an As-Needed Engineering contract, our staff serves as trusted advisors for several public agencies including the Town of Hillsborough; the Cities of South San Francisco, Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City (Estero Municipal Water District), Menlo Park, Redwood City, Hayward, Pacifica, and Calistoga; and Coastside County Water District, North Coast County Water District, Westborough Water District, Purissima Hills Water District, Zone 7 Water Agency, Valley Water, and Cal Water.

Ability to Commit Resources and a Dedicated Team
EKI understands that the continuity of key personnel assigned to a project is a key factor in project success. We are committed to the success of this project and will dedicate the staff and technical resources needed for successful completion of tasks under this contract. EKI has worked successfully as the prime consultant on numerous multidisciplinary projects that involve civil, mechanical, geotechnical engineering, mapping and survey, and CEQA services. To support our work as the prime consultant, EKI has included our subconsultant Environmental Science Associates (ESA) on our team to provide comprehensive engineering solutions.

We have successfully completed projects with our proposed subconsultant for more than a decade. These projects have spanned water and wastewater services and clients. Project experience that demonstrates our work with subconsultants and successful ability to coordinate work between disciplines is presented in the “Relevant Project Experience” section of our proposal.

Our Subconsultant
Environmental Science Associates (ESA)
Founded in 1969, ESA is a multi-disciplinary environmental consulting firm specializing in all aspects of project planning, environmental analysis and assessment, natural resource management, and regulatory compliance. With more than half of ESA’s 700+ employee owners located in California, ESA offers a team of qualified staff members with expertise in CEQA
compliance, regulatory permitting, river and creek flood planning, water resources management, and environmental construction www.ekiconsult.com
35+ Years
in Business
120+
Professionals
Marin
Daly City
(HQ)
Irvine
Oakland
Davis
California Offices
Contact: Elijah Davidian, AICP Principal
Environmental Planner
[email protected]
415-262-2349 direct
EKI has been working with ESA for over a
decade and our collaborative teams have
completed several projects together.
292
City of East Palo Alto
Water Storage Tank Siting Study (CIP Project WS-09) 11
monitoring for water and wastewater infrastructure projects. ESA has expertise in CEQA and NEPA, development and implementation of programmatic and regional permits through “Cutting the Green Tape,” and expertly navigating the environmental compliance laws and regulations for water and other infrastructure projects.

Proposed Team
Developing a water storage tank siting study requires an understanding of the City’s water demand, supply, and required storage capacity, and a technically rigorous approach to evaluating alternative site options. Having completed the City’s 2022 Water System Master Plan and 20-year Capital Improvement Program, our proposed team brings significant experience in these critical areas and is in a strong position to support the City in identifying the optimal tank sites.

At EKI, we understand that successful completion of a
project is founded on the performance of key individuals.

We are aware of the importance our clients place on the selection of a capable Project Manager supported by
technical specialists to effectively guide their projects to completion. EKI has assembled a well-rounded team of
dedicated and specialized professionals, proficient in all aspects of potable water infrastructure planning, design, and construction. Our proposed Project Manager,
Jonathan Sutter, PE, will provide day-to-day oversight of the project and coordinate with the City staff. He will coordinate with the team members and subcontractors
to make sure all deliverables are completed as
scheduled. Jon will be the main Point of Contact (POC) for the City. He will be supported by Tyler Colyer, PE for this project. Tyler will be the technical lead and provide
technical direction and tasks to complete the contracted scope of work. Dave Umezaki, PE, will be our Principal-inCharge for this project. Dave will provide strategic direction for overall project contract management. Dave will also provide QA/QC for the project and ensure the project is compliant with City’s standards, codes, and regulations. Both Jon and Tyler bring extensive experience in planning and design of water and wastewater infrastructure and both worked closely with the City on its 2022 WSMP.

Our Management Team will be supported by highly-trained and experienced engineers and technical specialists for hydraulic modeling, data analysis, and GIS. Additional staff may provide support, as appropriate. EKI’s proposed team has the resources and experience to complete the City’s scope of work and is available and ready to work as an extension of the City staff with minimal assistance to complete this study.

An organizational chart indicating the primary roles and responsibilities of each key EKI Team member is provided below, followed by short bios of the management team. Detailed resumes with the summary of qualifications and experience of each team member identified in the organization chart are included as Appendix A.

East Palo Alto City CouncilDecember 3, 2024

East Palo Alto City Council
December 3, 2024