Agenda packet — Half Moon Bay City Council, August 20, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2024

HYBRID MEETING (SEE NEXT PAGE)

ADCOCK COMMUNITY CENTER
535 KELLY AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019
Joaquin Jimenez, Mayor
Harvey Rarback, Vice Mayor
Robert Brownstone, Councilmember
Deborah Penrose, Councilmember
Debbie Ruddock, Councilmember
7:00 PM
This agenda contains a brief description of each item to be considered. Those wishing to address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the City Council to resolve, may come forward to the podium during the Public Forum portion of the agenda and will have a maximum of three minutes to discuss their item.

Comments on City Manager Updates and Consent Calendar items should be made during the Public Forum section of the agenda. Those wishing to speak on a Business or Public Hearing matter will be called forward at the appropriate time during that item’s consideration.

Please Note: Anyone wishing to present materials to the City Council, please submit seven copies to the City Clerk.

Copies of written documentation relating to each item of business on the agenda are on file in the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall where they are available for public inspection. If requested, the agenda shall be available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132.) Information may be obtained by calling 650-726-8271.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, special assistance for participation in this meeting can be obtained by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 650-726-8271. A 48-hour notification will enable the City to make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). http://hmbcity.com/
Wi-Fi: HMB Public
Password: Recreation1
1 HYBRID MEETING PARTICIPATION PROTOCOLS
This meeting will be held in-person and via Zoom for public participation. Remote participation is provided as a supplemental way to provide public comment, but this method does not always work. The public is encouraged to attend in person to ensure full participation. Public comments may be made in-person or remotely via Zoom, and interpretation will be available. All Councilmembers and staff will participate in person. During any public comment portions, attendees may use the “raise your hand” feature and will be called upon and unmuted when it is their turn to speak. The meeting will also be streamed on Channel 27, on pacificcoast.tv, and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/cityofhalfmoonbay. Please click to join the webinar: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87674804231 or join by phone at 669-900-9128, using Webinar ID 876-7480-4231. If joining by phone, use *9 to raise your hand, *6 to mute and unmute.

ROLL CALL / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

INTRODUCTION TO CAPTAIN CHEECHOV

PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY PRESENTATION

MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL UPDATE

MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

REPORT OUT FROM RECENT CLOSED SESSION MEETINGS

CITY MANAGER UPDATES TO COUNCIL

NATIONAL NIGHT OUT RECAP

PUBLIC FORUM

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

1.A WAIVE READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES

1.B WARRANTS FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2024
Staff Recommendation: Accept the warrants list for the month of April 2024.

STAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT

1.C WARRANTS FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2024
Staff Recommendation: Accept the warrants list for the month of May 2024.

STAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT
2 1.D WARRANTS FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2024
Staff Recommendation: Accept the warrants list for the month of June 2024.

STAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT

1.E TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2024 Staff Recommendation: By motion, accept the Treasurer’s Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2024.

STAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT

1.F MAYOR’S AMENDED LIST OF CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES AND DESIGNATED ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2024
Staff Recommendation: Accept Mayor Jimenez’s Amended List of City Council Representatives and Designated Assignments for 2024, to appoint Vice Mayor Rarback to the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1

1.G RECEIPT OF LEGISLATIVE POSITION LETTER
Staff Recommendation: Receive and file Letter in Opposition to Assembly Bill 2560.

STAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT

1.H RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORT FOR TWO GRANT APPLICATIONS TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANPSORTATION AUTHORITY FOR THE CYCLE 7 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

GRANT PROGRAM
Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution:

1. Directing staff to submit two separate grant applications to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for the following projects:

1. $780,000 for the Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection to Hatch Elementary School Project; and
3 2. $250,000 for the FY 24-25 Bicycle Pedestrian Small-Scale Project ;

2. Authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to execute a funding agreement or memorandum of understanding and any amendments with the TA to encumber Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds should the application be successful;

3. Committing to the completion of the Projects, including the required local funding contributions of $78,000 for the Ped/Bike Connection to Hatch Project and $25,000 for the FY 24-25 Bicycle Pedestrian Small-Scale Project, should the application be successful;

4. Certifying that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and

5. Authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution and execute applicable amendments.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3

1.I CITIZEN’S OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) GRANT PROGRAM FY 2024-25 Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Administrative Services Director to accept the State of California Citizen’s Option for Public Safety Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2024-25, in the amount of $100,000, and approve using those funds on projects, support, and equipment that meet the conditions of the grant.

STAFF REPORT

RESOLUTION

2. ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

3. RESOLUTIONS AND STAFF REPORTS

3.A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE COUNTYWIDE AND CITY OF HALF MOON BAY LOCAL

ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND ACCOMPANYING VISION ZERO GOALS
Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the Countywide and the City of Half Moon Bay Local Roadway Safety Plan and accompanying Vision Zero Goals.

STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1
4 ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3

3.B AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FOR STONE PINE COVE – BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with SWCA Environmental Consultants in the total amount of $205,652.31 to provide biological monitoring during construction activities at the Stone Pine Cove Affordable Housing Project located on a portion of 880 Stone Pine Road.

STAFF REPORT

RESOLUTION

FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION / POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS

COMMISSION / COMMITTEE UPDATES

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

ADJOURNMENT
5 BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: August 20, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
From: Lisa Rossi, Administrative Services Director
TITLE: WARRANTS FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2024
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the warrants list for the month of April 2024.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Fiscal Sustainability and Inclusive Governance Elements of the Strategic Plan.

DISCUSSION:

During this month, the City processed 5 check runs. The table below outlines each check run and their individual totals:

Check Run Date Amount
April 04 207,014
April 05 34,104
April 25 606,290
April 11 1,394,602
April 18 885,382
Total 3,127,392
The City processed payments related to 14 capital improvement projects, in a total amount of $517,874. These include Highway 1 Safety - North, Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program, Carter Park, Eastside Parallel Trail Expansion, Climate Action And Adaptation, 555 Kelly Affordable Housing, Downtown Streetscape Master Plan, Smith Field Site Assessment, Train Depot And Johnston House, Sidewalk Replace/Repair Program, Green Infrastructure And Stormwater, Sewer Maintenance Program, Pump Station And Force Main, and Ocean Colony Pump Station. 6 Staff is also including a list of all payments above $30,000 processed during this reporting period, as listed in the table below.

OVER $30,000
Check
# Payee Check Date Amount Description
54464 TOOLE DESIGN 4/4/2024 $84,257 DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE 54503 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 4/11/2024 $1,260,304 FY 23-24 SHERIFF PATROL SERVICES 54525 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER 4/18/2024 $40,000 FY 23-24 HOTEL BID CHAMBER AGREEMENT 54536 SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE 4/18/2024 $675,749 FY 23/24 MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS 54569 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 4/25/2024 $272,351 CITY WIDE GENERAL MATTERS & LITIGATION 54572 WICKMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION 4/25/2024 $257,082 CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS 54684 WELLS FARGO 4/5/2024 $34,104 CITY WIDE SMALL PURCHASES ON CREDIT CARDS ATTACHMENTS:

Check Disbursement List by Check Date
7 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 4/1/2024 4/30/2024 Aug 09, 2024 08:50PM Report Criteria:

Report type: Summary
Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54431 4LEAF INC. 04/04/2024 4,727.20 New PSA for Public Works inspection services, FY 232454432 Adriana Manriquez 04/04/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND TRAIN DEPOT 3/30/2454433 AMERICAN PORTABLES 04/04/2024 14,223.24 FY 2324 PORTABLE TOLIETS54434 ARAMARK 04/04/2024 326.52 MAR'24 MAINT SUPPLIES PUBLIC LIBRARY54435 BAIRD & DRISKELL COMMUNITY PLANNING 04/04/2024 4,700.00 CITY CONTRIBUTION FOR FUNDING 21 ELEMENTS FOR FY 2 54436 BECKER GRAPHICS 04/04/2024 1,024.50 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT ZUMBA MAR'2454437 BIG CREEK LUMBER 04/04/2024 255.96 MAINT SUPPLIES54438 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION 04/04/2024 7,480.64 NPDES STORMWATER SERVICES54439 BOUCHER LAW PC 04/04/2024 2,343.00 DEC'23, EMPLOYEMENT MATTERS54440 CAPIO 04/04/2024 275.00 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL54441 CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT 04/04/2024 1,732.35 MAINT SUPPLIES MAR'2454442 CARTWRIGHT DESIGN STUDIO 04/04/2024 2,340.00 DESIGN SERVICE54443 CITY OF BURLINGAME 04/04/2024 138.60 JAN'24 BID54444 COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH WHATLEY PC 04/04/2024 16,605.25 FEB'24 LEGAL SERVICES SAM54445 FlowBird America Inc 04/04/2024 66.15 FEB'24 MAINT SERVICE54446 FREYER & LAURETA INC. 04/04/2024 5,755.00 CHANGE ORDER 2. SMITH FIELD PARK54447 GRANICUS 04/04/2024 1,564.85 APR'24, GRANICUS SERVICE54448 HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN 04/04/2024 793.46 MAR'24 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES54449 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER 04/04/2024 9,094.00 JAN'24 BID (OOC)54450 IGLESIA DEL MAR 04/04/2024 160.00 DEPOSIT REFUND TRAIN DEPOT 4/6/2454451 INTEGRAL CONSULTING INC. 04/04/2024 18,204.34 PREPARATION OF THE CLIMATE ADAPTION PLAN(CIP 1002)54452 Karen Allanson 04/04/2024 100.00 DEPOSIT REFUND SOUTH DAY ROOM 3/30/24 54453 KONICA MINOLTA 04/04/2024 2,275.21 MAR'24 COPIER AND LEASE54454 LAURA CAMODECA 04/04/2024 84.00 INTO TO NOSE WORK WORKSHOP54455 LISA POPE 04/04/2024 1,156.25 OCT'23 MEETING MINUTES54456 Marianna Stark 04/25/2024 .00 REFUND RESERVATION:CANCELED 4/21/2454457 Mark Hofmann 04/04/2024 960.00 3/23/24 PICKLEBALL LESSONS & SOFT GAME54458 PETERSON 04/04/2024 1,125.00 FEB'24, CONTINUED BACKUP GENERATOR SERVICES 8 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 4/1/2024 4/30/2024 Aug 09, 2024 08:50PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54459 Roxanne Velez 04/04/2024 326.75 REFUNDMUSIC TOGETHER CLASS CANCELEED54460 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 04/04/2024 2,448.00 MAR'24 ADVERTISING SERVICE PDP2308454461 Sarah Kremer 04/04/2024 300.00 REFUND DEPOSIT COMMUNITY ROOM B 3/24/2454462 SWCA INCORPORATED 04/04/2024 985.75 CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT54463 THE CITIES GROUP 04/04/2024 17,317.30 Group Life / ADD 01/2406/2454464 TOOLE DESIGN 04/04/2024 84,257.40 Invoice paid outside PO: 0OAK017854465 VICTOR HERNANDEZ 04/04/2024 3,227.94 MAR'24 TRANSLATION SERVICES54466 4LEAF INC. 04/11/2024 24,992.49 OnCall Services54467 ACC BUSINESS 04/11/2024 780.91 MAR'24 PHONE SERVICE54468 ALTA LANGUAGE SERVICES, INC 04/11/2024 187.00 NOV'23 BILINGUAL TESTING54469 Anthony Alan Gemanis 04/11/2024 154.27 INTEREST PAYOUT54470 ARAMARK 04/11/2024 326.52 MAR'24 MAINT SUPPLIES PUBLIC LIBRARY54471 AT&T 04/11/2024 992.07 APR'24 PHONE SERVICE54472 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC 04/11/2024 190.00 MAINT SERVICE #17963854473 CASELLE INC. 04/11/2024 3,695.00 MAY'24 SUPPORT & MAINTENANCE54474 Claudia Gulasch 04/11/2024 154.27 INTEREST PAYOUT54475 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 04/11/2024 3,456.17 HYDRANT METER54476 COASTSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 04/11/2024 464.00 880 STONE PINE PRELIMINARY REVIEW54477 CORA 04/11/2024 2,490.00 CORA CONTRIBUTION54478 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC 04/11/2024 364.19 MAR'24 RECORDS MANAGEMENT54479 CRUZIO INTERNET 04/11/2024 14.95 INTERNET SERVICE54480 Elijah Brasesco 04/11/2024 189.00 REFUNDCHALLENGER CLASS CANCELED54481 Elise Cabilatazan 04/11/2024 189.00 REFUNDCHALLENGER CLASS CANCELED54482 FlowBird America Inc 04/11/2024 112.00 MAR'24 MAINT SERVICE54483 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 04/11/2024 1,204.12 MAR'24 FUEL54484 Frances Cooke 04/11/2024 189.00 REFUNDCHALLENGER CLASS CANCELED54485 HDL SOFTWARE LLC 04/11/2024 1,522.41 TOT AND BUSINESS LICENSE MANAGEMENT54486 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER 04/11/2024 13,353.32 Provide daily operaGon and facility oversight via Opportunit 54487 IMPEC GROUP INC. 04/11/2024 780.00 Provide custodial services for the OCC54488 INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES 04/11/2024 14,122.00 I.T. NETWORKING AND SUPPORT SERVICES54489 LAUTZENHISER'S STATIONERY INC. 04/11/2024 887.71 MINUTE BOOKS 9 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 4/1/2024 4/30/2024 Aug 09, 2024 08:50PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54490 Leo Ollarzaba 04/11/2024 189.00 REFUNDCHALLENGER CLASS CANCELED54491 LOCKWORKS UNLIMITED INC 04/11/2024 570.00 Galaxy Cloud Concierge Service/Badging Client Licensing54492 LORAL LANDSCAPING INC. 04/11/2024 4,160.00 FY 2324 MEDIAN MAINTENANCE WORK54493 Mark Hofmann 04/11/2024 84.00 TRANSITION CLASS 4/4/2454494 MGROUP 04/11/2024 1,485.00 NEW PO REQUEST FOR MGROUP54495 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 04/11/2024 23.61 OFFICE SUPPLIES54496 Peter Smith 04/11/2024 120.00 REFUNDK9 NOSE CLASS CANCELED54497 PLAN JPA 04/11/2024 11,659.40 MAR'24 GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS54498 QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC 04/11/2024 714.04 POSTAGE54499 QUADIENT LEASING USA, INC. 04/11/2024 493.65 LEASE PMT 29JAN24 to 28APR2454500 Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center 04/11/2024 19,978.97 Consultant to provide small business development and entr54501 REPUBLIC SERVICES #925 04/11/2024 351.48 WASTE REMOVAL54502 Rowan Salstrom 04/11/2024 189.00 REFUNDCHALLENGER CLASS CANCELED54503 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 04/11/2024 1,260,304.00 FY 2324 UAAL CREDIT54504 SCL NORTH 04/11/2024 6,265.87 MAIN ST FIXTURES54505 SWCA INCORPORATED 04/11/2024 9,326.25 PREPARE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIO54506 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC 04/11/2024 5,000.00 MAR'24 CONSULTING SERVICES54507 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS 04/11/2024 806.21 CITATION PROCESSING54508 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) INC. 04/11/2024 545.68 BOOM LIFT54509 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY 04/11/2024 1,520.00 MAR'24 EXTERMINATOR SERVICES54510 ZONES, LLC 04/11/2024 5.65 CLOUD SUBSCRIPTIONS 040824 to 05082454511 4LEAF INC. 04/18/2024 4,963.56 New PSA for Public Works inspection services, FY 232454512 ABBEY PARTY RENTS 04/18/2024 3,262.50 BLEACHERS RENTAL54513 AMERICAN PORTABLES 04/18/2024 4,476.68 FY 2324 PORTABLE TOLIETS54514 ARAMARK 04/18/2024 653.04 APR'24 MAINT SUPPLIES PUBLIC LIBRARY54515 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 04/18/2024 818.51 FY'23 TrueUp54516 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION 04/18/2024 5,508.75 STORMWATER (NPDES) SERVICES 202454517 Chris Schlesinger 04/18/2024 720.00 CPR COURSE 4/10/2454518 COASTSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 04/18/2024 464.00 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY REVIEW54519 COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH WHATLEY PC 04/18/2024 6,040.30 MAR'24 LEGAL SERVICES SAM54520 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 04/18/2024 82.25 MAR'24 MICROWAVE MUX DSO 10 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 4/1/2024 4/30/2024 Aug 09, 2024 08:50PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54521 ELECTRIC MD 04/18/2024 7,750.00 SEWER LIFT STATION, PELICAN POINT54522 ELS ARCHITECTURE & URBAN DESIGN 04/18/2024 5,954.58 CHANGE ORDER 2 AMANDMENT 6 TO PSA FOR DESIGN SER54523 GRIFFIN STRUCTURES INC. 04/18/2024 12,942.72 CARTER PARK RENOVATION PROJECT54524 HALF MOON BAY GRADING & PAVING INC. 04/18/2024 27,946.20 MINOR CONTRACT FOR 2024 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PR 54525 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER 04/18/2024 40,000.00 HOTEL BID CHAMBER AGREEMENT & PO 20232454526 HUE & CRY SECURITY SYSTEMS INC. 04/18/2024 301.77 MAY'24 SECURITY SERVICE54527 IMPEC GROUP INC. 04/18/2024 18,085.00 FY 2324 JANITORIAL CONTRACT54528 LAURA CAMODECA 04/18/2024 1,267.00 CONTINUING ODOR54529 MARIAN ELIZABETH POTT 04/18/2024 2,100.00 CANINE LIFE SKILLS54530 Mark Hofmann 04/18/2024 2,290.00 PICKLEBALL LESSONSDANETTE PUGLIESE54531 PACIFICA COMMUNITY TELEVISION 04/18/2024 11,300.00 Q3, FY23/24 RECORDING SERVICE54532 PENINSULA MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING INC. 04/18/2024 16,200.00 EASTSIDE PARALLEL TRAIL54533 PETERSON 04/18/2024 27,409.97 BackUp Generator Services54534 PRINCETON WELDING 04/18/2024 540.00 2 LIGHT FIXTURE REPAIRS54535 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 04/18/2024 720.00 APR'24 ADVERTISING SERVICE PDP2303454536 SEWER AUTHORITY MIDCOASTSIDE 04/18/2024 675,748.91 FY20232024 MIDYEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT54537 STERICYCLE, INC. 04/18/2024 210.72 PAPER SHREDDING54538 William Duff Architects Inc 04/18/2024 7,625.67 PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR OOC54539 ABUNDANT GRACE COASTSIDE WORKER 04/25/2024 9,427.00 Provide coastal cleanup support services54540 CA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 04/25/2024 5,279.75 JANMAR'24 SIGNALS & LIGHTING54541 CITY OF BRISBANE 04/25/2024 1,580.00 2024 SPRING ACADEMY FEES B. LOPEZ54542 COASTSIDE FARMERS' MARKETS 04/25/2024 1,950.00 COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS PARTNER54543 COASTSIDE PRINTERS 04/25/2024 426.56 DOOR HANGERS NOTICE54544 FREYER & LAURETA INC. 04/25/2024 705.00 CHANGE ORDER 2. SMITH FIELD PARK54545 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER 04/25/2024 7,560.00 FEB'24 BID (OOC)54546 Howard E. Lee 04/25/2024 1,638.00 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT ORCHESTRA WINTER 23/2454547 JANET E STONE 04/25/2024 4,100.00 CONSULTANT SUPPORT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT 555/54548 JESSICA BLAIR 04/25/2024 3,000.00 STUDENT LOAN REIMBURSEMENT 202454549 Jesus Villasenor 04/25/2024 100.00 DEPOSIT REFUND 7/13/2454550 JULISSA ACOSTA 04/25/2024 141.40 PARKING REIMBURSEMENT: NAEH CONFERENCE54551 KATHY OLER 04/25/2024 2,293.47 MAY'24 TEMPORARY CITY PARKING LOT RENTAL 11 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 4/1/2024 4/30/2024 Aug 09, 2024 08:50PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54552 KONICA MINOLTA 04/25/2024 2,275.21 APR'24 COPIER AND LEASE54553 Luis Sanchez Godinez 04/25/2024 500.00 REFUND DEPOSIT TRAIN DEPOT 4/16/2454554 MAKE IT MAIN STREET 04/25/2024 10,000.00 2024 MAKE IT MAIN STREET EVENT54555 MALCOLM C SMITH 04/25/2024 825.00 COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT SERVICE54556 MARIAN ELIZABETH POTT 04/25/2024 700.00 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENTPUPPY KINDERGARDEN54557 Marianna Stark 04/25/2024 140.00 REFUND RESERVATION:CANCELED 4/21/2454558 Mark Hofmann 04/25/2024 2,004.00 PICKLEBALL 4/20/24 SERVE RETURN54559 MARK THOMAS & CO, INC 04/25/2024 12,492.94 CHANGE ORDER 2,HWY 1 N SAFETY & OP IMPROVEMENTS54560 NICHOLAS TRANSLATIONS & INTERPRETATIONS 04/25/2024 855.00 APR'24 TRANSLATION SERVICE54561 Ocoee Wilson 04/25/2024 48.37 RICAP MEETING MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT54562 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 04/25/2024 20.77 OFFICE SUPPLIES54563 PRINT INNOVATIONS, INC. 04/25/2024 171.33 PRINT SERVICE54564 QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC 04/25/2024 778.69 POSTAGE54565 QUADIENT LEASING USA, INC. 04/25/2024 855.96 LEASE PMT 11MAY24 TO 10AUG2454566 REPUBLIC SERVICES #925 04/25/2024 351.46 APR'24 WASTE REMOVAL54567 SCOTT MCVICKER 04/25/2024 3,360.00 FY 23/24 ANNEX RENT54568 SERVICE PRESS INC. 04/25/2024 55.95 BUSINESS CARDS54569 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 04/25/2024 272,350.92 HMB.GEMANIS54570 SWCA INCORPORATED 04/25/2024 1,230.75 CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT54571 WATERWAYS CONSULTING INC 04/25/2024 1,020.00 ONCALL GEMORPHOLOGY SERVICES54572 WICKMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO 04/25/2024 257,082.11 CATER PARK54573 ZONES, LLC 04/25/2024 1,110.23 CLOUD SUBSCRIPTIONS 041924 to 05192454684 WELLS FARGO 04/05/2024 34,104.39 TRAINING EXPENSE Grand Totals:
144 3,127,392.26
12 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 4/1/2024 4/30/2024 Aug 09, 2024 08:50PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount DescriptionReport Criteria:

Report type: Summary
13 BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: August 20, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
From: Lisa Rossi, Administrative Services Director
TITLE: WARRANTS FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2024
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the warrants list for the month of May 2024.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Fiscal Sustainability and Inclusive Governance Elements of the Strategic Plan.

DISCUSSION:

During this month, the City processed 6 check runs. The table below outlines each check run and their individual totals:

Check Run Date Amount
May 02 226,903
May 04 32,846
May 08 158,732
May 16 1,050,672
May 23 239,276
May 30 118,472
Total 1,826,901
The City processed payments related to 14 capital improvement projects, in a total amount of $493,025. These include Highway 1 Safety - North, Carter Park, Eastside Parallel Trail Expansion, Corporate Yard Improvements, LCP Implementation Project, Climate Action And Adaptation, Downtown Streetscape Master Plan, Smith Field Site Assessment, Sidewalk Replace/Repair Program, Urban Forest Management Program, Green Infrastructure And Stormwater, Seymour Ditch Erosion And Coast, Kehoe/Pilarcitos Outfall Repair, and the Sewer Maintenance Program. 14 Staff is also including a list of all payments above $30,000 processed during this reporting period, as listed in the table below.

OVER $30,000
Check
# Payee Check Date Amount Description
54582 EL CENTRO DE LIBERTAD 5/2/2024 $38,064 CARES PROGRAM OPERATOR 54591 Mercy Housing California 110, LP 5/2/2024 $45,065 555 KELLY DEVELOPMENT ARPA PASS THROUGH 54595 OpportunitySpace Inc 5/2/2024 $30,000 RENTAL REGISTRY PORTAL 54674 SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE 5/16/2024 $672,249 FY 23/24 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 54681 WICKMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION 5/16/2024 $220,912 CARTER PARK 54696 HALF MOON BAY GRADING & PAVING INC. 5/23/2024 $69,195 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROJECT 54701 Jobtrain Inc 5/23/2024 $33,350 OCC WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 54719 EL CENTRO DE LIBERTAD 5/30/2024 $41,842 CARES PROGRAM OPERATOR 54760 WELLS FARGO 5/4/2024 $32,846 CITY WIDE SMALL PURCHASES MADE ON CITY CARDS ATTACHMENTS:

Check Disbursement List by Check Date
15 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 5/1/2024 5/31/2024 Aug 11, 2024 03:29PM Report Criteria:

Report type: Summary
Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54501 REPUBLIC SERVICES #925 05/23/2024 351.48 WASTE REMOVAL54518 COASTSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 05/02/2024 464.00 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY REVIEW54574 ACC BUSINESS 05/02/2024 780.91 MAR'24 INTERNET SERVICE54575 AMERICAN ENERGY SOCIETY 05/02/2024 25,500.00 TO LAUNCH & OPERATE COASTSIDE VENTURE STUDIO (CSVS54576 AT&T MOBILITY 05/02/2024 694.91 MAR'24 PHONE SERVICE54577 CIRCLEPOINT 05/02/2024 1,755.00 CO AMENDMENT 7 HYATT PLACE PDP0721354578 COLUMN SOFTWARE PBC 05/02/2024 423.50 FOG NOTICE54579 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 05/02/2024 130.00 COUNCIL OF CITIES DINNER: RARBACK/PENROSE54580 Daniel Castro 05/02/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND TRAIN DEPOT 4/27/24 54581 DKS ASSOCIATES 05/02/2024 1,080.00 555 Kelly Ave. Intersection Warrant and Queuing Analysis54582 EL CENTRO DE LIBERTAD 05/02/2024 38,064.00 CARES PROGRAM54583 EUFROSINA ARANGO 05/02/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND CANCELED EVENT 5/25/2454584 Fish Wife Sweets LLC 05/02/2024 202.00 FOOD FOR MEETING54585 Gerardo Vega 05/02/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDTRAIN DEPOT 4/20/2454586 HDL SOFTWARE LLC 05/02/2024 2,213.94 TOT MGMT SERVICES54587 LAURA CAMODECA 05/02/2024 1,176.00 K9 NOSE54588 LISA POPE 05/02/2024 343.75 MEETING MINUTES54589 Mary Huerta 05/02/2024 61.02 CARLO GOING AWAY CAKE54590 MATTHEW CHIDESTER 05/02/2024 5,052.07 OCC OFFICE DIVIDERS54591 Mercy Housing California 110, LP 05/02/2024 45,064.96 555 Kelly ARPA Draw #454592 MGROUP 05/02/2024 12,165.00 NEW PO REQUEST FOR MGROUP54593 Miramar Farms Inc 05/02/2024 3,800.00 CSFA RETREAT54594 Nivardo Martinez 05/02/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND TRAIN DEPOT 4/21/2454595 OpportunitySpace Inc 05/02/2024 30,000.00 CREATION & MAINTENANCE OF RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PORT54596 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 05/02/2024 19,611.83 401 SEYMOUR ST54597 PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER 05/02/2024 2,300.00 COMMUNITY MEDIATION FY '23/2454598 PUENTE DE LA COSTA SUR 05/02/2024 1,000.00 FARMWORKER CONVENTION 3/17/2454599 Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center 05/02/2024 21,448.00 Consultant to provide small business development and entr 16 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 5/1/2024 5/31/2024 Aug 11, 2024 03:29PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54600 RINGCENTRAL INC. 05/02/2024 4,748.42 PHONE SERVICES54601 SAN MATEO COUNTY CLERK/ASSESSOR 05/02/2024 305.00 RECORDS FOR TOLEMI RENTAL REGISTRY54602 SOL ECOLOGY INC 05/02/2024 975.50 PDP22069 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT54603 SWCA INCORPORATED 05/02/2024 6,398.50 for the prepara<on of a No<fica<on of Lake or Streambed A54604 TMOBILE 05/02/2024 72.63 ACCT 997385192 APR '2454606 4LEAF INC. 05/08/2024 21,573.46 OnCall Services54607 Ambrosio Cruz Merino 05/08/2024 200.00 2024 LEADERSHIP AWARDS54608 ARAMARK 05/08/2024 198.99 APR'24 MAINT SUPPLIES CITY HALL54609 AT&T 05/08/2024 984.13 MAY'24 PHONE SERVICE54610 BAY AREA GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC 05/08/2024 29,525.00 CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT54611 BECKER GRAPHICS 05/08/2024 481.50 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT ZUMBA APR'2454612 BIG CREEK LUMBER 05/08/2024 339.17 MAINT SUPPLIES54613 C.C.O.I. GATE & FENCE 05/08/2024 718.98 MAINT SERVICE54614 CA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 05/08/2024 829.99 FEES SEISMIC EDUCATION (UP TO 5%)54615 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSIO 05/08/2024 246.60 BSASRF Q2 FY23/24 RETAINER54616 CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT 05/08/2024 2,637.19 MAINT SUPPLIES APR'2454617 CASELLE INC. 05/08/2024 3,695.00 JUNE'24 SUPPORT & MAINTENANCE54618 CIRCLEPOINT 05/08/2024 3,723.25 CO AMENDMENT 7 HYATT PLACE PDP0721354619 FlowBird America Inc 05/08/2024 99.75 APR'24 MAINT SERVICE54620 GATES AND ASSOCIATES 05/08/2024 992.50 SMITH FIELD FACILITIES MASTER PLAN54621 Ginger Sullivan 05/08/2024 100.00 2024 LEADERSHIP AWARDS54622 Gregory Owen 05/08/2024 1,000.00 2024 LEADERSHIP AWARDS54623 HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN 05/08/2024 491.92 APR'24 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES54624 HALF MOON BAY GRADING & PAVING INC. 05/08/2024 1,240.25 CLASS 2 BASE ROCK54625 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER 05/08/2024 12,878.77 Provide daily opera<on and facility oversight via Opportunit 54626 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 05/08/2024 65.60 MAINT SUPPLIES54627 IMPEC GROUP INC. 05/08/2024 18,865.00 Provide custodial services for the OCC54628 Luca Frediani 05/08/2024 100.00 2024 LEADERSHIP AWARDS54629 Lyrik Holsman 05/08/2024 100.00 2024 LEADERSHIP AWARDS54630 MARK THOMAS & CO, INC 05/08/2024 995.38 PO for Amendment 5 to the PSA for sewer collec<ons syste54631 Michele Summa 05/08/2024 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUND COMMUNITY ROOM B 4/28/24 17 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 5/1/2024 5/31/2024 Aug 11, 2024 03:29PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54632 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 05/08/2024 201.37 OFFICE SUPPLIES54633 Perla Ruiz 05/08/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND TRAIN DEPOT 5/5/2454634 PETERSON 05/08/2024 17,679.63 CONTINUED BACKUP GENERATOR SERVICES54635 PUBLIC PARKING ASSOCIATES INC 05/08/2024 395.00 MAINTENANCE SERVICE54636 Rebekah Rayher 05/08/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND TRAIN DEPOT 4/28/24 54637 REPUBLIC SERVICES #925 05/08/2024 351.46 WASTE REMOVAL54638 SCHAAF & WHEELER 05/08/2024 3,600.19 PILARCITOS AVENUE/KEHOE WATERCOURSE OUTFALL54639 SERVICE PRESS INC. 05/08/2024 69.96 MAKE IT MAIN ST POSTCARDS54640 Sherry Goodwin 05/08/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND GRAND OAK 5/4/2454641 SWCA INCORPORATED 05/08/2024 2,866.00 CHANGE ORDER 1, CORP YARD IMPROVEMENTS54642 THE GRAPHIC WORKS 05/08/2024 71.05 PRINTING SERVICE54643 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS 05/08/2024 939.92 CITATION PROCESSING54644 V. W. HOUSEN & ASSOCIATES INC. 05/08/2024 9,715.00 FY 2324 WASTERWATER COLLECTION54645 VESTIS 05/08/2024 326.52 MAINT SUPPLIES CITY HALL54646 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 05/08/2024 15,658.35 WEST COAST ARBORISTS FY 2324 CONTRACT54647 WHELEN CONSTRUCTION 05/08/2024 2,975.00 DRAINAGE ROCK WALLS CORP YARD54648 ALTA PLANNING & DESIGN 05/16/2024 20,942.50 AMENDMENT 4 BIKEWAY NORTH ADDITIONAL COSTS54649 AMERICAN ENERGY SOCIETY 05/16/2024 25,675.00 TENANT IMPROVEMENTS54650 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 05/16/2024 818.51 FY'23 TrueUp54651 AVENU INSIGHTS & ANALYTICS LLC 05/16/2024 625.00 STARS Q4 202354652 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC 05/16/2024 190.00 MAINT SERVICE #17963854653 CAZADORO CONSTRUCTION INC. 05/16/2024 13,995.64 RETENTION 5/09/202454654 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 05/16/2024 3,578.76 501 MAIN ST54655 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC 05/16/2024 605.48 APR'24 RECORDS MANAGEMENT54656 CRUZIO INTERNET 05/16/2024 14.95 INTERNET SERVICE54657 FlowBird America Inc 05/16/2024 112.00 APR'24 MAINT SERVICE54658 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 05/16/2024 2,336.68 APR'24 FUEL54659 GAYTON ARRIGOTTI 05/16/2024 462.00 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 5/04/24 JEWELRY CLASS54660 Ginger Sullivan 05/16/2024 500.00 HMB STUDENT AWARDS : SUSTAINABILITY54661 GRANICUS 05/16/2024 1,564.85 MAY'24, GRANICUS SERVICE54662 HD SUPPLY FORMERLY HOME DEPOT PRO 05/16/2024 1,998.07 MAINT SUPPLIES 18 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 5/1/2024 5/31/2024 Aug 11, 2024 03:29PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54663 HUE & CRY SECURITY SYSTEMS INC. 05/16/2024 4,286.62 PANIC BUTTON SYSTEM54664 INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES 05/16/2024 14,122.00 I.T. NETWORKING AND SUPPORT SERVICES54665 JULIEN KOVAN 05/16/2024 500.00 HMB STUDENT AWARDS : SUSTAINABILITY54666 JULISSA ACOSTA 05/16/2024 103.00 REIMBURSEMENTLEADERSHIP COUNCIL APPLICATION54667 LORAL LANDSCAPING INC. 05/16/2024 4,160.00 FY 2324 MEDIAN MAINTENANCE WORK54668 MARK THOMAS & CO, INC 05/16/2024 4,124.47 CHANGE ORDER 2,HWY 1 N SAFETY & OP IMPROVEMENTS54669 MAZE & ASSOCIATES 05/16/2024 3,500.00 AUDIT SERVICES year end 06/30/2354670 Miramar Farms Inc 05/16/2024 930.00 CSFA RETREAT54671 PENINSULA MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING INC. 05/16/2024 15,300.00 EASTSIDE PARALLEL TRAIL54672 PUBLIC PARKING ASSOCIATES INC 05/16/2024 395.00 MAINTENANCE SERVICE54673 RICE TRUCKINGSOIL FARM INC. 05/16/2024 1,605.19 MAINT SUPPLIES54674 SEWER AUTHORITY MIDCOASTSIDE 05/16/2024 672,248.91 FY20232024 MIDYEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT54675 TOOLE DESIGN 05/16/2024 14,791.00 HMB DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE PLAN INV #654676 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC 05/16/2024 5,000.00 APR'24 CONSULTING SERVICES54677 VESTIS 05/16/2024 326.52 MAINT SUPPLIES PUBLIC LIBRARY54678 VICTOR HERNANDEZ 05/16/2024 4,838.95 APR'24 TRANSLATION SERVICES54679 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 05/16/2024 6,083.10 WEST COAST ARBORISTS FY 2324 CONTRACT54680 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY 05/16/2024 1,520.00 APR'24 EXTERMINATOR SERVICES54681 WICKMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO 05/16/2024 220,912.35 RETENTION, CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT54682 William Duff Architects Inc 05/16/2024 2,500.00 PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR OOC54683 ZONES, LLC 05/16/2024 5.65 CLOUD SUBSCRIPTIONS 050824 to 06082454685 4LEAF INC. 05/23/2024 25,832.47 OnCall Services54686 AMERICAN PORTABLES 05/23/2024 8,491.50 FY 2324 PORTABLE TOLIETS54687 AT&T MOBILITY 05/23/2024 694.91 MAY'24 PHONE SERVICE54688 CALED 05/23/2024 500.00 MEMBERSHIP DUES54689 CIRCLEPOINT 05/23/2024 320.00 CO AMENDMENT 7 HYATT PLACE PDP0721354690 COASTSIDE PRINTERS 05/23/2024 809.38 NO PARKING SIGNS54691 COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH WHATLEY PC 05/23/2024 9,240.35 APR'24 LEGAL SERVICES SAM54692 DKS ASSOCIATES 05/23/2024 2,632.50 555 Kelly Ave. Intersection Warrant and Queuing Analysis54693 ELS ARCHITECTURE & URBAN DESIGN 05/23/2024 4,217.50 CHANGE ORDER 1, CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS54694 GRIFFIN STRUCTURES INC. 05/23/2024 15,301.44 CARTER PARK RENOVATION PROJECT 19 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 5/1/2024 5/31/2024 Aug 11, 2024 03:29PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54695 HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN 05/23/2024 64.79 MAY'24 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES54696 HALF MOON BAY GRADING & PAVING INC. 05/23/2024 69,195.20 MINOR CONTRACT FOR 2024 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PR 54697 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER 05/23/2024 11,958.46 Provide daily operaEon and facility oversight via Opportunit54698 HUFFMANBROADWAY GROUP, INC. 05/23/2024 2,345.00 APR'24, POPLAR BEACH GATEWAYS PLAN PDP2108254699 INTEGRAL CONSULTING INC. 05/23/2024 11,232.63 PREPARATION OF THE CLIMATE ADAPTION PLAN(CIP 1002)54700 JAMES FORD INC. 05/23/2024 809.38 VEHICLE SERVICE54701 Jobtrain Inc 05/23/2024 33,349.71 TO PROVIDE JOB SEEKER WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PRO 54702 KONICA MINOLTA 05/23/2024 2,275.21 MAY'24 COPIER AND LEASE54703 LAURA CAMODECA 05/23/2024 756.00 INTO TO NOSE PRIVATE CLASS54704 Mark Hofmann 05/23/2024 80.00 PICKLEBALL LESSONTESS WIGGINTON54705 MARK THOMAS & CO, INC 05/23/2024 3,785.75 PO for Amendment 5 to the PSA for sewer collecEons syste54706 Mary O'Hara 05/23/2024 100.00 DEPOSIT REFUND SOUTH DAY ROOM 5/16/2454707 MGROUP 05/23/2024 17,350.00 NEW PO REQUEST FOR MGROUP54708 NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP 05/23/2024 8,862.25 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND CITYWIDE FEE STUDY54709 REPUBLIC SERVICES #925 05/23/2024 351.48 WASTE REMOVAL54710 RINCON CONSULTANTS INC. 05/23/2024 2,337.00 REOPEN54711 SAN MATEO CO. PLANNING AND BUILDING DIV 05/23/2024 1,500.00 FY23/24 AIRPORT ROUNDTABLE MEMBERSHIP FEE54712 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 05/23/2024 83.64 HEALTH INSPECTION/SHERIFF SUBSTATION54713 SAN MATEO RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRIC 05/23/2024 421.00 CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION54714 STERICYCLE, INC. 05/23/2024 210.72 PAPER SHREDDING54715 SUBURBAN PROPANE LP 05/23/2024 1,863.97 PROPANE54716 THE GRAPHIC WORKS 05/23/2024 1,232.12 OCC DECALS54717 VESTIS 05/23/2024 326.52 MAINT SUPPLIES PUBLIC LIBRARY54718 ZONES, LLC 05/23/2024 1,096.94 CLOUD SUBSCRIPTIONS 051924 to 06192454719 EL CENTRO DE LIBERTAD 05/30/2024 41,842.00 CARES PROGRAM54720 ERICK PEREZ 05/30/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND TRAIN DEPOT 5/18/2454721 FREYER & LAURETA INC. 05/30/2024 2,027.50 CHANGE ORDER 2. SMITH FIELD PARK54722 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER 05/30/2024 10,618.00 MAR'24 BID (OOC)54723 KATHY OLER 05/30/2024 2,293.47 JUNE'24 TEMPORARY CITY PARKING LOT RENTAL54724 National Charity League 05/30/2024 100.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDLIBRARY ROOM B 5/19/2454725 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 05/30/2024 18,881.39 401 SEYMOUR ST 20 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 5/1/2024 5/31/2024 Aug 11, 2024 03:29PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54726 PENINSULA MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING INC. 05/30/2024 16,650.00 EASTSIDE PARALLEL TRAIL54727 PLAN JPA 05/30/2024 959.50 APR'24 GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS54728 RINGCENTRAL INC. 05/30/2024 2,370.60 PHONE SERVICES54729 SCOTT MCVICKER 05/30/2024 3,360.00 FY 23/24 ANNEX RENT54730 SWCA INCORPORATED 05/30/2024 1,689.75 HWY 1 NORTH SAFETY AND OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENTS54731 THE CITIES GROUP 05/30/2024 1,876.08 4/1/24 to 6/30/24 WORKERS COMP & SAFETY/COMPLIANC54732 TMOBILE 05/30/2024 93.45 ACCT 997385192 MAY '2454733 WOOD CONSULTING SERVICES 05/30/2024 15,210.00 PHASE 1 OF DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE CONSULTANT54760 WELLS FARGO 05/04/2024 32,845.60 RECONCILING CREDITS NEXT STATEMENT Grand Totals:
161 1,826,900.70
Report Criteria:

Report type: Summary
21 BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: August 20, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
From: Lisa Rossi, Administrative Services Director
TITLE: WARRANTS FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2024
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the warrants list for the month of June 2024.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Fiscal Sustainability and Inclusive Governance Elements of the Strategic Plan.

DISCUSSION:

During this month, the City processed 5 check runs. The table below outlines each check run and their individual totals:

Check Run Date Amount
June 04 41,846
June 06 148,687
June 13 282,682
June 19 578,174
June 27 1,475,176
Total 2,526,565
The City processed payments related to 13 capital improvement projects, in a total amount of $835,178. These include Highway 1 Safety - North, Poplar Complete Street, Carter Park, Eastside Parallel Trail Expansion, Emergency Response Program, Pilarcitos Creek Restoration, Urban Forest Management Program, Green Infrastructure And Stormwater, Seymour Ditch Erosion And Coast, Kehoe/Pilarcitos Outfall Repair, Sewer Maintenance Program, Pump Station And Force Main, and the Inflow And Infiltration Program. 22 Staff is also including a list of all payments above $30,000 processed during this reporting period, as listed in the table below.

OVER $30,000
Check
# Payee Check Date Amount Description
55036 WELLS FARGO 6/4/2024 $41,846 CITY WIDE SMALL PURCHASES ON CREDIT CARDS 54745 HALF MOON BAY GRADING & PAVING INC. 6/6/2024 $90,825 POPLAR STREET CALMING 54777 SAN MATEO COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICA 6/13/2024 $193,448 FY 23/24 DISPATCH SERVICES 54817 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6/19/2024 $480,900 SEWER CONNECTIONS FOR STONE PINE COVE 54844 SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE 6/27/2024 $672,247 FY 23/24 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (SAM) 54852 WICKMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION 6/27/2024 $634,772 CARTER PARK ATTACHMENTS:

Check Disbursement List by Check Date
23 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 6/1/2024 6/30/2024 Aug 11, 2024 03:27PM Report Criteria:

Report type: Summary
Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54631 Michele Summa 06/11/2024 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUND COMMUNITY ROOM B 4/28/2454734 ACC BUSINESS 06/06/2024 780.91 INTERNET SERVICE54735 ALTA LANGUAGE SERVICES, INC 06/06/2024 121.00 BILINGUAL TESTING54736 BIG CREEK LUMBER 06/06/2024 269.83 MAINT SUPPLIES54737 CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT 06/06/2024 1,898.00 MAINT SUPPLIES MAY'2454738 COASTSIDE HOPE 06/06/2024 400.00 WORKSHOP FOR PARENTING CLASS54739 COASTSIDE PRINTERS 06/06/2024 721.88 NO PARKING SIGNS54740 David Gorn 06/06/2024 400.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDOAK ROOM & KITCHEN 5/25/202454741 FlowBird America Inc 06/06/2024 207.55 MAY'24 MAINT SERVICE54742 GRANICUS 06/06/2024 1,564.85 JUNE'24, GRANICUS SERVICE54743 GRASSROOTSLAB LLC 06/06/2024 5,000.00 CONSULTING MAY 202454744 HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN 06/06/2024 222.96 MAY'24 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES54745 HALF MOON BAY GRADING & PAVING INC. 06/06/2024 90,825.48 RETENTION 5/29/2454746 HDL SOFTWARE LLC 06/06/2024 3,762.82 TOT AND BUSINESS LICENSE MANAGEMENT54747 IMPEC GROUP INC. 06/06/2024 780.00 Provide custodial services for the OCC54748 INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES 06/06/2024 14,122.00 DATTO BACKUP O36554749 Liz Obando 06/06/2024 450.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDGRAND OAK & KITCHEN 5/25/2454750 MALCOLM C SMITH 06/06/2024 990.00 COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT SERVICE54751 MAZE & ASSOCIATES 06/06/2024 14,925.00 FY23/24, AUDIT SERVICES AND CAFR PREPARATION54752 NICHOLAS TRANSLATIONS & INTERPRETATIONS 06/06/2024 666.00 MAY'24 TRANSLATION SERVICES54753 PHIL'S TIRE & AUTO CARE 06/06/2024 114.09 VEHICLE REPAIR54754 RICE TRUCKINGSOIL FARM INC. 06/06/2024 1,167.03 MAY'24 MAINT SUPPLIES54755 SWCA INCORPORATED 06/06/2024 4,361.00 TREE MAINT54756 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS 06/06/2024 995.92 CITATION PROCESSING54757 VESTIS 06/06/2024 653.04 MAINT SUPPLIES PUBLIC LIBRARY54758 VICTOR HERNANDEZ 06/06/2024 3,274.75 MAY'24 TRANSLATION SERVICES54759 ZONES, LLC 06/06/2024 13.29 CLOUD SUBSCRIPTIONS 051224 to 06122454761 AMERICAN ENERGY SOCIETY 06/13/2024 11,786.71 PROVIDE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS & FURNISHINGS FOR OC 24 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 6/1/2024 6/30/2024 Aug 11, 2024 03:27PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54762 ANDREW GOMEZ 06/13/2024 2,058.52 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENTMUSIC TOGETHER54763 Barbara Shenson 06/13/2024 40.00 REFUND CLASS CANCELLED SERVE RETURN 6/10/2454764 BECKER GRAPHICS 06/13/2024 486.00 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT ZUMBA MAY'2454765 CASELLE INC. 06/13/2024 3,843.00 JULY'24 SUPPORT & MAINTENANCE54766 CIRCLEPOINT 06/13/2024 390.00 CO AMENDMENT 7 HYATT PLACE PDP0721354767 CRUZIO INTERNET 06/13/2024 14.95 INTERNET SERVICE54768 GREEN HALO SYSTEMS INC 06/13/2024 1,716.00 WASTE TRACKING SERVICES54769 HIP HOUSING 06/13/2024 1,000.00 HIP HOUSING ANNUAL GRANT54770 HMBAY PARTNERS II, LLC 06/13/2024 26,912.45 637 MAIN TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FOR OCC54771 Jennifer Bertsch 06/13/2024 50.00 REFUND CANCELLEND CLASS PICKLEBALL 6/10/2454772 Judy Graham 06/13/2024 160.00 CLASS REFUND PICKLEBALL #654773 JULIETA CORREA 06/13/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND DEPOT 6/1/2454774 La Petite Baleen 06/13/2024 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUND COMMUNITY ROOM B 4/28/24 54775 Mark Hofmann 06/13/2024 382.50 PICKLEBALL LESSONSJOLENE CARLEVARIS54776 Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center 06/13/2024 17,937.03 Consultant to provide small business development and entr54777 SAN MATEO COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUN 06/13/2024 193,448.25 FY 2324 DISPATCH SERVICES54778 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 06/13/2024 3,456.00 MAY'24 ADVERTISING SERVICE54779 Shelly Smith 06/13/2024 40.00 CLASS REFUND CANCELLED PICKLEBALL 6/10/2454780 STRAIGHT WHEEL CYCLING LLC 06/13/2024 454.66 #2013 PEDAL FOR PURPOSE REPAIR54781 TOOLE DESIGN 06/13/2024 17,582.00 HMB DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE PLAN54782 Yumiko Okita 06/13/2024 418.00 REFUND FOR CANCELLED CHALLENGER CLASSES54783 ZONES, LLC 06/13/2024 5.65 CLOUD SUBSCRIPTIONS 060824 to 07082454784 ANDREW GOMEZ 06/19/2024 2,007.24 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENTMUSIC TOGETHER54785 ASUNCION GIJON 06/19/2024 5,410.00 CITY YARD DIRT FENCE54786 AUTOMATIC DOOR SYSTEMS INC. 06/19/2024 470.00 2/13/24 LIBRARY DOOR SERVICE54787 BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION 06/19/2024 10,828.75 STORMWATER (NPDES) SERVICES 202454788 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC 06/19/2024 190.00 MAINT SERVICE #17963854789 CA DEPT OF JUSTICE 06/19/2024 64.00 MAY 2024 FINGERPRINT APPS54790 CA STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE 06/19/2024 150.00 FY23/24 AUDIT REQUEST54791 CHALLENGER SPORTS CORP 06/19/2024 4,029.20 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT,CHALLENGER CORE CAMP54792 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 06/19/2024 3,756.85 501 MAIN ST 25 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 6/1/2024 6/30/2024 Aug 11, 2024 03:27PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54793 COASTSIDE PRINTERS 06/19/2024 500.39 NO PARKING SIGNS54794 ELS ARCHITECTURE & URBAN DESIGN 06/19/2024 2,689.35 CHANGE ORDER 1, CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS54795 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC. 06/19/2024 599.99 MAINT SUPPLIES54796 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 06/19/2024 2,693.24 MAY'24 FUEL54797 HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN 06/19/2024 70.54 APR'24 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES54798 HD SUPPLY FORMERLY HOME DEPOT PRO 06/19/2024 2,096.39 MAINT SUPPLIES54799 HUE & CRY SECURITY SYSTEMS INC. 06/19/2024 693.48 JUL'24 SECURITY SERVICE54800 IMPEC GROUP INC. 06/19/2024 18,085.00 FY 2324 JANITORIAL CONTRACT54801 LORAL LANDSCAPING INC. 06/19/2024 4,160.00 FY 2324 MEDIAN MAINTENANCE WORK54802 MARK THOMAS & CO, INC 06/19/2024 6,188.20 CHANGE ORDER 2,HWY 1 N SAFETY & OP IMPROVEMENTS54803 Melani Perez 06/19/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDTRAIN DEPOT 6/8/2454804 NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP 06/19/2024 1,445.25 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND CITYWIDE FEE STUDY54805 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS CHTD 06/19/2024 7,197.50 SEYMOUR DITCH EROSION STABILIZATION54806 PACIFIC COAST TRANE 06/19/2024 2,142.00 MAY'24, LIBRARY BUILDING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SUPP54807 PETERSON 06/19/2024 3,539.69 BackUp Generator Services54808 PUBLIC PARKING ASSOCIATES INC 06/19/2024 395.00 MAINT SERVICE54809 RICE TRUCKINGSOIL FARM INC. 06/19/2024 467.58 MAINT SUPPLIES54810 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 06/19/2024 3,456.00 JUN'24 ADVERTISING SERVICE PDP2403554811 SEWER AUTHORITY MIDCOASTSIDE 06/19/2024 9,592.58 FY 2324 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET54812 SHARON WEIGHT 06/19/2024 100.00 DEPOSIT REFUND SOUTH DAY ROOM 6/6/2454813 SUBURBAN PROPANE LP 06/19/2024 1,243.07 PROPANE ACCT 160106409854814 VESTIS 06/19/2024 979.56 MAINT SUPPLIES PUBLIC LIBRARY54815 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY 06/19/2024 1,520.00 MAY'24 EXTERMINATOR SERVICES54816 ZONES, LLC 06/19/2024 13.29 CLOUD SUBSCRIPTIONS 061224 to 07122454817 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 06/19/2024 480,900.00 PO FOR (30) 5/8" x 3/4" SERVICE CONNECTIONS @ $16,0354818 4LEAF INC. 06/27/2024 3,663.58 New PSA for Public Works inspection services, FY 232454819 ALTA PLANNING & DESIGN 06/27/2024 1,772.50 CHANGE ORDER 3, PACIFIC COAST BIKEWAY CONNECTIVITY 54820 AMERICAN ENERGY SOCIETY 06/27/2024 3,146.87 PROVIDE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS & FURNISHINGS FOR OC54821 AMERICAN PORTABLES 06/27/2024 195.65 FY 2324 PORTABLE TOLIETS54822 ANDREINI BROTHERS INC. 06/27/2024 10,695.35 POPLAR BEACH TRAIL EROSION REPAIR54823 AT&T MOBILITY 06/27/2024 694.91 JUNE'24 PHONE SERVICE 26 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 6/1/2024 6/30/2024 Aug 11, 2024 03:27PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
54824 Cindy Gabaldon 06/27/2024 40.00 REFUND PICKLEBALL BANGERS 6/20/2454825 ECS IMAGING INC. 06/27/2024 20,340.00 BACKFILE SCANNING54826 ELECTRIC MD 06/27/2024 1,750.00 ELECTRICAL PROBLEM HMB LIBRARY54827 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUT 06/27/2024 16,000.00 PURCHASE OF SMALL LOCAL GOV. CLOUDBASED ENTERPRI54828 Finney MurphyVelez 06/27/2024 278.25 REFUNDMUSIC TOGETHER54829 Jobtrain Inc 06/27/2024 22,070.87 TO PROVIDE JOB SEEKER WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PRO54830 Judith Cortes 06/27/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND TRAIN DEPOT 8/03/2454831 KATHY OLER 06/27/2024 2,293.47 JULY'24 TEMPORARY CITY PARKING LOT RENTAL54832 Leilani Huerta 06/27/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND TRAIN DEPOT 6/22/24 54833 LIGHTBOX 06/27/2024 15,506.92 GOVCLARITY ENTERPRISE 3/15/243/14/2554834 MTA PARTS INC. 06/27/2024 15.30 VEHICLE PARTS54835 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 06/27/2024 16,290.99 401 SEYMOUR54836 PENINSULA MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING INC. 06/27/2024 17,100.00 EASTSIDE PARALLEL TRAIL54837 Roberto Quezada 06/27/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND TRAIN DEPOT 6/15/2454838 ROSA PALMA ALSONSO 06/27/2024 500.00 DEPOIST REFUND GRAND OAK 6/15/2454839 SABRO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 06/27/2024 7,770.00 REMOVAL OF EXISTING CABLE CONNECTIONS & RELOCATE T54840 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 06/27/2024 2,736.00 JUN'24 ADVERTISING SERVICE PDP2308754841 Satchel Forrester 06/27/2024 100.00 DEPOSIT REFUND TRAIN DEPOT 6/21/2454842 SCHAAF & WHEELER 06/27/2024 1,185.19 PILARCITOS AVENUE/KEHOE WATERCOURSE OUTFALL54843 SCOTT MCVICKER 06/27/2024 3,360.00 FY '24 ANNEX RENT JULY, AUG, SEPT54844 SEWER AUTHORITY MIDCOASTSIDE 06/27/2024 672,246.91 FY20232024 MIDYEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FINAL BILLI54845 Susan Boyer 06/27/2024 6,714.56 FY '22 SEWER REFUND54846 SWCA INCORPORATED 06/27/2024 3,467.25 HWY 1 NORTH SAFETY AND OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENTS54847 Terry Giorgetti 06/27/2024 40.00 REFUND PICKLEBALL BANGERS 6/20/2454848 THE GRAPHIC WORKS 06/27/2024 450.48 OCC DECALS54849 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC 06/27/2024 5,000.00 MAY'24 CONSULTING SERVICES54850 TULLY CONSULTING GROUP 06/27/2024 1,555.00 SWPPP SERVICES FOR POPLAR STREET TRAFFIC CALMING & 54851 VESTIS 06/27/2024 326.52 MAINT SUPPLIES PUBLIC LIBRARY54852 WICKMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO 06/27/2024 634,772.28 RETENTION, CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT54853 Yesica Cacho 06/27/2024 500.00 DEPOSIT REFUND TRAIN DEPOT 6/23/24 54854 ZONES, LLC 06/27/2024 1,096.94 CLOUD SUBSCRIPTIONS 061924 to 071924 27 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register [Council] Warrants Report Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 6/1/2024 6/30/2024 Aug 11, 2024 03:27PM Check Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount Description
55036 WELLS FARGO 06/04/2024 41,846.25 RECONCILING ITEMS 6/04/2024 NEXT STATEMENT Grand Totals:
122 2,526,565.30
Report Criteria:

Report type: Summary
28

Page 1 of 1 ends

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: August 20, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Lisa Rossi, Administrative Services Director
Kenneth Stiles, Finance Manager
TITLE: TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2024 ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

By motion, accept the Treasurer’s Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the acceptance of this report.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Fiscal Sustainability and Inclusive Governance Elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with Government Code Section 53600 et seq., the City’s Treasurer is to provide the City Council with a report on investments on a quarterly basis. As shown in the Treasurer’s Report (Attachment 1), the City’s investments are in external investment pools listed at cost, as well as its fair value, not amortized cost, in compliance with Governmental Accounting Standard. The City’s investment practices strictly follow Government Code Section 53600 et seq., the City’s investment policy, and a prudent person’s rule.

DISCUSSION:

The City’s cash and investment portfolio, at fair market value as of June 30, 2024, is $51.4 million of which $42.2 million is placed with the San Mateo County Treasurer’s Investment Pool, $8.2 million is placed with the State Controller’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), and $1 million is in operating accounts with Wells Fargo Bank. The average weighted yield for the City’s cash and investments is 3.93 % for the quarter ending June 30, 2024.

ATTACHMENT:

Treasurer’s Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2024 29 City
Treasury
Fiscal
Agents
Carrying
Amount
Fair
Value
Quarterly
Yield
Quarterly
Interest
Earnings
FYTD
Interest
Earnings
Petty Cash - 292 292 292 - -
Wells Fargo Bank:

Checking 1,032,999 - 1,032,999 1,032,999 - -
Payroll 3,631 - 3,631 3,631 - -
California State Treasurer:

LAIF - General Fund 8,201,298 - 8,201,298 8,171,085 4.36% 86,702 331,746 San Mateo County Treasurer
SMC Pool - General Fund 42,604,840 - 42,604,840 42,234,178 3.94% 384,685 1,431,071 TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS 51,843,062 - 51,843,062 51,442,186 471,388 1,762,817

2. Investment maturities:

Investments at June 30, 2024 mature as follows:

City
Treasury
Fiscal
Agents
Total
Available immediately 51,843,062 - 51,843,062
Maturities less than one year - - -
Maturities of one to five years - - -
Greater than five years - - -
Total - 51,843,062 51,843,062

3. Investments Sectors, as a percentage of total portfolio and also with investment performance comparisons:

Demand Deposits and Money
Market 2.00% Date Total Yield Interest
Local Agency Investment Fund 15.82% 6/30/2022 47,977,763 0.98% 375,815 San Mateo Co. Investment Pool 82.18% 6/30/2023 50,084,807 2.88% 658,575 Fiscal Agent 0 6/30/2024 51,442,186 3.93% 1,762,817
100.00%
Date
Date
Finance Manager
Administrative Services Director
I certify that this reports all Government Agency pooled investments and is in conformity with the investment policy of the City of Half Moon Bay as stated in resolution number C-2019-107 dated December 17th, 2019. A copy of this Resolution is available at the office of the City Clerk and on the cities website http://www.hmbcity.com. The Investment Program provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the estimated expenditures of the next six months, as required by Code Section 53646.

Investment maturities may not exceed five years with the exception of investments as specified in bond debt covenants. Investment yield is ranked after safety and liquidity in making investment decisions.

The City limits market risk by limiting the types and maturities of its investments and by not borrowing against those investments.

City of Half Moon Bay
Treasurer's Report
June 30, 2024
Investment performance comparisons
*Fair Value (GASB 31) includes investment returns which are not yet realized and at amortized costs. Information is obtained from individual institutions' portfolio statements.

1. Cash and investments were comprised of the following instruments as of June 30, 2024, shown with the carrying amount, fair value, and corresponding yields on investment and interest earnings:

Investment sectors as a % of total portfolio
Docusign Envelope ID: 349FEC18-746F-47B8-9B06-21BB72995288 8/12/2024
8/12/2024
30 GENERAL FUND 14,087,721.07

RESTRICTED FUNDS
STORM DRAIN OPERATING FUND 269,275.40
TRAFFIC MITIGATION FUND 4,554,804.51
LIBRARY 16,924.00
MAIN STREET BRIDGE 56,670.18
GAS TAX 1,844,759.55
STREET AND ROAD FUND 3,110,328.23
MEASURE A FUND 1,686,227.38
PARK FACILITY DEVELOPMENT 1,354,214.98
AFFORDABLE HOUSING 5,900,430.50
PUBLIC FACILITIES 1,126,208.47
POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE 1,076,578.62
JOB-BOND PROCEED FD 0.96
MEASURE W FUND 839,999.28
LOT ACQUISITION/DEVELOPMENT 1,442,714.20
CZI GRANTS 221,639.19
OCC GRANT (39,764.61)
JOB - DEBT SERVICE FD 6,588.13
GEN FD CAPITAL PROJECTS 2,516,473.26
DRAINAGE FUND 1,408,157.35
LIBRARY CAPITAL 463,626.58

GENERAL LONG TERM DEBT -
SEWER FUNDS 3,437,555.73
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 181,229.54
FURN/FIXT & EQUIP FUND 913,160.36
RISK MANAGEMENT 3,863,480.94
RETIREMENT STABILIZATION 1,504,057.94
TOTAL RESTRICTED FUNDS 37,755,340.67
GENERAL LEDGER (BOOK) TOTAL 51,843,061.74
BANK BALANCES ON 06/30/2024
WELLS FARGO GENERAL CHECKING 3,080,621
WELLS FARGO PAYROLL CHECKING 3,631
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF) 8,201,298
SAN MATEO COUNTY INVESTMENT POOL 42,604,840
Add: PETTY CASH ACCOUNTS 292.49

RECONCILING ITEMS -
Less: OUTSTANDING CHECKS (2,056,120.66)
Plus: DEPOSITS IN TRANSIT 8,499.20
Plus: VOID CHECKS -
BANK RECONCILIATION TOTAL 51,843,061.74

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

CASH AND INVESTMENTS REPORT
FOR QUARTER ENDING 06/30/2024
Docusign Envelope ID: 349FEC18-746F-47B8-9B06-21BB72995288 31 BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: August 20, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Jessica Blair, Communications Director / City Clerk TITLE: MAYOR’S AMENDED LIST OF CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES AND DESIGNATED ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2024
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Accept Mayor Jimenez’s Amended List of City Council Representatives and Designated Assignments for 2024, to appoint Vice Mayor Rarback to the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Inclusive Governance Element of the Strategic Plan.

ATTACHMENTS:

Mayor’s Amended List of City Council Representatives and Designated Assignments for 2024 32 Updated August 20, 2024

CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS
2024
A. Council Subcommittees
Subcommittee Designated Representative Meeting Schedule CSFA Grant Selection Brownstone/Penrose As designated
Education Jimenez/Ruddock As designated
Emergency Preparedness Penrose /Rarback As designated
Finance Jimenez/Brownstone As designated
Human Resources Jimenez/Brownstone As designated
Legislative Affairs Jimenez/Ruddock As designated
Mobility Brownstone/Penrose As designated
Public Safety Jimenez/Penrose As designated
B. City and Interagency
Organization Designated Representative Meeting Schedule ABAG (Association of Bay Area
Governments)
Jimenez/Brownstone Annual, 1 day
C/CAG (County/City Assoc. of
Governments)
Ruddock/Brownstone 2nd Thursday evenings
Chamber Government Affairs
Committee
Rarback/Jimenez 3rd Thursdays 4:00 p.m.

Council of Cities Selection Committee Jimenez/Rarback 4th Friday evenings League of CA Cities – Coastal Cities
Issue Group
Rarback/Brownstone Quarterly, as designated
League of CA Cities – Coastal Cities
Group – Leadership Committee
Jimenez/Rarback As designated
League of CA Cities – Peninsula Division Brownstone/Penrose Quarterly, as designated Peninsula Clean Energy Authority Rarback/Jimenez 4th Thursday Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance Jimenez/Rarback Quarterly, as designated 33 Updated August 20, 2024
SAM (Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside) Rarback / Ruddock
Alt: Penrose
4th Monday 7pm
SMCo Airport Community Roundtable Jimenez/Brownstone 1st alt Wednesday 7 p.m.

SMCo Airport Land Use Committee Jimenez/Brownstone Quarterly, 4th Wednesday 4:00 pm
SMCo Council of Cities All 4th Friday evenings
SMCo Library JPA Penrose/Rarback Quarterly, Monday
evening
SMCo Office of Emergency Services Jimenez/Rarback Quarterly, 4th Thursday evening
C. Council Liaisons
Organization / Ad Hoc Committee Designated Representative Meeting Schedule Arts, Culture, and Events Penrose/Jimenez As designated Beaches, Trails, and Parks Jimenez/Penrose As designated Board of Supervisors Rarback/Jimenez 2nd/4th Tuesdays, 9:00 am Cannabis Rarback/Brownstone As designated
Chamber of Commerce / BID Penrose/Ruddock As designated Homeless Jimenez/Penrose As designated
Housing and Human Services Penrose/Rarback As designated Mid-Coast Community Council Rarback/Brownstone 2nd/4th Wednesdays Permit Streamline Process Penrose/Rarback As designated Schools, Boys & Girls Club Jimenez/Brownstone As designated Technology and Economic Develop. Rarback/Brownstone As designated 34

Page 1 of 1 ends

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: August 20, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Jessica Blair, Communications Director / City Clerk TITLE: RECEIPT OF LEGISLATIVE POSITION LETTER
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file Letter in Opposition to Assembly Bill 2560.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This action supports the Inclusive Governance element of the Strategic Plan.

DISCUSSION:

Annually, the City adopts a Legislative Platform allowing staff to send position letters regarding various bills / issues of interest to the City. The 2024 Legislative Platform was adopted by the City Council on March 5, 2024. The Platform provides City staff, on the Council’s behalf, to respond in support of or opposition to bills and other legislative and administrative actions. The City Council has delegated its authority to the Mayor and / or City Manager to sign position letters consistent with the Legislative Platform. Townsend Public Affairs, the City’s legislative advocate, monitors legislation for the City and communicates frequently with staff on pending legislation. Occasionally, the League of California Cities sends action alerts for bills affecting municipalities. Staff reviews those alerts as well and takes action on any that align with the City’s Legislative Platform.

When position letters are sent, staff includes a copy of the letter in a subsequent City Council agenda packet for viewing by the Council and the community.

ATTACHMENTS:

Letter in Opposition to Assembly Bill 2560
35 July 15, 2024
The Honorable David Alvarez
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Room 5320
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 2560 (Alvarez): Density Bonus Law: California Coastal Act of 1976 Coastal City of Half Moon Bay – Notice of Opposition
Dear Assembly Member Alvarez,
On behalf ofthe City of Half Moon Bay, I write to express our regretful opposition to your AB 2560 which proposes amendments to the Density Bonus Law (DBL) as it pertains to the California Coastal Act of 1976. Current amendments present a significant shift in housing oversight and state authority that are extremely problematic for local governments. We recognize that these amendments were proposed by the Senate Natural Resources Committee and may not be entirely reflective of your intentions with this measure.

AB 2560 proposes to eliminate Section 30500.1 from the Public Resources Code, a provision that has been part of Coastal Act law since the 1980s and stipulates that "No local coastal program shall be required to include housing policies and programs." The removal of this provision could have extensive implications. The original intent of this language was to limit the Commission’s authority from mandating the inclusion of housing policies and conditions in the LCP process. Without this safeguard, the Commission may gain additional authority to impose various housing conditions outside the scope of the DBL. This could include requiring new housing projects to adhere to additional inclusionary zoning percentages beyond those already established by local jurisdictions.

Additionally, the latest amendments set a deadline on July 1, 2026, for all local governments within the coastal zone to submit an amendment to their LCP certification and that it is comprehensively updated to incorporate the applicable provisions of DBL. Requiring all coastal cities and counties to update their LCPs by July 1, 2026, is an unfunded mandate that will inundate the Commission and delay the certification of LCPs to move forward with affordable housing projects that incorporate Density Bonus Law. LCP amendments are costly and time-consuming, for example, each amendment can range anywhere from several hundred thousand dollars to over a million dollars of local government staff time, local resources, and support.

While the City supports the goal of increasing affordable housing, we believe that the current Docusign Envelope ID: A0B97F6A-2E30-4E1C-B7FB-40F40C0AF18B 18036
amendments to AB 2560 create an extremely challenging situation, entangling local governments in planning approvals and hindering the actual development of affordable housing in the coastal zone.

For these reasons, the City of Half Moon Bay respectfully opposes AB 2560.

Sincerely,
Joaquin Jimenez
Mayor
City of Half Moon Bay
cc: Senator Josh Becker
Assembly Member Marc Berman
Docusign Envelope ID: A0B97F6A-2E30-4E1C-B7FB-40F40C0AF18B 18137

Page 1 of 3 ends

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: August 20, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Maz Bozorginia, Public Works Director/City Engineer Matthew Nichols, Management Analyst
Jonathan Woo, Assistant Engineer
TITLE: RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORT FOR TWO (2) GRANT APPLICATIONS TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR THE CYCLE 7 PEDESTRIAN

AND BICYCLE GRANT PROGRAM
____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution:

1. Directing staff to submit two (2) separate grant applications to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) for Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for the following projects:
a. $780,000 for the Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection to Hatch Elementary School Project; and
b. $250,000 for the FY 24-25 Bicycle Pedestrian Small-Scale Project;

4. Certifying that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and

5. Authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution and execute applicable amendments. 38

Page 2 of 3 ends

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is minimal fiscal impact with submitting both grant applications, including staff time to prepare the applications and exhibits, which are captured through the operating budget. If the City is awarded either or both grants, a 10% local match would be required.

If the City is awarded the grant for the Bicycle/Pedestrian Connection to Hatch Elementary Project, there are sufficient funds in the Capital Improvement Program Project No. 9010 and the Streets and Roads Fund (123) for the required local funding match of $78,000.

If the City is awarded the grant for the FY 2024-25 Bicycle and Pedestrian Small-Scale Projects, there are sufficient funds in the Streets and Roads Fund (123) for the required local funding match of $25,000.

The Streets and Roads Fund is a restricted fund, accounting for the expenditures made for city streets and roads improvements and maintenance. This restricted fund is comprised of primarily California Gas Tax, SMCTA Measure A and W, Development Impact Fees and some general fund dollars.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Infrastructure and Environment, and Healthy Communities, and Public Safety Elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) announced their call for projects for their Pedestrian and Bicycle (Ped/Bike) Program. The goal of the Ped/Bike Program is to fund projects that improve bicycling and walking accessibility and safety in San Mateo County, helping to encourage more residents to participate in active transportation. Bicycling and walking are sustainable forms of transportation that help meet local mobility needs.

The Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan and Measure W Congestion Relief Plan provide funding for mobility programs in San Mateo County. The San Mateo County Transportation Authority administers the proceeds of Measure A and Measure W sales tax revenue. While some programs are directly provided funding allocations (like the Local Streets and Transportation category), other programs must hold a competitive selection process known as a "Call for Projects" to fund projects. The Call for Projects for the 2024 round of Measure A/W Highway Program funding was issued on June 10, 2024.

City Staff is preparing to submit two (2) grant applications prior to the due date of August 30, 2024. A funding breakdown of the amount requested for each respective application and the required local match funding are provided below.
1) The Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection to Hatch Elementary Project requested a total of $780,000 with $78,000 of local matching funds as required by the funding program; 39

Page 3 of 3 ends

2) The FY 24-25 Bicycle Pedestrian Small-Scale Project requested a total of $250,000 with $25,000 of local matching funds as required by the funding program.

Overall, the City is requesting a total amount of $1,030,000, of which there would be a $103,000 local match ($927,000 in Measure A and W funds). A requirement of the grant application is the adoption of resolutions supporting each project, authorizing their submittals and commitment of the required local matching funds. For a map of the locations of these referenced improvements, please see Attachment 3.

DISCUSSION:

Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection to Hatch Elementary Project City Staff is requesting grant funding to support the Environmental, Design, and Construction stages of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection to Hatch Elementary Project. This project proposes to improve ped/bike access along Second Avenue between Myrtle Street to Central Avenue. Proposed improvements include permeable pathways, crossing improvements, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades, among others. This project promotes walking and biking, which reduces vehicular congestion while also improving safety. This project is also identified in various Safe Routes to School audits.

FY 2024-25 Bicycle Pedestrian Small-Scale Project
City Staff is requesting grant funding to support the Design and Construction stages of the FY 2024-25 Bicycle Pedestrian Small-Scale Project. This project proposes to add and upgrade existing standard crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks, upgrade class 2 bike lane striping to include modern high visibility elements at potential conflict points and install additional bike racks at parks and other locations as recommended in the adopted City of Half Moon Bay Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan.

CONCLUSION:

City staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of the applications, authorizing the City Manager (or their designee) to execute funding agreements and memorandums of understanding with the TA to encumber the Measures A and W funds, committing the required local matching funds, certifying that awarded funds will supplement existing funding commitments and authorizing the City Manager (or their designee) to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution and execute applicable amendments.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution – Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection to Hatch Elementary Project

2. Resolution – FY 24-25 Bicycle Pedestrian Small-Scale Project

3. Project Location Map
40 1
RESOLUTION NO. C-2024-___

A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CONNECTION TO HATCH

ELEMENTARY PROJECT AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR CYCLE 7 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM FUNDING WHEREAS, the City of Half Moon Bay (Sponsor) has identified the need for an ADA compliant pathway that connects residents of the Arleta Park Subdivision to Hatch Elementary; and
WHEREAS, the Sponsor has developed the Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection to Hatch Elementary Project (Project) to rehabilitate and create a permeable ADA compliant pathway that promotes walking, biking, and/or the use of other micromobility; and WHEREAS, it will cost $780,000 to implement the Project for the Environmental, Design and Construction phases; and
WHEREAS, the Sponsor seeks $780,000 for the Project, and WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) issued a Call for Projects for the Cycle 7 Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on June 10, 2024, and WHEREAS, the TA requires the Sponsor's governing board to adopt a resolution:

1. Supporting the Project and application for $780,000 in TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for Project;

2. Committing the Sponsor to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $78,000 needed for implementation;

3. Certifying that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and

4. If funds are awarded, authorizing the Sponsor's City Manager, or designee, to sign a funding agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the TA for TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funding for the Project and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution and execute applicable amendments.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay:

1. Directs staff to submit an application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for $780,000 for the Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection to Hatch Elementary Project;

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute a funding agreement or MOU and any amendments with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to encumber TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds;

3. Commits to the completing the Project, including contributing $78,000 of matching funds needed for Project implementation, if the requested TA funds are awarded; 41 2

4. Certifies that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and

5. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution and execute applicable amendments. ***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 20th day of August 2024, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

Ayes, Councilmembers:

Noes, Councilmembers:

Absent, Councilmembers:

Abstain, Councilmembers:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Jessica Blair, City Clerk Joaquin Jimenez, Mayor
42 RESOLUTION NO. C-2024-___
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE FY 2024-25 BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN SMALL-SCALE

PROJECTS AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR CYCLE 7 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM FUNDING WHEREAS, the City of Half Moon Bay (Sponsor) has identified the need for pedestrian and bicycle improvements as stated in the City of Half Moon Bay’s 2019 Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Sponsor has developed the FY 2024-25 Bicycle Pedestrian Small-scale Project (Project) to fill the needs and deficiencies found in our Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan through quick build projects, and
WHEREAS, it will cost $250,000 to implement the Project, and WHEREAS, the Sponsor seeks $250,000 for the Project, and WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) issued a Call for Projects for the Cycle 7 Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on June 10, 2024, and
WHEREAS, the TA requires the Sponsor's governing board to adopt a resolution:

1. Supporting the Project and application for $250,000 in TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for Project;

2. Committing the Sponsor to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $25,000 needed for implementation;

3. Certifying that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay:

1. Directs staff to submit an application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for $250,000 for the FY 2024-25 Half Moon Bay Bicycle Pedestrian Project;

3. Commits to the completing the Project, including contributing $25,000 of matching funds needed for Project implementation, if the requested TA funds are awarded; 43 4. Certifies that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and

Ayes, Councilmembers: __________________________________ Noes, Councilmembers: __________________________________ Absent, Councilmembers: __________________________________ Abstain, Councilmembers: __________________________________ ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Joaquin Jimenez, Mayor
44 P
ermeableADAPathway
NewSidewalk
Rectangular RapidFlashingBeacons
Hi-VisLadder Crosswalk
Hi-VisClass2BikePath
Additional BikeParking
45 BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: August 20, 2024
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: John Doughty, Assistant City Manager
TITLE: CITIZEN’S OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) GRANT PROGRAM FY 2024-25 RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution authorizing the Administrative Services Director to accept the State of California Citizen’s Option for Public Safety Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2024-25, in the amount of $100,000, and approve using those funds on projects, support, and equipment that meet the conditions of the grant.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the action. The Citizen’s Option for Public Safety (COPS) Grant program provides $100,000 in supplemental law enforcement funding annually.

The grant cannot be used to supplant the adopted budget and does not have a matching fund requirement. Therefore, there is no budget impact associated with this action.

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This action supports the Healthy Communities and Public Safety and Fiscal Sustainability elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

In 1996, the California State Legislature enacted Chapter 134 (AB3229 Brulte) creating the Citizen’s Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. Under this program, cities and counties receive state funds to augment public safety expenditures. The City has participated in this program for over a decade. The provisions of the COPS grant require that the funding be placed into a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF).

The funds must be used to supplement, not supplant, the delivery of front-line law enforcement services through projects, programs, and/or equipment that meet the conditions of the grant. Upon receipt of a signed City Council Resolution authorizing the disbursement of the funds, the County will release the funds to the City, which will then be deposited in the City’s SLESF account. COPS funds may accrue, and this year’s allocation may be combined with prior year grants for qualifying projects, programs and/or equipment. 46 DISCUSSION:

As noted above, the COPS grant funds are to be used for projects, programs, and/or equipment intended to enhance the delivery of front-line public safety services benefiting residents, businesses, and visitors alike. Over the years, the funds have been used for focused traffic enforcement, enhanced coverage at Poplar Beach during holidays and the summer months, additional law enforcement support at special events, and community outreach.

On April 16, 2024, the City Council conceptually approved the Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Pilot Program calling for an initial placement at sixteen locations. A formal request for budget allocation and ALPR Pilot Program is scheduled for City Council consideration in September. The cost of installation and operation of the pilot program is approximately $110,000 over two years, and COPS grant funding has been identified as the source of funding for the pilot. Approval of the resolution does not obligate the City Council to the ALPR Pilot Program, it only provides the opportunity to return in September for further discussion and if approved, utilize COPS grant funding for this purpose.

Staff is recommending these funds be authorized by the City Council to enhance the level of law enforcement services currently provided under contract by the San Mateo County Sheriff.

Projects/Programs funding by the COPS Grant includes the following:

Project/Program Description
ALPR (Automated License Plate Reader)
Pilot Program
Augment Patrol / Special Events
Augment Patrol / Summer Beach Season
Community engagement and outreach
Emergency Response Special Equipment
and Tools
Provides funding for the installation and operation of up to sixteen (16) ALPR in the City under a two-year pilot program.

Supplement patrol and/or CSO staffing levels with the intent of enhancing downtown presence, coordination of special events, parking enforcement, and traffic enforcement.

Supplement patrol and/or CSO staffing levels with the intent of managing heavy weekend and late-night activities at Poplar and other City beaches.

Host several events throughout the City for the residents of Half Moon Bay: Meet and Greet with Deputies, Community
events, Training, Diversion Workshop Programs, etc.

Evaluate ways to augment business safety, security, and monitoring.

Acquisition of specialized equipment to be utilized by the City and Sheriff’s Department during emergency and catastrophe response.
47 Project/Program Description
Parking Enforcement
Small Business Support
Traffic Enforcement (Motorcycle)
Personnel will also assist with other special assignments as needed throughout the year.

Evaluate ways to augment business safety, security, and monitoring.

Supplement patrol with the intent of addressing traffic control and enforcement during peak hours on weekends, holidays, and special events/details.

ATTACHMENT
Resolution
48 Resolution No. C-2024-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES IN SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL FUND (SLESF) FOR CITIZEN’S OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT PROGRAM IN FY 2024-25
WHEREAS, in 1996 the California State Legislature enacted Chapter 134 (AB3229 Brulte) creating a City’s Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program; and WHEREAS, under the COPS Program the City annually receives State funding to augment public safety expenditures; and
WHEREAS, the City is eligible to receive $100,000 in COPS Program funding in Fiscal Year 2024-25; and
WHEREAS, the City of Half Moon Bay is choosing to participate in this grant program and is proposing to identify general areas of focus for the grant funds including the potential purchase and operation of automated license plate readers (ALPR), business support, patrol augmentation, traffic and parking enforcement, and assistance with special events.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby authorizes the Administrative Services Director to accept the State of California Citizen’s Option for Public Safety Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2024-25 in the amount of $100,000. ***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 20th day of August 2024, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Joaquin Jimenez, Mayor
49

Page 1 of 3 ends

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: August 20, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Maz Bozorginia, Public Works Director/City Engineer Jonathan Woo, Assistant Engineer
TITLE: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE COUNTYWIDE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FOR HALF MOON BAY AND ACCOMPANYING VISION ZERO GOALS
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution approving the Countywide and the City of Half Moon Bay Local Roadway Safety Plan and accompanying Vision Zero Goals.

FISCAL IMPACT:

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

STRATEGIC ELEMENT:

This recommendation supports the Infrastructure and Environment, and Healthy Communities, and Public Safety Elements of the Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

A Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies and systematically analyzes roadway safety needs and develops a prioritized list of safety countermeasures. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates an agency’s responsiveness to safety challenges through local agency partnerships and collaboration.

The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) established and adopted a countywide LRSP which includes a standalone chapter for local jurisdictions such as the City of Half Moon Bay, that have yet to adopt an individual plan. The LRSP is divided into two parts, the first contains the Countywide LRSP, and the second contains specialized chapters for ten participating agencies. C/CAG engaged its 21 members, including the County of San Mateo and cities, to inquire about a countywide safety plan for jurisdictions that have yet to develop one.

In total, 10 jurisdictions, including the City of Half Moon Bay, did not adopt an individual 50

Page 2 of 3 ends

LRSP and have a dedicated chapter in the countywide plan. Adopting the Countywide LRSP allows the City to be eligible for grant funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) OBAG 3 County & Local Program, as well as other future grant programs from the State and Federal levels.

In Spring 2023, the Countywide LRSP commenced 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 county between August 2023 and January 2024 to receive feedback from the public, including on August 19, 2023, at the Half Moon Bay Farmer’s Market.

DISCUSSION:

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, a reported 17 crashes resulted in deaths or severe, life-changing injuries on non-freeway roadways in the City of Half Moon Bay jurisdiction, averaging approximately 3 per year. It goes without saying, one death on City streets is too many and the City is dedicated to strategies that aim to reduce and eliminate deaths and serious injuries.

Seniors, children, people of color, people with disabilities, people in low-income communities, people walking, and people bicycling face a disproportionate risk of traffic injuries and fatalities.

The LRSP identifies the following emphasis areas 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 will always occur, a system of redundant engineering and non-engineering solutions can reduce crashes and can prevent crashes from causing death or severe injuries. 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 a Vision Zero policy in 2020 that identified actions to support agencies like the City of Half Moon Bay. 51

Page 3 of 3 ends

Approval of the Countywide LRSP including the City of Half Moon Bay Chapter (Attachments 2 and 3) are critical to be eligible for grant funding cycles currently available to local agencies, such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Cycle 3, among others. City staff continue to seek funding from these sources for critical transportation projects, including Kelly Avenue and Poplar Street Phase 2 among others.

The Countywide LRSP and chapter dedicated to Half Moon Bay are foundational to realizing the goals of Vision Zero. Additionally, the City received a $150,000 grant (which includes a $30,000 local match) from the US Department of Transportation to prepare a more comprehensive LRSP. This standalone document will build off the framework established through the C/CAG LRSP and allows for more robust and targeted public outreach from the diverse population of Half Moon Bay and the San Mateo County coast. Funding agreements are being finalized, which allows for the City’s LRSP to commence in FY 2024-25. Additional information will be brought back to Council as that project moves forward.

Given the need of an LRSP for active grant programs, Staff recommends the Council adopt a resolution adopting the Countywide and the City of Half Moon Bay Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and accompanying Vision Zero Goals.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution

2. C/CAG County Wide LRSP

3. City Half Moon Bay LRSP Chapter
52 Resolution No. C-2024-___

RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE COUNTYWIDE AND CITY OF HALF MOON BAY LOCAL ROADWAY

SAFETY PLAN AND ACCOMPANYING VISION ZERO GOAL
WHEREAS, according to data from the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 17,317 people have been killed in traffic collisions in California from 2013 through 2017, for an average of 9.5 people per day; and
WHEREAS, from 2018 to 2022, a reported 17 crashes resulted in deaths or severe, lifechanging injuries on non-freeway roadways in the City of Half Moon Bay, an average of 3 per year; and
WHEREAS, one death on City streets is too many, and the City is dedicated to strategies that aim to reduce and eliminate deaths and serious injuries on streets in all jurisdictions countywide; and
WHEREAS, seniors, children, people of color, people with disabilities, people in lowincome communities, people walking, and people bicycling face a disproportionate risk of traffic injuries and fatalities; and
WHEREAS, the City Local Roadway Safety Plan (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 35mph 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 will always occur, a system of redundant engineering and non-engineering solutions can reduce crashes and can prevent crashes from causing death or severe injuries; and WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration has made a commitment to eliminating fatalities and serious injuries on the nation's roadways using a Safe System approach to achieve the goals of Vision Zero; and
53 WHEREAS, Caltrans has adopted the goal of moving “toward zero deaths” by incorporating the Safe System Approach and using proven effective strategies and countermeasures; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) passed a Vision Zero policy in 2020 that identified actions to support agencies like the City; and WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration and State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) grant funding for improving safety requires the preparation and implementation of a systematic approach to improve safety as presented in the Countywide and City LRSP; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, that the City adopts Vision Zero is its guiding principle for transportation planning, in conjunction with C/CAG adopting this vision at the County level; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, that the City shall pursue the recommended near-and long-term policy, program, and guidelines recommendations identified in the LRSP, with the overriding goal of eliminating traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, that the City shall refer to the prioritized locations in the Countywide and City LRSP sections when considering safety improvements, which locations were prioritized including considerations of social equity; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, that the City shall participate in an inter-jurisdictional Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) led by C/CAG, to include staff from constituent jurisdictions along with partner agencies identified in the LRSP; and which will be used to implement the LRSP and integrate the Safe System approach into all aspects of transportation planning and engineering; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, that the City adopts the Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan and the City Local Roadway Safety Plan that summarizes specific recommendations and action items to be taken by the City and partner agencies that will address the listed emphasis areas; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, that the LRSP will be implemented in an equitable manner, accounting for historic inequities in transportation and safety investments across the county; and
54 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, that the City shall develop an independent LRSP and present progress toward the Vision Zero goals, tracking process and outcome metrics, and shall present these updates to the City Council.
***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 20th day of August 2024 by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Joaquin Jimenez, Mayor
55 San Mateo
C/CAG
Countywide
LRSP

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024
56 Kittelson & Associates, Inc
This page intentionally left blank.
57 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Executive
Summary
58 / 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 59 / 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:
60 / 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.
61 / 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.
62 / 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)
63 / 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.
64 / Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
65 Kittelson & Associates, Inc
This page intentionally left blank.
66 / 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, SamTrans
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission
67 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 4
Consultant Team
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

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

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

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

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

Crash Severity is defined by the guidelines established by the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC, Fifth Edition) and is a functional measure of the injury severity for any person involved in the crash.  Fatal Collision [K] is death because of an injury sustained in a collision or an injury resulting in death within 30 days of the collision.
 Severe Injury [A] is an injury other than a fatal injury which results in broken bones, dislocated or distorted limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision scene. It does not include minor laceration.
 Other Visible Injury [B] includes bruises (discolored or swollen); places where the body has received a blow (black eyes and bloody noses); and abrasions (areas of the skin where the surface is roughened or blotchy by scratching or rubbing which includes skinned shins, knuckles, knees, and elbows).  Complaint of Pain [C] classification could contain authentic internal or other non-visible injuries and fraudulent claims of injury. This includes: 1. Persons who seem dazed, confused, or incoherent (unless such behavior can be attributed to intoxication, extreme age, illness, or mental infirmities). 2. Persons who are limping but do not have visible injuries; 3. Any person who is known to have been unconscious because of the collision, although it appears he/she has recovered; 4. People who say they want to be listed as injured do not appear to be so.
 Property Damage Only [O] Collision is a noninjury motor vehicle traffic collision which results in property damage.
68 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 5
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the nation’s core federal-aid programs. Caltrans administers HSIP funds in the state of California and splits the state share of HSIP funds between State HSIP (for state highways) and local HSIP (for local roads). The latter is administered through a call for projects biennially.

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

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

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

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

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

Systemic safety defines an analysis and improvement approach based on roadway and environmental factors correlated with crash risk (rather than targeting locations solely on documented crash history). The approach take a broad view to evaluate risk across an entire roadway system. 69 / 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 .................................................................................................................................. 30 Systemic Descriptive Findings................................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Emphasis Areas................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Systemic Findings by Mode....................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 State Highways in San Mateo County...............................................................................................................................44 Safety on At-Grade State Highways........................................................................................................................................................................ 45 Existing Plans and Directives to Improve Safety ...............................................................................................................................................47 Caltrans Director’s Policy 36: Road Safety – establishes the VZ commitment........................................................................47 Caltrans Road Safety Action Plan 2023-24......................................................................................................................................................47 District 4 Bike Plan............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 District 4 Pedestrian Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 Improvements to Date in the County...................................................................................................................................................................... 48 70 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 7
Caltrans Recommendations and Actions ........................................................................................................................................................... 49 Safe System-Aligned Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 50 Engineering............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Policy and Program............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 55 Organize................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 56 Educate................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 56 Coordinate.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................57 Fund .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58 Research................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 59 Plan............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 60 Project Prioritization..............................................................................................................................................................62 SamTrans Bus Stop Prioritization.................................................................................................................................................................................. 71 Implementation and Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................73

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 ........................................................................................................................................31 Figure 6. Countywide Bicyclist High Injury Network............................................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 7. Countywide Motor Vehicle High Injury Network................................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 8. Countywide Combined High Injury Network....................................................................................................................................... 34 71 / 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) ............................................................................ 28 Table 6: Crashes by Mode, Countywide (2018-2022)........................................................................................................................................ 35 Table 7. San Mateo County State Highways and Local Jurisdictions .....................................................................................................44 Table 8. Crashes by Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022) ..................................................................................................46 Table 9. Caltrans SAP Actions Related to LRSP.......................................................................................................................................................48 Table 10: Engineering Countermeasures .................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Table 11. Recommendations and Categories ......................................................................................................................................................... 55 Table 12: Policy/Program Recommendations and Partner Roles............................................................................................................... 61 Table 13: Local HIN Segments by Mode, Jurisdiction, and Social Equity Neighborhoods...........................................................63 Table 14: State Highway HIN Segments by Mode, Jurisdiction, and Social Equity Neighborhoods..................................... 70

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
72 / 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. 73 / 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. 74 / 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 75 / 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
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 76 / 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. 77 / 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. 78 / 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. • Redwood City (adopted 2022)21: Eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries for all modes by 2030. • San Bruno (adopted 2023)22: 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)23: Support the California vision of moving towards significantly reducing fatalities and serious injuries for all road users. • Unincorporated County (published 2021)24: 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.

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.
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 https://www.redwoodcity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/25615/638016840641870000 22 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/436/Projects
23 https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/30166/638245818532000000 24 https://www.smcsustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/San-Mateo-County-LRSP3-1.pdf 79 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 16
• 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. 80 / 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
81 / 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.
82 / 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. 83 / 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
84 / 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”. 85 / 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
86 / 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%)
87 / 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. 88 / 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 89 / 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
25 (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 42 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
25 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu 90 / 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 EPDO score per crash, which indicates that in the pandemic era the average severity has been about 20 percent higher compared to 2017-2019.

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
EPDO
Score
percent of
Total EPDO
Score
Average EPDO
Score
2017-
2019
6,109 58% 555 52% 139,258 54% 22.8
2020-
2022
4,436 42% 518 48% 120,774 46% 27.2
Total 10,545 100% 1,073 100% 260,032 100% 24.7
Source: TIMS 2023
The project team consulted Caltrans Traffic Census data and found that traffic volumes have decreased along State Highway routes in the San Mateo County area with the exception of the Route 35 San Mateo County and Santa Clara County line traffic census location which has stayed the same from 2017 to 2021. Largest reductions in traffic volume were recorded along Route 82 in Colma and Daly City, where traffic volumes have decreased by 37.9 percent from 2017 to 2021.

Table 5 shows the total number of crashes has decreased from pre-pandemic to pandemic era in most 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.
91 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 28
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
92 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 29
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
93 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 30
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. 94 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 31
Figure 5. Countywide Pedestrian High Injury Network
95 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 32
Figure 6. Countywide Bicyclist High Injury Network
96 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 33
Figure 7. Countywide Motor Vehicle High Injury Network
97 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 34
Figure 8. Countywide Combined High Injury Network
98 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 35

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.

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 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)
99 / San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 36

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 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 slightly increased in severity during the core pandemic years, from 18-20 percent of total EPDO scores in 2018-2019 to 22-23 percent of total EPDO scores in 2020-2021. • 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, with average EPDO scores of 51 and 40.5, respectively, compared to crashes at signalized intersections, which have an average EPDO score of 30.5. 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.
100
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 37
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 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 EPDO scores, and EPDO scores per 100 miles. 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).
• 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 EPDO score. 101
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 38
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:
– Secondary streets (39 percent),
– Residential streets (20 percent), and
102
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 39
– 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 have very high EPDO 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).

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). 103
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 40
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 EPDO 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 average EPDO scores were at intersections along the trunk and primary roadway system where they intersect with lower-order intersections. When looking at the signalized versus unsignalized breakdown of these combinations, the unsignalized intersections all have higher average EPDO scores—indicating that unsignalized minor-street 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 EPDO scores. 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 EPDO 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:
– Broadside: 61 percent occurred unsignalized intersections (66 percent of EPDO score), 104
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 41
– Rear-end: 55 percent at occurred at signalized intersections (51 percent of EPDO score), and – Head-on: 51 percent occurred at signalized intersections (59 percent of EPDO score). • On roadway segments, the predominant crash types are rear-end (29 percent), hit-object (21 percent), and broadside (18 percent). Hit-object crashes account for disproportionately large (35 percent of F/SI crashes and 30 percent of EPDO score, compared to 21 percent overall).

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 EPDO 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. 105
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. 106 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:
107
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 44

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
Menlo Park X X X X X X
Millbrae X X X
Pacifica X X
Portola Valley
Redwood City X X X X
San Bruno X X X X X X
San Carlos X X X
San Mateo X X X
108
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 45
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
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
109
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 46
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
110
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 47
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
26 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 27 Importantly, the Plan includes the following actions relevant to this Countywide LRSP.
26 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/policy/dp_36-a11y.pdf 27 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/safety/road-safetyaction-plan-2023-24-a11y.pdf 111
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 48
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 28 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 29 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
28 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-4/documents/d4-bikeplan/caltransd4bikeplan_report_lowres-r6.pdf 29 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/activetransportation-complete-streets/district4-finalreport-a11y.pdf 112
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 49
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
30 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 maintained 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.
30 Available online at https://www.colma.ca.gov/documents/ecr-improvement-plan/ 113
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 50

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
114
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 51
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 $$$
SI Install pedestrian countdown signal heads [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install pedestrian crossing [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
115
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 52
Location
Type [1]
Countermeasure Crash Types Cost
SI Install pedestrian scramble [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install Bicycle Box [2] Bicyclist Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install painted safety zone Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install Protected Intersection Elements Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Extend pedestrian crossing time Pedestrian $
SI Pedestrian Phase Recall Pedestrian $
SI Extend green time for bikes Bikes $
SI Extend Yellow and All Red Time All $
SI Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint) Bikes $
SI Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase Bikes $
SI ADA-compliant directional curb ramps and audible push buttons Pedestrian $ SI,UI Splitter Islands [4] All $
SI,UI Approach Curvature [4] All Varies
SI,UI Curb Radius Reduction [3] All $-$$
116
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 53
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
117
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 54
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; $$$ = > $200,000 118
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 55
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 61 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
119
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 56

ORGANIZE
O1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee
Convene the Plan’s Advisory Group Form 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. 120
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 57
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.
121
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 58
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
122
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 59

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. 31 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, Town of Hillsborough 31 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 123
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 60
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
124
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 61
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 OfficeSustainability 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
125
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 62

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
126
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 63
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
127
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 64
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%
128
/ 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
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
129
/ 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
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%
130
/ 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
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%
131
/ 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
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%
132
/ 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
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
133
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 70
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%
134
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 71
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. 135
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 72
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 351002 3745 Bayshore Blvd-Andrys Trailer Park Brisbane 165 1 0 0.69 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.89 2 336039 El Camino Real & Silva Ave Millbrae 371 1 0 0.93 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.86 3 344900 El Camino Real & Dumbarton Ave North Fair Oaks 0 0 1 0.50 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.83 4 332221 Mission St & Evergreen Ave-Daly City Daly City 241 1 0 0.79 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.81 5 344658 Jefferson Ave at Adams St Redwood City 224 1 1 0.77 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.80 6 344657 Jefferson Ave at Adams St Redwood City 213 1 1 0.76 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.80 7 344086 El Camino Real & Lincoln Ave Redwood City 202 1 1 0.75 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.80 8 344095 El Camino Real & Winklebleck St Redwood City 11 1 1 0.73 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.79 9 336027 El Camino Real & Center St-Millbrae Millbrae 393 1 0 0.97 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.76 10 336028 El Camino Real & Center St-Millbrae Millbrae 393 1 0 0.97 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.76 11 344203 Middlefield Rd & Dumbarton Ave North Fair Oaks 208 1 1 0.96 1 1 0 0 0.33 0.76 12 344204 Middlefield Rd & Dumbarton Ave North Fair Oaks 208 1 1 0.96 1 1 0 0 0.33 0.76 13 336038 El Camino Real & Silva Ave Millbrae 371 1 0 0.93 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.75 14 334246 S Spruce Ave & Railroad Ave South San Francisco 356 1 0 0.91 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.74 15 332154 Hillside Blvd & Brunswick St Daly City 334 1 0 0.89 1 1 0 0 0.33 0.73 16 332233 Mission St & Price St Daly City 44 1 0 0.55 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.73 17 335612 Jenevein Ave & El Camino Real San Bruno 322 1 0 0.88 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.73 18 332129 Geneva Ave & Schwerin St Daly City 34 1 0 0.54 1 0 1 1 0.67 0.73 19 344448 Woodside Rd & Bonita Ave Redwood City 33 0 1 0.54 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.73 20 344207 Middlefield Rd & Flynn Ave Redwood City 0 1 1 0.53 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.73 21 363602 Bay Rd & Pulgas Ave East Palo Alto 11 1 0 0.53 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.73 22 363605 Bay Rd & Pulgas Ave East Palo Alto 11 1 0 0.53 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.73 23 334078 El Camino Real & Brentwood Dr South San Francisco 6 1 0 0.53 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 24 341111 N Delaware St & Tilton Ave San Mateo 11 1 1 0.53 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 25 344087 El Camino Real & Main St Redwood City 11 1 1 0.53 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 26 351001 3800 Bayshore Blvd-Andrys Trailer Park Brisbane 165 0 0 0.19 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.72 27 332232 Mission St & Parkview Ave Daly City 17 1 0 0.52 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 28 341109 N Delaware St & E Bellevue Ave San Mateo 11 1 0 0.52 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 29 334500 264 S Airport Blvd-Four Points Sheraton Hotel South San Francisco 0 1 0 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30 363041 Bay Rd & Oakwood Dr East Palo Alto 11 1 0 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 136
/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 73

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.
137
/ City/County Association of Governments
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 74
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 district 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 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.
138
/ City/County Association of Governments
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 80
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
139
City of
Half Moon Bay

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024
140
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

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
141
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1
Consultant Team
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

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

SAFE STREETS RESEARCH &

CONSULTING
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale

CIRCLEPOINT
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison

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

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.

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. 142
/ City of Half Moon Bay
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.

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. 143
/ City of Half Moon Bay
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........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Engagement Timeline and Events........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Online Map Survey...............................................................................................................................................................................................................7 Phase 2 Community Engagement Feedback.................................................................................................................................................. 8 Crash Data & Trends ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Emphasis Areas .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 Countywide High Injury Network...................................................................................................................................................................................14 Project Identification & Prioritization................................................................................................................................. 16 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Social Equity ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs ...........................................................................................................21 Project Scopes .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox....................................................................................................................................................................22 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations............................................................................................................ 26 Near-Term Improvements.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ...............................................................................................................................................................................27 Implementation & Monitoring............................................................................................................................................. 31

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A pop-up event at the Half Moon Bay Farmers Market................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Half Moon Bay ....................................................................................................................................................9 Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of Half Moon Bay............................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)....................................................................... 16 144
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2
Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................................17 Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent).................................................................17 Figure 8: Half Moon Bay Priority Locations................................................................................................................................................................. 20

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City of Foster City Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs..............................................................4 Table 2. Community Engagement Phases and Events.......................................................................................................................................6 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Half Moon Bay ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 4. Priority Locations...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 5. City of Half Moon Bay Countermeasure Toolbox...............................................................................................................................22 Table 6. City of Half Moon Bay Policy and Program Recommendations...............................................................................................27 Table 7. City of Half Moon Bay Goals and Measures of Success .................................................................................................................31 145
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the City of Half Moon Bay. 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 Half Moon Bay has a 2023 population of 11,226 per California Department of Finance. The city has 30 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 145 reported crashes on surface streets in the City and 17 fatal/severe injury crashes. In that time period, pedestrians were involved in 9 percent of all reported crashes and 18 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.

Bicyclists were involved in 10 percent of all reported crashes and 12 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Half Moon Bay’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
146
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4

VISION AND GOALS
The City of Half Moon Bay vision for roadway safety is:
• Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050.

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

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

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

3. Monitor implementation of the City of Half Moon Bay LRSP to track progress towards goals.

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

Table 1. City of Foster City 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
City of Half Moon Bay
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan
This plan identifies needs and prioritizes improvements to the City of Half Moon Bay’s pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs. Informed by existing infrastructure and current safety issues, this plan recommends improvements to
address current and future bike/ped demand based on
current conditions and anticipated infill development. This plan also provides a blueprint for the City to implement a complete bicycle and pedestrian network over time. Finally, the plan provides the City with the necessary tools to apply for a grant funding for implementation. The plan should be revised over time as new conditions and opportunities arise.

Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Speeds
Capital Improvement
Project—Neighborhood
Traffic Safety Program
This program involves the implementation of a neighborhood traffic-calming and safety program and will provide a source of funding to address neighborhood concerns.

Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Speeds
147
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
Capital Improvement
Project—Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Connectivity and
Safety Program
This program is intended to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as part of other defined projects. Funds may also be used as a matching source for potential grant opportunities.

Examples of elements funded through this program include bike lane striping and regulatory/wayfinding signage.

Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Speeds
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 Foster City’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
• Foster City Police Department
Community Engagement and Input
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.

ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE AND EVENTS
The project team hosted a series of public engagement events countywide to support the concurrent development of the Countywide LRSP and of the 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.
148
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
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
149
/ City of Half Moon Bay
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 50). 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 44 comments made within the City of Foster City in addition to the conversations and feedback recorded at the Phase 1 event in August. The comments included the following:

Figure 1. A pop-up event at the Half Moon Bay Farmers Market 150
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
Biking Concerns/Requests
• Add new bike infrastructure such as protected bike lanes, separated bike lanes, road diets, bike tunnels, and bike bridges.
• Upgrade or general maintenance concerns of existing bike infrastructure including restriping bike lanes and removing debris along bike paths.
• Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, vehicle speeds, right of way issues, and turning conflicts at intersections.

Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Add new pedestrian infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure such as building new and/or continuous sidewalks, widening existing sidewalks, providing pedestrian refuge islands, midblock crossings, and high visibility crosswalks.
• Requests to provide safe crossing paths across highways. • Signage requests including installing STOP signs at unsignalized intersections, installing rectangular rapid flashing beacons, push buttons for WALK signs and increasing pedestrian walk times and modifying signals to include a leading pedestrian interval (especially at schools). • Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including speeding, running STOP signs and conflicts at intersections.
• Pedestrian visibility concerns: street lighting is absent or insufficient. • Concerns regarding speeding bikes, creating potential conflicts with pedestrians.

Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Multiple concerns regarding running STOP signs, red lights, and illegal turning movements. • Concerns regarding speeding observed at multiple locations – requests for traffic calming especially in school zones.

Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Primary concerns include traffic congestion, and narrow lanes. • Concerns regarding maintenance of roadway infrastructure including high friction of the roadway surfaces, potholes, improving visibility at intersections, repairing roadways from storm damage. • Requests to separate traffic in opposing directions to prevent head-on crashes. • Requests to improve emergency vehicle access and to make the roadway infrastructure in the city ADA compliant.
• Install street lighting to increase visibility along roadways.

The location and modal emphasis of comments in Half Moon Bay is presented in Figure 51. The comments received are provided in Appendix A. The project team also identified common themes in the responses made countywide which may be relevant to the City. Those are presented in the Community Engagement section of the Countywide LRSP.

PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
The project team held an event at the Belmont Farmers’ Market in January as part of Phase 2, which provided the project team with input on specific location concerns, general traffic safety/behavioral concerns, and opinions on specific engineering treatments or strategies. The comments received are provided in Appendix B.

The following themes were identified for locations in the City of Half Moon Bay:

Motor Vehicle Comments
• Concerns about speeding on roadways, specifically between Highway 1 and Main Street • Desire for improvements to encourage slower speeds
151
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 9
Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Half Moon Bay
152
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 10

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 C.

Emphasis Areas
The project team analyzed crash data in Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay:

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 Half Moon Bay, pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in 18 percent and 12 percent of the 17 reported F/SI crashes—higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (9 percent and 10 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 Half Moon Bay, two of the three fatal/severe injury pedestrian crashes (67 percent) occurred in dark conditions. Among crashes of all modes, 24 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes occurred in dark conditions.

Victims between the ages 50 – 69 and 75 to 84 are also more likely to be severely injured than other groups. In Half Moon Bay, 8 crashes or 6 percent of all reported injury crashes involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.
1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu 153
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 11

5. Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes. Countywide, motor vehicle crashes were more severe along roadway segments than at any other location type; unsafe speed was the most commonly cited the primary crash factor (27 percent of injury crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes).

In Half Moon Bay, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among motor vehicle crashes (in 37 percent of injury crashes).

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 Half Moon Bay, 13 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 Half Moon Bay 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. 154
18%
(21)
Half Moon Bay—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
43%
(50)
9%
(10)
12%
(14)
19%
(22)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Half Moon Bay compares:

Half Moon Countywide
Bay 13% 6%
of reported collisions
in Half Moon Bay
involved drugs or
alcohol
of reported collisions
in Half Moon Bay
involved young
drivers1
(19) (8)
29%
(1,858)
Total Crashes
In Half Moon Bay, 145 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
23% (29)
State Highway
77% (116)
Half Moon
Bay
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (8)
Bicycle Crashes (5)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (56)
Fatal/all injury crashes
Fatal/all injury crashes
Fatal/all injury crashes
Fatal/severe injury crashes
Fatal/severe injury crashes
Fatal/severe injury crashes
12% (2)
71% (12)
9% (13) 18% (3)
10% (15)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
81% (117)
Half Moon Bay
Half Moon Bay
Half Moon Bay

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.

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)
155
Half Moon Bay—Crash History
Half Moon
Half Moon
Bay
Half Moon
Bay
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (3)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (6)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (36)
All Injury Crashes (117)
All Injury Crashes (15)
All Injury Crashes (13)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (12)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (2)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (3)
67% (2)
0% (0)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
31% (36) 17% (2)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Half Moon Bay compares to Countywide crashes:
20% (3)
46% (6)
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (3)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (2)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
Countywide
Countywide
Agency
Agency
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
10%
(2)
24%
(256)
Motorist Making
left turn
0%
(0)
15%
(163)
Motorist proceeding
straight
10%
(2)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
7%
(1)
21%
(186)
7%
(1)
12%
(106)
27%
(4)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
47%
(7)
35%
(372)
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)
156
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 14
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 Half Moon Bay
Roadway name All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
SR 1 Half Moon Bay, Pacifica,
Unincorporated

30.4 X X
San Mateo Rd Half Moon Bay, Unincorporated 6.6 X
Main St Redwood City, Half Moon Bay 2.0 X
157
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of Half Moon Bay 158
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
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) 159
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
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
160
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 18
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 D. Figure 8 also shows the locations.

Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Highway 1 and Poplar St Intersection Yes X X X
2 Highway 1 and Ruisseau
Francais Ave
Intersection Yes X X X
3 Main St and Lewis Foster Dr Intersection No X X X
4 Highway 1 and Miramontes
Point Rd
Intersection Yes X
5 Highway 1 and Fairway Dr Intersection Yes X
6 Highway 1 and Mirada Rd Intersection Yes X
7 Highway 1 and Redondo Beach Intersection Yes X
8 Highway 1 and Roosevelt Blvd Intersection Yes X
9 Highway 1 and Filbert St Intersection Yes X
10 Highway 1 and Spindrift Way Intersection Yes X
11 Filbert St and Purissima St and
Main St
Intersection No X
161
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
12 Highway 1 and Seymour St Intersection Yes X
13 Church St and Kelly Ave Intersection No X
14 Highway 1 and Highway 92 Intersection Yes X X X
15 Kelly Ave Corridor No X X X
16 Main St Corridor No X X X
17 Poplar St, from Highway 1 to
Railroad Ave
Corridor No X X X
18 Highway 1, from Miramontes
Point Rd to Main St South
Corridor Yes X X X
19 Highway 1, from Main Spindrift
Way to Russeau Francais Ave
Corridor Yes X X X
20 Wavecrest Rd, from Highway 1
to the Coastal Trail
Corridor No X X X
21 Miramontes Ave, from Alsace
Lorraine to east end
Corridor No X
162
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
Figure 8: Half Moon Bay Priority Locations
163
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

POLICY & PROGRAMS
This section presents Safe System-aligned recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the City of Half Moon Bay. 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:
 Kelly Ave E to W City limit. Recommended improvements include:
o Separated bike lanes
164
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
o Midblock pedestrian crossing with enhanced safety features (flashing beacons, curb extensions, advance “yield” lines)
o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
 Main St N to City limit. Recommended improvements include:
o Separated bike lanes
o Pedestrian crossing with enhanced safety features (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon, curb extensions, advance “yield” lines) at Main St/Spruce St o Raised pedestrian crossings at three locations
o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix E.

Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
This section presents Safe System-aligned engineering recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the City of Half Moon Bay. 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 Half Moon Bay 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
Install raised median on
approaches*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

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

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

0.3 $-$$ Medium
No right turn on red SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ Medium
165
/ City of Half Moon Bay
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?
Centerline hardening or
continuous raised median
SI All crashes 0.46 $ Medium
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
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 $-$$$ Low
166
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 24
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Convert to all-way STOP
control (from two-way or
Yield control)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $ Low
Install signals* UI All crashes 0.3 $$$ 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
Covert intersection to
mini-roundabout*
UI All crashes 0.3 $$ Low
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left turns and Uturns (unsignalized
intersections)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised medians
(refuge islands)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

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

0.25 $-$$$ High
Install pedestrian crossings
(with enhanced safety
features)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

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

0.15 $ High
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings*
UI Turning crashes
related to lack
of driver
awareness

0.25 $ High
167
/ City of Half Moon Bay
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 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 $$$ High
Install transverse rumble
strips on approaches*
UI All crashes 0.2 $ High
Install splitter islands on
the minor road
approaches*
UI All crashes 0.4 $ Medium
Corridor access
management
R N/A 0.35 $ Medium
Install edgeline rumble
strips/stripes*
R All crashes 0.15 $-$$$ 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 035 $-$$ High
Install delineators,
reflectors, and/or object
marker*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install/upgrade signs with
new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs*
R Driver behavior 0.3 $ High
168
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 26
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Extend pedestrian crossing
time
SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Pedestrian phase recall SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Extend green time for bikes SI Bicycle N/A $ High
Extend yellow and all-red
time
SI All crashes N/A $ High
Lane narrowing R All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
Bicycle crossing (solid
green paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Curb extensions UI All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
ADA-compliant directional
curb ramps and audible
push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low
Curb radius reduction SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Low
Splitter islands UI, SI All crashes N/A $$ Medium
Approach curvature UI, SI All crashes N/A $$$ Low
Roadside design features All All crashes N/A $-$$$ Low
*Indicates countermeasure is eligible for California HSIP funding as of the most recent funding cycle 1: UI = Unsignalized Intersection; SI = Signalized Intersection; R = Roadway segments; All = All of the above 2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines
Recommendations
In addition to the engineering countermeasures and projects recommended above, the City aims to promote policies, programs, and standards that foster a culture of safety. The table below defines several policy and program recommendations organized into thematic categories. Implemented in cooperation with partners, these recommendations will deepen the dedication to safety shared throughout the community and round out the City’s Safe System Approach.
169
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27
Table 6. City of Half Moon Bay Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
Local Enforcement
Coordination (LEC)
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Local Funding (LF) LF1: Dedicated Funding LF2: Equitable Investment LF3: Prioritize Investments
Local Education /
Outreach (LEO)
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
LEO5: Safe City 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 Half Moon Bay Public Works
LF1: Dedicated Funding
Propose ongoing, dedicated funding and staffing for implementation and monitoring of the safety plan, including presiding over the TSAC. This role may be fulfilled by a partial FTE or through staff augmentation.

Lead agency: City of Half Moon Bay Public Works

LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Coordinate with County Public Health and the San Matteo County Sheriff’s Office to implement a local highvisibility media campaign pertaining to one or more emphasis areas identified in this plan. 170
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 28
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 Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay Public Works
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Trailer
Coordinate with the San Matteo County Sheriff’s Office 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: County Sheriff’s Office
Coordinating partners: City of Half Moon Bay Public Works 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 Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay 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 171
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 29
LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
Plan community engagement efforts to be tailored for vulnerable road users and all travel modes. Make outreach materials available in accessible formats and multiple languages.

Lead agency: City of Half Moon Bay Public Works
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
Develop and distribute educational materials and/or videos demonstrating how to navigate and interact with newer active transportation facilities (e.g., bike boxes, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, separated bike lanes, etc.) Include information about the purpose and goals of this infrastructure.

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

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

Lead agency: City of Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay 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. 172
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30
Develop a plan and timeline to include all schools in the City.

Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: City of Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay Public Works
173
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 31

IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
A key part of achieving Half Moon Bay’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. The City of Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay can initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time.

This section identifies recommendations for Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay Goals and Measures of Success

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

1. Regularly review crash history and
community needs to identify and
prioritize opportunities to reduce
crash risk for roadway users of all
ages and abilities.
• Number of LRSP project locations advanced through project development, reported at the agency level
• Annual and three-year total reported crashes, fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and crashes by emphasis areas identified

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

3. Monitor implementation of the Half
Moon Bay LRSP to track progress
towards goals.
• See above in this table
174
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 32
Appendix A
Webmap Comments
City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
175

Page 1 of 2 ends

Half Moon Bay City CouncilAugust 20, 2024

Half Moon Bay City Council
August 20, 2024