Agenda packet — San Carlos City Council, January 13, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF SAN CARLOS
City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority
Regular Meeting
January 13, 2025 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org
AGENDA
This meeting will be conducted both inperson at City Hall and virtually via Zoom. Members of the public will have the option to observe the meeting and address the City Council as outlined below.

InPerson Participation:

Location. City Hall – 600 Elm Street, Council Chambers.

Masks are no longer required, but are still recommended by the California Department of Health. To maintain public health and safety, please do not attend in person if you are experiencing respiratory symptoms (e.g. cough, runny nose, and/or sore throat).

Provide Public Comment. To address the City Council on any item on the posted agenda, fill out a Request to Speak Form located in the back of the Council Chambers and submit it to the City Clerk; or, you may raise your hand when the Mayor calls for public comments.

Remote Participation :

Observe via:
Zoom. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88256140939; or call 16699009128 and enter the Meeting ID #: 882 5614 0939
Meeting Webportal . www.cityofsancarlos.org/agenda Local TV. Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Uverse Channel 99 Provide Public Comment. If you plan to make a public comment on any item on the posted agenda, please observe the meeting via Zoom (see above access information), and during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address, use the “raise hand” feature. If joining Zoom by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”.

Councilmembers may participate in this meeting remotely as authorized by Assembly Bill 2449.

MAYOR: Sara McDowell
COUNCIL: John Dugan, Neil Layton, Adam Rak, Pranita Venkatesh

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Communications and Announcements are brief items from members of the City Council regarding upcoming events in the community and correspondence that they have received. They are informational in nature and no action will be taken on these items at this meeting.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the City Council on matters NOT on the posted agenda may do so. Each speaker is limited to two minutes.

If the item you are speaking on is not listed on the agenda, please be advised that the City Council may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed as allowed under the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54954.2). The City Council's general policy is to refer items to staff for attention, or have a matter placed on a future City Council agenda for a more comprehensive action or report and formal public discussion and input at that time.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Motion to Waive Reading of All Ordinances.
b. Approve the November 25, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes. c. Accept the Quarterly Reports from City Commissions and Boards. d. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign an Amendment to Extend the City of San Carlos and San Carlos School District Field Maintenance Agreement from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025.
e. Adopt A Resolution Adopting the Countywide and City of San Carlos Local Roadway Safety Plan and Accompanying Vision Zero Goals. f. Appoint Ron Collins to the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District’s Board of Trustees for a Term Expiring December 31, 2028.

8. REPORTS TO COUNCIL
Reports to the Council are updates on key City Projects by City Staff and City Council Subcommittees. They are informational in nature, and no action will be taken on these items at this meeting.
a. Receive an Update on Fire and Emergency Services.

9. NEW BUSINESS
a. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Approving the Second Revised and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the San Mateo County Operational Area Emergency Services Council.
b. Consideration of Appointments to the City Council Subcommittees and Ad Hoc Committees for 2025.

10. AGENDA SETTING
Items discussed in this Agenda Setting Section will be considered by the Council for placing on a future agenda. No action will be taken on these items at this meeting. a. Consideration of Agendizing an Item to Sponsor the Community Foundation of San Carlos’ 2025 Annual Awards Banquet.

11. ADJOURNMENT
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection upon request.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI, and as outlined in the City’s Reasonable Accommodations Policy, if you need special assistance or translation services to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 8024222 or via email at [email protected]. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

1 CITY OF SAN CARLOS
City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority
Regular Meeting
January 13, 2025 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org
AGENDA
This meeting will be conducted both inperson at City Hall and virtually via Zoom. Members of the public will have the option to observe the meeting and address the City Council as outlined below.

InPerson Participation:

Location. City Hall – 600 Elm Street, Council Chambers.

Remote Participation :

Councilmembers may participate in this meeting remotely pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449.

MAYOR: Sara McDowell
COUNCIL: John Dugan, Neil Layton, Adam Rak, Pranita Venkatesh

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the City Council on matters NOT on the posted agenda may do so. Each speaker is limited to two minutes.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Motion to Waive Reading of All Ordinances.
b. Approve the November 25, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes. c. Accept the Quarterly Reports from City Commissions and Boards. d. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign an Amendment to Extend the City of San Carlos and San Carlos School District Field Maintenance Agreement from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025.
e. Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Countywide and City of San Carlos Local Roadway Safety Plan and Accompanying Vision Zero Goals. f. Appoint Ron Collins to the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District’s Board of Trustees for a Term Expiring December 31, 2028.

11. ADJOURNMENT
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection upon request.

2 CITY OF SAN CARLOS
City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority
Regular Meeting
January 13, 2025 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
www.cityofsancarlos.org
AGENDA
This meeting will be conducted both inperson at City Hall and virtually via Zoom. Members of the public will have the option to observe the meeting and address the City Council as outlined below.

InPerson Participation:

Location. City Hall – 600 Elm Street, Council Chambers.

Remote Participation :

Councilmembers may participate in this meeting remotely as authorized by Assembly Bill 2449.

MAYOR: Sara McDowell
COUNCIL: John Dugan, Neil Layton, Adam Rak, Pranita Venkatesh

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the City Council on matters NOT on the posted agenda may do so. Each speaker is limited to two minutes.

11. ADJOURNMENT
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection upon request.

3 San Carlos City Council/Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority Regular Meeting
Council Chambers, City Hall
600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
November 25, 2024 7:00 PM

MINUTES

ROLL CALL

City Council Present: John Dugan, Mayor
Sara McDowell, Vice Mayor
Ronald Collins, Councilmember
Adam Rak, Councilmember
Pranita Venkatesh, Councilmember

Staff Present: Sajuti Haque, Senior Management Analyst
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
Andrea Mardesich, Assistant Community Development Director Rebecca Mendenhall, Administrative Services Director
Crystal Mui, City Clerk
Gregory Rubens, City Attorney
Al Savay, Community Development Director
Chrysa Perakis, Management Analyst
Nicole Rios, Administrative Assistant
Mark Myers, Police Chief
Paul Harris, Attendee

1. CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Dugan called the meeting to order at 7:00PM.

2. ASSEMBLY BILL 2449 TELECONFERENCE REQUESTS

None.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mayor Dugan led the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

None.

5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Councilmember Collins reported on attending his final San Mateo County Housing and Community Development Committee meeting and expressed gratitude for the opportunity to participate on that committee for the past 12 years.

7.b
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 4

6. PUBLIC COMMENT

Tim Ryan, resident, commented on the recent tragic accident on Holly Street on the Highway 101 overpass. He spoke on the need for a bike bridge over Highway 101 and for the City to call attention to Assembly Bill 413’s Daylighting Law.

Mayor Dugan spoke on the delay of the US 101/Holly Street Bike and Pedestrian Bridge Project.

Katie Causey, with Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, spoke on the need for the US 101/Holly Street Bike Pedestrian Project and requested Council implement an immediate temporary solution.

Arley Lewis, resident, spoke on the need for the US 101/Holly Street Bike Pedestrian Project and requested Council implement an immediate temporary solution.

Mike Swire spoke on the need for the US 101/Holly Street Bike Pedestrian Project. He also requested that Councilmember Rak communicate with C/CAG about the impact that highway expansions have on public health and quality of life.

Guiliano Carlini spoke on the need for the US 101/Holly Street Bike Pedestrian Project and requested Council implement an immediate temporary solution.

Andrew Hsu, resident, spoke on the need for the US 101/Holly Street Bike Pedestrian Project and requested Council implement an immediate temporary solution.

Alistair Adams, resident, spoke on the need for the US 101/Holly Street Bike Pedestrian Project.

Loannis Saras, resident, spoke on the need for the US 101/Holly Street Bike Pedestrian Project.

David Hunt spoke on the need for the US 101/Holly Street Bike Pedestrian Project and requested Council implement an immediate temporary solution.

Joe Fimiani, resident, remarked on Councilmember Collins’ comments from a previous meeting regarding his partner.

Max Mautner spoke on the need for the US 101/Holly Street Bike Pedestrian Project and requested Council to reprioritize the project.

Sonia Elkes, resident, spoke on the need for the US 101/Holly Street Bike Pedestrian Project and urged the community to participate in the Mid County Multimodal Strategy survey to advocate for improved access over Highway 101.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

MOTION: Adopt City Council Consent Calendar items ‘a’ through ‘k’.

MOVER: Sara McDowell
SECONDER: Adam Rak
AYES: Collins, Venkatesh, Rak, McDowell, Dugan
NAYS: None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0

a. Motion to Waive Reading of All Ordinances.

7.b
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 5

b. Approve the October 28, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes.

c. Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Annual Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2024 on Development Impact Fees, Reaffirming Necessity for Development Impact Fees, and Making Findings Related to Impact Fee Balances and In-Lieu Fees. Resolution 2024-122

d. Adopt a Resolution Accepting the City of San Carlos's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2024. Resolution 2024-123

e. Accept the Fiscal Year 2024-25 First Quarter Investment Report for the Period Ending September 30, 2024.

f. Accept the Fiscal Year 2024-25 First Quarter Financial Report for the Period Ending September 30, 2024.

g. Deny Claim of Thomas Feledy.

h. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for Engineering Design Services with Schaaf & Wheeler for the Annual Storm Drain Improvement Project in the Amount of $128,850 and Authorizing a 20% Contingency Budget in the Amount of $25,770 for a Total Not-To-Exceed Contract Amount of $154,620. Resolution 2024-124

i. Adopt Resolutions Appropriating $20,000 from the General Capital Fund (Fund 0025) Unassigned Fund Balance and Amending the Public Projects Agreement with Beals Martin and Associates, Inc. for the Landslide Repair at 995 Crestview Drive – Project #C2318; and Appropriating $50,000 from the General Capital Fund (Fund 0025) Unassigned Fund Balance and Amending the Public Projects Agreement with Central Pacific Engineering, Inc. for the Landslide Repair at 3144 Brittan Avenue – Project #C2319. Resolution 2024-125 - 995 Crestview Dr; Resolution 2024-126 - 3144 Brittan Ave

j. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment 1 to the Agreement with Chrisp Company to Increase the Contract by $25,000 to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $325,000 for the 2023 On-Call Traffic Striping and Marking Project C9417. Resolution 2024- 127

k. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Updated Elected Officials Salary and Benefit Resolution to Reflect Ordinance 1610 Changes to the San Carlos Municipal Code Section 2.08.020 and Adopting the Updated Comprehensive Master Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 in Accordance with Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations Section 570.5 and the California Employees Retirement System (CALPERS). Resolution 2024-128

8. REPORTS TO COUNCIL

a. Receive a Presentation on the Community Benefits Map.

Assistant Community Development Director Andrea Mardesich commenced the item and turned the presentation over to Management Analyst Chrysa Perakis to navigate through the community benefits interactive map. Ms. Mardesich responded to Council questions.

Council provided staff the following feedback:
- make the map as comprehensive as possible; include community amenities and other items that the public would like to know about
- integrate this map with the cataloged development list and the parks and recreation’s amenities; include a feature to identify which ones are public benefits from projects

7.b
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 6

9. NEW BUSINESS

a. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Approving Childcare Grant Requests and Appropriating an Additional Budget Amount from the Child Care Grant Fund (Fund 26) Unassigned Fund Balance as Needed to the Newly Established Childcare Grant Program to Utilize Funds Collected through the Childcare Development Impact Fees to Increase Childcare Spaces Within the City of San Carlos.

Councilmember Venkatesh recused herself from this item due to her childcare business.

Assistant Community Development Director Andrea Mardesich commenced the item with an overview of the Childcare Grant Program and turned the presentation over to Senior Management Analyst Sajuti Haque to provide a summary of the applications received. Ms.

Mardesich responded to Council questions.

Public Comment
- Kelcey Thomas, with The Children’s Place, spoke on the need for additional grant funds.

- Michelle Myhre Murphy, Chair of the Board of The Children’s Place, with additional time yielded from Heather Baumgartner, spoke in support of the proposed Resolution and the need for additional fund to expand their childcare.

- Benjamin Bates, resident, spoke in support of the proposed Resolution and additional funding for the expansion of The Children’s Place.

Ms. Mardesich responded to additional Council questions.

MOTION: Adopt Resolution 2024-129 Approving Childcare Grant Requests and Appropriating an Additional $250,000 to the Newly Established Childcare Grant Program to Utilize Funds Collected through the Childcare Development Impact Fees to Increase Childcare Spaces Within the City of San Carlos.

MOVER: Ronald Collins
SECONDER: Sara McDowell
AYES: McDowell, Collins, Rak, Dugan
NAYS: None
RECUSE: Venkatesh
RESULT: Motion Passed 4 – 0 – 1

b. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Stating the City Council's Position of No Confidence in Sheriff Christina Corpus and Calling on Sheriff Corpus to Resign.

City Manager Jeff Maltbie commenced the item with background on the City’s partnership with the Sheriff’s Office and the recent events that led to this item being on the agenda.

Administrative Services Director Rebecca Mendenhall presented on the proposed Resolution.

Public Comment
- Bruce Cumming, resident, spoke in support of the proposed Resolution.

- Liz Lange, resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed Resolution.

7.b
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 7

MOTION: Adopt Resolution 2024-130 Stating the City Council's Position of No Confidence in Sheriff Christina Corpus and Calling on Sheriff Corpus to Resign.

MOVER: Pranita Venkatesh
SECONDER: Ronald Collins
AYES: Rak, McDowell, Collins, Venkatesh, Dugan
NAYS: None
RESULT: Motion Passed 5 – 0

10. AGENDA SETTING

Councilmember Rak suggested Council re-review the US 101/Holly Street Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Project and consider directing staff to research implementing short-term options in the interim. Council supported discussing a plan of action for this at their next Council strategic retreat in January.

11. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 8:33 PM.

Crystal Mui,
City Clerk

7.b
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 8

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 13, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Accept the Quarterly Reports from City Commissions and Boards.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Quarterly Reports from the City’s Commissions and Boards.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None for this action.

BACKGROUND:

Since 2020, the City Council receives quarterly reports from each Commission and Board, with updates on activities from the preceding period, along with its member attendance report.

ANALYSIS:

Attached are the Fiscal Year 2024-25 second quarter reports from the following Commissions and Boards for the period of October through December 2024:
- Downtown Advisory Committee
- Economic Development Advisory Commission
- Museum of San Carlos History
- Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission
- Planning and Transportation Commission
- Youth Advisory Council
ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Accept the Quarterly Reports from City Commissions and Boards; or

2. Do not accept the Quarterly Reports from City Commissions and Boards; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 9

Respectfully submitted by:

Crystal Mui, City Clerk
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Downtown Advisory FY2025 Q2 Report

2. Economic Development Advisory FY2025 Q2 Report

3. Museum FY2025 Q2 Report

4. Parks, Recreation and Culture FY2025 Q2 Report

5. Planning and Transportation FY2025 Q2 Report

6. Youth Advisory FY2025 Q2 Report

7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 10

Downtown Advisory Committee (“DTAC”)
Q2 Quarterly Reports
October 1, 2024 – December 30, 2024

Summary of Accomplishments

There were no meetings in Q2 FY24/25

7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 11

CITY OF SAN CARLOS

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION (EDAC)
QUARTERLY REPORT, OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2024
Commissioners
Sailesh Mehra (Chair)
Heather Liu (Vice-Chair)
Kelly Hickey, Anthony Kamm, Rajesh Krishnan, Madhura Kumar, Karen Molinari, Laura Kotee (alternate)
Advisory
Al Savay, Community Development Director
Adolfo Ruelas, Economic Development Coordinator
Sajuti Haque, Sr. Management Analyst
Meetings Summary
The Economic Development Advisory Commission (EDAC) convened one time during the second quarter of 2024-2025 (October-December). The October meeting featured three key agenda items. First, a high-level presentation on the General Plan Reset provided an overview of the reset process and its alignment with the City’s long-term goals. Second, the commission reviewed the proposed draft actions for the 2025-2028 Economic Development Plan, participated in a draft action ranking exercise, and discussed the next steps in the plan’s timeline. Lastly, the commission held a discussion to select 10 small businesses to be featured in the 2024 Business Spotlight, highlighting the City's commitment to supporting and promoting local enterprises.

7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 12

City of San Carlos
Economic Development Advisory Commission Attendance Log Members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings and should make every effort to do so. Such attendance ensures a steady flow of communication and keeps everyone abreast of current topics under discussion. Unexcused absences from three (3) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk. For those Commissions that are scheduled to meet less than once a month, unexcused absences from two (2) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk.

Laura Kotee
Meeting Date
8/27/2024
9/3/2024
Sailesh Mehra Anthony Kamm Madhura Kumar Kelly Hickey Heather Liu Rajesh Krishnan Karen Molinari (Alternate) P
P
E
U
P
P
P
P
P
E
P
P
P
P
U
P
P
P
P
P
E
N/A
P
N/A9/24/2024
Total Unexcused Absences
1st Quarter 0
P
1 - U
P
0 P
0 P
1 - U
P
0 P
0 P
0 P10/22/2024
Total Unexcused Absences
2nd Quarter
Total Unexcused Absences
This Fiscal Year
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
01 - U 1 - U
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused Absence
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum

7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 13

Museum of San Carlos History
2nd Quarter Report to the San Carlos City Council
This report covers the time period from October 1 – December 31, 2024.

The Museum Board had one regularly scheduled meeting during this time period. The meeting took place on Tuesday, November 12, and was convened via Zoom; it was attended by all Board members.

The 2nd quarter usually slows down for the Museum Board with only one Board meeting and one Villagers (docents) meeting. However, this year there was an October fundraiser, repair of the 1927 Seagrave fire truck and applying for the San Carlos Centennial Community Grant, it was busy!
Attendance
•
•
All three City representatives were present at the November 12 meeting.

The Villagers, the Museum docent group, held an in person meeting at the Museum on October 5.

Activities & More


The Museum was open to the public every Saturday during October and November from 1 to 4pm.

The number of weekly visitors during this quarter remained steady although not large. We attribute this in part to holidays and weather. During the spring and summer the Museum gets a fair amount of traffic from families out for a walk.


The Museum is closed to the public during the month of December. During the month of December, the Museum schedules a deep cleaning of the Museum including carpet cleaning, holds our annual Holiday party honoring our volunteers and supporters, and schedules work days to work on exhibits, clean out storage, and sort inventory or artifacts.

During the month of October, the 1927 Seagrave Fire Truck was towed to a donated warehouse space and repaired! It will now be available for parades and other functions. Former owner of Nielsen’s Auto Shop Jeff Nielsen and mechanic Steve Shite made all repairs, the City generously covered the costs, Bill Butler generously donated the warehouse space, Board members Andy Klein and Gayle Collins oversaw the project, the Museum covered the towing costs and the City’s own Rick Viles drove the truck back to the Museum. Additionally, while the Seagrave was out of the building the City power washed the dirt and grease off the cement pad. (pictures& recommendations and notes provided below)
 On October 26, the Villagers and Molly O’s hosted a fundraiser for the Museum: Museum + Music + Molly = FUN! The Wingmen (past and present members of The E Ticket Band) performed, delicious food was consumed and a fun time was had by all. The Museum netted $1,200+.


Molly Barton, Gayle Collins and Connie Barba Barton all participated in the October 16 informational meeting with the Parks and Rec Department (Amy Newby and team) regarding the San Carlos Centennial Community Grant.

The Museum submitted a Centennial Community Grant on November 22 for $30,000 (grant proposal included below). Our proposal was approved as submitted on December 4. We are excited for the changes that will be taking place in the Museum and the various activities we’ll either be hosting or participating in as we support the City’s Centennial events starting with the Week of the Family.  Our annual holiday party celebrating our volunteers and supporters was held on December 18. Thanks to all who were able to attend, your support means so much to us. It was well attended and a good time was had by all. 1 7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 14

The next report will be submitted at the end of the 3rd quarter in March of 2025.

Thank you for your support throughout the 2024 calendar year. We look forward to our continued positive relationship in 2025!
Respectfully Submitted by,
Molly Barton
MoSCH Secretary
12/19/2024
2 7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 15

SEAGRAVE RECOMMENDATIONS & NOTES
1927 SEAGRAVE SUBURANITE FIRE ENGINE
1 Get a new fire extinguisher to keep on the fire engine.

2. The gas tank should not be filled all the way. Only half a tank of gas is needed for San Carlos parades and in-town travel. Up to three-quarters of a tank okay for a long parade in a nearby town. Put in only whet is needed. Gas can age out in a short time. We drained out 90 percent of the old gas. We put in five gallons of gas on October 22, 2024, that was special "Sunoco Race Fuel, Sunoco Optima Unleaded, 95 Octane." This gas stays good for up to three years. It was purchased at Mobil Woodside, 975 Woodside Road, Redwood City. It is currently $80 plus tax for a five-gallon can. Be sure to use only this gas for long-term storage and better running. It is okay to put in e few gallons of regular pump gas if needed.

3. The upper ladder rack should be lowered to give more clearance to safely get in and out of the doorway of the museum. This was discussed with Denny, Rick and Andy, who all participated in putting the fire engine back into the museum.

4. To get the Seagrave fire engine back into the San Carlos History Museum on October 23, 2024, we had to let air out of the tires to lower the truck to fit through the doorway. Currently, the tires are low on air in the museum. When the truck is removed from the museum, leave the tires low until it is outside the building, then inflate the tires to 65 PSI.

5. A battery tender charger should be put on the battery to keep it maintained. The battery will go dead without it.

6. The grease fittings on the Seagrave are original Alemite pin type fittings and require a vintage Alemite style grease gun to connect and lube them.

7. We recommend that the fire engine be driven on a regular basis. 3 7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 16

SEAGRAVE STARTING, RUNNING AND SHUTDOWN PROCEDURES
1927 Seagrave Suburbanite Fire Engine
Starting Procedure:

1. Disconnect battery from battery tender charger.

2. Connect battery to truck cables.

3. Put transmission in neutral.

4. Turn on gas.

5. Turn on ignition switch.

6. Engage mag switch on dash (push in knob and turn clockwise).

7. Retard spark on steering column by pulling cable up halfway.

8. Pull choke out all the way.

9. Push starter foot button, and also push throttle a little.

10. If it does not start right away, push choke back in a little so engine does not flood.

11. Retry try as needed.

When the Engine Starts Running:

1. The engine will need some choke a while to keep it running.

2. Slowly push choke in as the engine runs the first few minutes.

3. Push spark knob down until about one-quarter inch is left.

4. Be sure to warm up engine 10 to 15 minutes before driving.

To Shut-down:

1. Turn off ignition switch.

2. Push in mag switch and rotate counterclockwise to disengage.

3. Turn off gas.

4. Disconnect battery.
4 7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 17

SEAGRAVE DATA SHEET
1927 Seagrave Suburbanite Fire Engine
Has a Continental 6B engine
Installed NOS Bendix updraft carburetor
Point setting - .017
Valve lash — intake .007, exhaust .009, set cold
Engine oil- Brad Penn 40W-7 quarts
Battery - Interstate 4-XHD 6 volt
Radiator —water, water soluble oil (4 oz) — Bars Leak (1 package) Gasoline - Sunoco Race Fuel, Sunoco Optima Unleaded, 95 octane, no ethanol, for long-term storage Tire Pressure - 65 PSI
Fen Bett - Gates Vulco 815 11 KK
Oil pressure —22 PSI cold, 10 PSI hot
Radiator temperature hot - 1350 to 1580
5 7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 18

Grant Proposal for the Museum of San Carlos History: Centennial Community Grant Program Date: November 22, 2024
Submitted to: City of San Carlos, Parks & Recreation Department, Centennial Community Grant Program Submitted by:

Museum of San Carlos History
533 Laurel Avenue, San Carlos, CA
Gayle Collins, Board President
Project Title:
"Preserving Our Heritage: Modernizing the Museum of San Carlos History and Commemorating the City’s Centennial" Executive Summary
The Museum of San Carlos History, dedicated to preserving the rich heritage of the San Carlos region, seeks funding through the San Carlos Centennial Community Grant Program to modernize the Museum in celebration of the City’s Centennial. This project will incorporate technology, new display cases, updated and new exhibits that celebrate the City’s history and achievements, and the restoration of historic photographs. Additionally, we will commemorate this milestone by purchasing a new time capsule and Centennial Seal to symbolize the City’s past, present, and future. This initiative will not only modernize the Museum but also engage the community, inspire future generations, and preserve the historical legacy of San Carlos.

Project Overview
As part of the City’s Centennial celebration, the Museum of San Carlos History proposes a comprehensive modernization of its exhibits and collections. In addition to updating and enhancing current displays, the Museum will create new exhibits that reflect the City’s 100-year history. These exhibits will highlight the key moments, people, and events that have shaped San Carlos into the vibrant community it is today. The funding will be used to achieve the following:

1. Museum Modernization with Technology:

Integrating state-of-the-art technologies, such as interactive displays, electronic guided tours, and virtual tours, will offer visitors immersive educational experiences. These technologies will allow visitors to explore San Carlos’ history in dynamic new ways, connecting them more deeply to the past.

2. Exhibit Streamlining, New Display Cases, and Centennial-Themed Exhibits:

The Museum will replace outdated display cases with modern, energy-efficient units that better protect and showcase our historical artifacts. These new cases will enhance the overall presentation of exhibits and improve lighting, security, and accessibility. In addition, we will update existing exhibits and create entirely new ones that specifically celebrate the Centennial of the City of San Carlos. These exhibits will include key moments from the past century, spotlighting influential figures, pivotal events, and the development of the City from its origins to the present day.

3. Photo Restoration and Reproduction:

Many of the Museum’s historical photographs are deteriorating and require restoration to ensure their longevity.

We will engage photo restoration specialists to repair and digitize these images. High-quality reproductions of the restored photographs will be made available for display and educational purposes.

4. Time Capsule Re-Burial Event:

As part of the year-long Centennial celebration, the Museum will host a time capsule re-burial event where a new time capsule will be sealed with artifacts, documents, and cultural items representing life in San Carlos today. 6 7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 19

This event will bring the community together to contribute items to the capsule, symbolizing the connection between past, present, and future. The capsule will be buried on the Museum grounds, with plans for it to be opened 50 years from now. An official Centennial Seal will be created to mark the event, adding a permanent symbol of the City’s Centennial at the Museum.

Objectives




Commemorate the City’s Centennial: Create new exhibits and a time capsule that celebrate San Carlos’ 100 years of history and its continuing legacy.

Enhance Visitor Experience: Improve accessibility and engagement through updated exhibits and the integration of modern technologies.

Preserve Cultural Heritage: Safeguard the Museum’s collections through photo restoration, digital preservation, and enhanced exhibit conditions.

Involve the Community: Engage residents, schools, and organizations in the creation of the time capsule and the development of Centennial-themed exhibits.

Project Budget
Expense Category
Technology Integration (Virtual Tours, Digital Displays, etc.) $ 2,000 Amount Requested
New Display Cases and Exhibit Upgrades
Photo Restoration and Reproduction
Time Capsule Purchase and Centennial Seal
Labor and Project Management
Miscellaneous Costs (marketing, training, etc.)
Total
$10,000
$ 3,500
$10,000
$ 3,000
$ 1,500
$30,000
Project Timeline
 Phase 1: Planning & Design (Months 1-2)
o
o
Finalize designs for technology integration, new exhibits, and the time capsule.

Begin selecting a professional team for photo restoration, display case installation, and the time capsule construction.
 Phase 2: Months 2-6
o
o
Implementation & Installation
.
.
.

Begin the installation of digital technologies, including interactive displays.

Begin the construction of new display cases and updating current exhibits.

Work on the creation of Centennial-themed exhibits highlighting key moments from San Carlos' history.

Photo Restoration & Exhibit Finalization
. Complete photo restoration efforts and integrate the restored images into the new and updated exhibits.
. Finalize all Centennial exhibits and install them in the Museum.  Phase 3: Time Capsule and Centennial Seal (Months 2-7) 7 7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 20

o
o
Finalize the design and construction of the time capsule and Centennial Seal.

Gather materials for the time capsule, including contributions from local schools, businesses, and community members.
 Phase 4 Final Touches & Launch (Month 5-7)
o
o
Complete installation of new exhibits and digital features.

Seal the time capsule and host a public unveiling event to celebrate the Museum’s new exhibits, the Centennial Seal, and the time capsule.

Expected Outcomes




Increased Community Engagement: The time capsule and Centennial-themed exhibits will inspire local pride and involvement, fostering a stronger sense of community.

Increased Visitor Traffic: With updated and interactive exhibits, we anticipate an increase in visitors over the next two years.

Preserved Heritage: The restored photographs and newly created exhibits will preserve the history of San Carlos for future generations.

Educational Opportunities: The new exhibits enhanced with technology will provide valuable educational resources for students and visitors alike, enhancing their understanding of the city’s development over the past century.

Evaluation and Sustainability
We will evaluate the success of the project through visitor feedback, attendance data, and community participation in the time capsule project. The Museum will also monitor the long-term sustainability of the new exhibits and technologies through ongoing partnerships with local organizations, donors, and businesses.

Conclusion
The Museum of San Carlos History is excited to celebrate the City’s Centennial by modernizing its exhibits, preserving valuable historical materials, and creating new exhibits that celebrate the City’s 100-year journey. The addition of a new time capsule and Centennial Seal will offer a symbolic connection to the future, providing a legacy for future generations to explore. With your support, this Centennial Grant will allow us to make the Museum a vibrant, forward-thinking institution while honoring the city’s storied past.

Thank you for considering our proposal. We look forward to the opportunity to collaborate with you in celebrating San Carlos’ Centennial and preserving its legacy for years to come.

Sincerely,
Gayle Collins
President
Museum of San Carlos History
[email protected]
8 7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 21

City of San Carlos
Museum of San Carlos History Attendance Report
Members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings and should make every effort to do so. Such attendance ensures a steady flow of communication and keeps everyone abreast of current topics under discussion. Unexcused absences from three (3) consecutive Regular Meetings, will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk. For those Commissions that are scheduled to meet less than once a month, unexcused absences from (2) consecutive Regular Meetings will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk.

Meeting Date Molly Barton Andy Klein John Durkin
7/16/2024
9/10/2024
Total Unexcused Absences
1st Quarter
P
P
E
P
P
P
0 0 0
11/12/2024 P P P
Total Unexcused Absences
2nd Quarter
Total Unexcused Absences
This Fiscal Year
0 0
0 0
0 0
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused Absence
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum

7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 22

Parks, Recreation & Culture Commission
Second Quarter for FY 2025
October - December 2024
The Parks, Recreation & Culture Commission met twice during the second quarter, FY 2025, on October 2 and December 5, 2024. The meetings were held in-person at the San Carlos Library Community Rooms.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Commissioners received updates on the Museum of San Carlos History Board by Commissioner John Durkin.

Commissioners received a presentation from Grace Le, City Engineer and Consultants on Watershed Management and Maintenance.

Commissioners received presentation on Personal & Family Development, presented by Janet Guerry, Recreation Coordinator.

Commissioners received a presentation on Athletics by Holly Gonzales, Recreation Coordinator.

Commissioners appointed a commissioner to serve on the Downtown Advisory Committee (DTAC).

Commissioners approved Recommendation of Selected Artists by Public Art Task Force for Artist Rotation Program.

Commissioners also received updates on Parks & Recreation programs and services and Current Improvement Projects from Tyler Muela, Recreation Manager.

Please see attached PR&C Commission Attendance Log.

7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 23

City of San Carlos
Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission Attendance Log Members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings and should make every effort to do so. Such attendance ensures a steady flow of communication and keeps everyone abreast of current topics under discussion.

Unexcused absences from three (3) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk. For those Commissions that are scheduled to meet less than once a month, unexcused absences from two (2) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk.

Tony Chao Alexandra Seeber
(removed due to Mark Stogner (Alternate)
Meeting Date Bob Bollier unexcused absences) John Durkin Cecile Lee Julie Lubetkin (appointed 9/23/24) (appointed 9/23/24) 8/7/2024 P
U
U
U
P
P
P
E
P
P9/3/2024 - Special Joint Meeting
Total Unexcused Absences
1st Quarter 1 - U
P
P
2 - U 0
P
P
0 E
P
0 P
P
10/2/2024
12/4/2024
P
P
E
P
Total Unexcused Absences
2nd Quarter 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Total Unexcused Absences
This Fiscal Year 1 - U 2 - U
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused Absence
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum

7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 24

Planning and Transportation Commission
FY 2025 Q2 Quarterly Report
October 01, 2024 – December 31, 2024
Summary of Accomplishments
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) held two meetings in the second quarter of fiscal year 2024/2025 and addressed the following items:

October 07, 2024:

1. Election of the Planning and Transportation Commission Chair and Vice-chair.

2. 360 Industrial Road: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Veterinary Services Within an Existing Multi-tenant Building at 360 Industrial Road (APNs:
046054440, 046054450) – Approved.

November 18, 2024:

1. 782 Elm Street: Request for a new Vesting Tentative Map to create four (4) attached townhome units with at-grade covered parking – Approved.

2. Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the San Carlos Local Roadway Safety Plan – Approved.

3. Study session for the Transportation Demand Management and Parking Reform project.

7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 25

City of San Carlos
Planning and Transportation Commission Attendance Log
Members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings and should make every effort to do so. Such attendance ensures a steady flow of communication and keeps everyone abreast of current topics under discussion. Unexcused absences from three (3) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk. For those Commissions that are scheduled to meet less than once a month, unexcused absences from two (2) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk.

Jim Iacaponi David Roof
Twisha Anand Summer Bundy (termed out after new (termed out after new Meeting Date
7/1/2024 - C
(appointed 8/28/24) (appointed 9/9/24) Janet Castaneda Kristen Clements Ellen Garvey appointment made) appointment made) 7/15/2024 - C
8/5/2024
8/13/2024
8/19/2024
9/3/2024 - Special Joint Meeting
9/16/2024 - C
E
P
P
P
P
P
E
E
E
P
P
E
P
P
E
P
P
P
P
E
Total Unexcused Absences
1st Quarter 0 0 0 0 0
10/7/2024
10/21/2024 - C
11/4/2024 - C
P
P
P
P
P P P
11/18/2024 P P E
12/02/2024 - C
12/16/2024 - C
Total Unexcused Absences
2nd Quarter 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Total Unexcused Absences
This Fiscal Year
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused Absence
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum

7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 26

YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL (YAC): QUARTERLY REPORT
October 2024 – December 2024
October 2024:
• The Youth Advisory Council designed, scripted, and performed in the annual Youth Center Haunted House and Movie Night on October 18th, where over 600 community members participated in plants and graveyard themed games, face painting, crafts, and eating Mister Softee Ice Cream.
•
•
On October 26th the Youth Advisory Council hosted a Laurel Street Clean-Up. Twenty community members participated, ranging in age from 10-17 years old. The clean-up was scheduled the day after the Goblin Walk to ensure no candy wrappers were left behind.

The Youth Advisory Council and Adult Community Center celebrated Halloween at Generation Buddies on Monday, October 28 th with pumpkin painting, a Halloween fashion show, and a specially curated themed dinner! The 18 teens and 15 active adults in attendance celebrated the spooky season, walked down the orange runway, and topped off new friendships with spider web pizza and dirt cups for dessert.

November 2024:
• On November 2nd, The Youth Advisory Council attended a district-wide social with other youth advisory councils and committees from the greater peninsula, hosted at Los Altos Community Center. The YAC Social allowed students to get together to socialize, network and plan for the upcoming YAC Attack mini conference. Over 60 teens across 14 Bay Area cities connected to exchange ideas on how they can better their communities. •
•
On November 16th, the Youth Advisory Council volunteered at the Stanford Blood Center Blood Drive at the Youth Center.

The Youth Advisory Council and Adult Community Center kicked off the Fall season on November 18th with Generation Buddies. Participants enjoyed making thank you cards for loved ones, sharing recipes, and feasting on Harvest Salad, Rosemary Garlic Chicken with Roasted Butternut Squash, Brussel sprouts and apple crisp cups for dessert.

December 2024:
• The Youth Advisory Council hosted a winter-wonderland themed photobooth at the annual Night of Holiday Lights community event on December 6th. YAC members volunteered at the event while assisting by taking pictures for families and friends with the photo backdrop who were in the festive spirit.
• On December 16-18th the Youth Advisory Council hosted a “Finals and Fries” event for High School students at the Youth Center. This free event included a table full of fries from a variety of local restaurants, studying supplies, two collaborative spaces with varying noise levels, a study skills presentation from Sequoia High School guidance counselors, and onsite Youth Center Staff tutors.

7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 27

City of San Carlos
Youth Advisory Council Attendance Log
Members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings and should make every effort to do so. Such attendance ensures a steady flow of communication and keeps everyone abreast of current topics under discussion. Unexcused absences from three (3) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk. For those Commissions that are scheduled to meet less than once a month, unexcused absences from two (2) Meetings within a Fiscal Year will result in that Commission member’s seat being declared vacant by the City Clerk.

Karan Sangani Aditya Gupta
Meeting Date
7/10/2024 (Summer Break)
8/28/2024
9/3/2024
9/11/2024
Dylan Karmin Saba Rahimi Sufiya Kaul Eva Greenbaum Nikhil Nunna Zuri Kadiwar Cecily Mock Maya Kacholiya Ellora Mehta Hanna Kent Connor Huh (Alternate) (Alternate) P
P
P
P
P
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
E
P
U
P
P
U
P
P
U
P
Total Unexcused Absences
1st Quarter 0
P
P
P
0 P
P
P
0 P
P
U
0 P
P
P
0 P
P
P
0 P
P
P
0 U
P
P
0 P
P
P
0 P
P
P
0 P
P
U
1 - U
P
P
1 - U
E
P
1 - U
P
P
10/9/2024
11/13/2024
12/11/2024 P P P
Total Unexcused Absences
2nd Quarter 0
0 0
0 1 - U
1 - U
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 - U
1 - U
0 0
0 0
1 - U
1 - U
0 0 0
Total Unexcused Absences
This Fiscal Year 1 - U 1 - U 1 - U
P = Present
U = Unexcused Absence
E = Excused Absence
QA = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner wasn't able to attend QP = Mtg canceled for lack of quorum, Commissioner would have been able to attend C = Mtg Canceled for any reason other than lack of quorum

7.c
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 28

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 13, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign an Amendment to Extend the City of San Carlos and San Carlos School District Field Maintenance Agreement from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign an amendment extend to the City of San Carlos (“City”) and San Carlos School District Field Maintenance Agreement (“Agreement”) from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The San Carlos School District (“School District”) agrees to reimburse the City $8,852.64 per month for City-provided maintenance services for the sports fields at Tierra Linda, Central, and Heather Schools to meet the minimum maintenance standard per the Agreement. Additionally, the School District agrees to reimburse the City $900 per month for materials and supplies. The City’s current park maintenance contractor will perform the maintenance at the school fields.

BACKGROUND:

In 2016, to provide local sports groups with high quality fields, the School District and the City entered into an agreement to combine field maintenance efforts to achieve economies of scale and uniformity in services provided. In June 2024, the Agreement was extended by both parties through December 31, 2024.

After implementing routine, bi-weekly field maintenance and annual field renovation, the quality of the ballfields at each school has improved. In addition, the Agreement enables the City to maximize the scheduling of community groups.

ANALYSIS:

The City and the School District Agreement addresses maintenance and scheduling of athletic fields at Tierra Linda, Central, and Heather Schools. The current Agreement is scheduled to terminate on December 31, 2024. This amendment would extend the Agreement for an additional six months until June 30, 2025. This extension would allow the City time to work with the School District to develop a successor agreement with a goal of improving outcomes for the City, the School District, and the San Carlos community as a whole.

7.d
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 29

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign an amendment to extend the City and School District Field Maintenance Agreement from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Amy Newby, Parks & Recreation Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. Proposed Amendment to the Agreement

7.d
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 30

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE CITY

OF SAN CARLOS AND SAN CARLOS SCHOOL DISTRICT FIELD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FROM JANUARY 1, 2025 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025.

WHEREAS, in 2016, the San Carlos School District (“School District”) and the City of San Carlos (“City”) entered into an agreement to combine efforts of field maintenance to gain some economy of scale and uniformity of maintenance; and
WHEREAS, in June 2024, the agreement was extended by both parties through December 31, 2024; and

WHEREAS, the City and District agreement regarding the maintenance and scheduling of athletic fields include Tierra Linda, Central, and Heather school sites; and

WHEREAS, the agreement is scheduled to terminate on December 31, 2024; and

WHEREAS, this amendment would extend the agreement for an additional six months until June 30, 2025; and

WHEREAS, the School District agrees to reimburse the City $8,852.64 per month for maintenance services and $900 per month for materials for the sports fields at Tierra Linda, Central, and Heather Schools to meet the minimum maintenance standard per the agreement; and

WHEREAS, this extension would allow the City time to work with the San Carlos School District to develop a successor agreement with a goal of improving outcomes for the City, the School District, and the San Carlos community as a whole; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby authorize the City Manager to sign an amendment to the City and School District Field Maintenance Agreement from January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2025. * * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 13th day of January 2025, by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

7.d
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 31

________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

7.d
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 32

SECONDAMENDMENTTOAGREEMENTREGARDINGTHEMAINTENANCEANDSCHEDULINGOFATHLETICFIELDSATTIERRALINDA,CENTRAL,ANDHEATHERSCHOOLS ThisAmendmenttoAgreementRegardingtheMaintenanceandSchedulingofAthleticFieldsatTierraLinda,Central,andHeatherSchools(“Amendment”)isenteredintoasofDecember12,2024(“EffectiveDate”),byandbetweenbyandbetweentheCityofSanCarlosandSanCarlosSchoolDistrict,hereinafterrespectivelyreferredtoas“City”and“District.” WHEREAS,CityandDistrictpreviouslyenteredintoanAgreementRegardingtheMaintenanceandSchedulingofAthleticFieldsatTierraLinda,Central,andHeatherSchools,effectiveasofJuly1,2021(“theAgreement”),whichsetsforthvariousagreementsandunderstandingswithrespecttofieldmaintenanceatHeatherSchool,CentralMiddleSchool,andTierraLindaMiddleSchool,and, WHEREAS,onJune13,2024,CityandDistrictextendedthetermoftheAgreementuntilDecember31,2024,amendingtheagreementtoreflectfeesfortheperiodofJuly1,2024,andDecember31,2024,andamendedthedescriptionofservicestoreflectcurrentpracticesandexpectations.

WHEREAS,CityandDistrictwouldliketoextendthetermoftheAgreementuntilJune30,2025,toamendtheagreementtoreflectfeesfortheperiodofJuly1,2024,andJune30,2025,andtoamendthedescriptionofservicestoreflectcurrentpracticesandexpectations.

NOWTHEREFORE,CityandDistrictagreetothefollowing:

1. Paragraph1.5oftheAgreementisherebyamendedinitsentiretytostatethefollowing:

1.5. Maintenance&MaterialCosts. TheDistrictshallberesponsibleforallcostsofmaintainingthesportsfieldsincluding,butnotlimitedto,irrigationsystemmanagement,watercosts,fertilization,aerationandmowing.FortheperiodofJuly1,2024,throughJune30,2025,theDistrictagreestoreimbursetheCity$8,852.63permonthformaintenanceservicesforthefieldsatTierraLinda,CentralandHeatherSchoolstobemaintainedtomeettheminimummaintenancestandard. TheDistrictalsoagreestoreimbursetheCity$900.00permonthforcostofmaterialsforthemaintenanceofthefieldsatTierraLinda,CentralandHeatherSchools.ThetotalmonthlyreimbursementtotheCityformaintenanceservicesandmaterialsforthefieldsatTierraLinda,CentralandHeatherSchoolsis$9,752.63.

2. Paragraph2.1oftheAgreementisherebyamendedinitsentiretytostatethefollowing:

2.1ThetermofthisAgreementshallcommenceonJuly1,2021andshallcontinueuntilJune30,2025,unlessotherwiseterminatedpursuanttothisagreementorextendedbywrittenagreementofbothCityandDistrict.

3. ExhibitAoftheAgreementisamendedandrestatedinitsentiretytoreflectExhibitAtothisAmendment.

4. ExhibitBoftheAgreementisamendedandrestatedinitsentiretytoreflectExhibitBtothisAmendment.

5. Inadditiontotheamendmentsspecifiedabove,theDistrictagreesthat,intheeventaschooleventconflictswiththeCity’sscheduledmaintenanceoruseofanyofthefieldsatHeatherSchool,CentralMiddleSchool,andTierraLindaMiddleSchool,theDistrictwillnotifytheCityatleasttwo(2)weeksinadvanceofthedateoftheconflicttogivetheCitytimetocoordinateandscheduleanalternativedateand/ortimefortheCity’smaintenanceoruse. Forthebalanceofthetermofthisagreement,thatnoticewillcomeintheformofanemailfromtheDistrict’sChiefOperationsOfficer(JenniferGaboury)totheCity’sPublicWorksSuperintendent(LouDuran).

6. Exceptasamendedhereby,theAgreementisunchanged,and,asamendedhereby,theAgreementremainsinfullforceandeffect.

7.d
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 33

7. ThisAmendmentmaybeexecutedbythepartiesinmultiplecounterparts,eachofwhichshallbedeemedanoriginalcopy.

INWITNESSWHEREOF,DistrictandUsershaveexecutedthisAmendmentasofthedatefirstsetforthabove.

ForCityofSanCarlos
Signature:Name:Title:

ForSanCarlosSchoolDistrict
Signature:Name:Title:

7.d
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 34

EXHIBITA
ScheduledSchoolDistrictCost(5%CPIIncrease)
SchoolSite Monthly July1,2024-June30,2025
TierraLindaMiddleSchool $3,459.26 $41,511.12
CentralMiddleSchool $1,845.94 $22,151.28
HeatherElementary $3,547.44 $42,569.28
TotalFieldLandscape&InfieldMaintenanceCosts
$8,852.64 $106,231.68
MonthlyMaterialsCosts $900 $10,800
GrandTotal $9,752.64 $117,031.68

7.d
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 35

7.d
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 36

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 13, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Countywide and City of San Carlos Local Roadway Safety Plan and Accompanying Vision Zero Goals.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting the countywide and City of San Carlos Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and accompanying vision zero goals.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal impacts, and no additional funding is needed at this time.

BACKGROUND:

An LRSP identifies and systematically analyzes roadway safety needs and develops a prioritized list of safety countermeasures. An LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates an agency’s responsiveness to safety challenges through local agency partnerships and collaboration. The completion of the countywide LRSP will render jurisdictions in San Mateo County (“County”) eligible for grant funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) OBAG 3 County & Local Program, and future funding for the Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program and US Department of Transportation Safe Streets for All (“SS4A”).

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 San Carlos, that have yet to adopt an individual plan. The plan is divided into two parts. The first part contains the countywide LRSP, and the second part contains individual LRSPs from ten participating agencies that have yet to adopt an individual plan. The San Carlos chapter is included in the second part.

In spring 2023, prior to adoption, the countywide LRSP initiative commenced with the assembly of an advisory group comprised of various local agencies’ staff, including public health and safety personnel, 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 27, 2023, at the San Carlos Block Party which occurred in downtown.

In June 2024, the C/CAG Board approved the final San Mateo Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan. C/CAG has recommended, upon its adoption on June 13th, that local jurisdictions adopt a

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 37

local Resolution cosigning the countywide LRSP, noting agreement with the vision/goals, Countywide High Injury Network, prioritization method, and relevant proposed actions that pertain to local agencies. This Resolution serves as an interim measure to meet grant requirements.

ANALYSIS:

A comprehensive descriptive analysis was undertaken to discern patterns, trends, and potential risk factors using five years of crash data. The data utilized were extracted from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) crash database, covering injury and fatal crashes spanning from 2018 to 2022. During this five-year period, in San Carlos, there were 281 reported crashes on surface streets and 32 fatal/severe injury crashes. 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.

The LRSP identifies the following areas of emphasis for safety improvement:
• Pedestrian and bicyclist safety
• Nighttime/low light safety
• Unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors
• Vulnerable age groups (youth and aging)
• Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes
• High-speed roadways (35+ mph)
• Impaired driving
The City of San Carlos’s goals and visions for roadway safety are to:
• Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050.
• Promote a culture of roadway safety in San Carlos’s departments, businesses, and residents.

C/CAG will lead, coordinate, and support each of its 21 local jurisdictions in achieving their respective vision and goals to reduce or eliminate fatalities and severe injury crashes across all public roadways.

In November 2024, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Countywide and City of San Carlos Local Roadway Safety Plan and Accompanying Vision Zero Goals.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution adopting the countywide and City of San Carlos Local Roadway Safety Plan and accompanying vision zero goals; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 38

Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida, Public Works Director
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. C/CAG Countywide LRSP

3. City of San Carlos LRSP

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 39

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

ADOPTING THE COUNTYWIDE AND CITY OF SAN CARLOS LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND ACCOMPANYING VISION ZERO GOALS.

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 32 crashes resulted in deaths or severe, life- changing injuries on non-freeway roadways in San Carlos, an average of 6 per year; and WHEREAS, one death on San Carlos streets is one too many, and San Carlos is dedicated to strategies that aim to reduce and eliminate deaths and serious injuries on streets in all jurisdictions countywide; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Carlos 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, 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
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration and State Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) grant funding for improving safety requires the preparation and implementation of a systematic approach to improve safety as presented in the countywide and City of San Carlos LRSP (attached); and
WHEREAS, Caltrans has adopted the goal of moving “toward zero deaths” by incorporating the Safe System Approach and using proven effective strategies and countermeasures; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) passed a Vision Zero policy in 2020 that identified actions to support agencies like the City of San Carlos; and WHEREAS, in November 2024, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting the countywide and City of San Carlos Local Roadway Safety Plan and Accompanying Vision Zero Goals.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 40

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council adopts Vision Zero as its guiding principle for transportation planning, in conjunction with City/County Association of Governments (“C/CAG”) adopting this vision at the County level and take the following action:

1. Pursue the recommended near-term and long-term policies, programs, guidelines, and recommendations identified in the LRSP, with the overriding goal of eliminating traffic- related fatalities and serious injuries; and

2. Refer to the prioritized locations in the countywide and San Carlos LRSP sections when considering safety improvements, which locations were prioritized including considerations of social equity; and

3. 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

4. Adopt the countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan and the San Carlos Local Roadway Safety Plan that summarizes specific recommendations and action items to be taken by the City of San Carlos and partner agencies that will address the listed emphasis areas; and

5. Implement the LRSP in an equitable manner, accounting for historic inequities in transportation and safety investments; and

6. Direct staff to prepare an annual update and a 3 to 5 year report on progress toward the Vision Zero goals, tracking process and outcome metrics. * * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 13th day of January 2025, by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 41

S
an Mateo
C/CAG
Countywide
LRSP

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 42

Kittelson & Associates, Inc
This page intentionally left blank.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 43

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

Executive
Summary

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 44

/ 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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 45

/ 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:

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 46

/ 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 47

/ 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 48

/ 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)

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 49

/ 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 50

/ Executive Summary
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7

San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 51

Kittelson & Associates, Inc
This page intentionally left blank.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 52

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C/CAG Project
Management Team
Jeff Lacap
Eva Gaye
Advisory Group Members
Local Jurisdiction Representatives
Robert Ovadia, Town of Atherton
Matt Hoang, City of Belmont
Tracy Scramaglia, City of Belmont
Karen Kinser, City of Brisbane
Tomas Santoyo, City of Brisbane
Andrew Wong, City of Burlingame
Abdulkader Hashem, Town of Colma
Richard Chiu, Jr.; City of Daly City
Irene Chiu, City of East Palo Alto
Humza Javed, City of East Palo Alto
Anwar Mirza, City of East Palo Alto
Justin Lai, City of Foster City
Francine Magno, City of Foster City
Amy Zhou, City of Foster City
Maz Bozorginia, City of Half Moon Bay
Jonathan Woo, City of Half Moon Bay
Paul Willis, Town of Hillsborough
Matthew Hui, City of Menlo Park
Sam Bautista, City of Millbrae
Lisa Peterson, City of Pacifica
Howard Young, Town of Portola Valley
Malahat Owrang, City of Redwood City
Hae Won, City of San Bruno
Harry Yip, City of San Bruno
Hanieh Houshmandi, City of San Carlos
Steven Machida, City of San Carlos
Bethany Lopez, City of San Mateo
Azalea Mitch, City of San Mateo
Jeff Chou, City of South San Francisco
Matthew Ruble, City of South San Francisco
Yazdan Emrani, Town of Woodside
Sindhi Mekala, Town of Woodside
Diana Shu, County of San Mateo
Partner Agency Representatives
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Sustainability
Department
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jessica Manzi, San Mateo County Transportation
District
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 53

/ 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 t o 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 54

/ 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 55

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Glossary of Terms ....................................................................................................................................................................4 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7 List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 What is an LRSP? ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Safe System Approach ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Alignment with the SHSP .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Incorporating Vision Zero .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 What’s in the Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Vision and Goals .................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Vision ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Plan Goals .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Plan Development .................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Existing Safety Efforts ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Project Advisory Group ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Community Engagement and Input ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Countywide Data Analysis Findings .................................................................................................................................. 26 Pre-Pandemic versus Pandemic Comparison .................................................................................................................................................. 27 Hot Spot analysis/ High Injury Network Identification .................................................................................................................................... 31 Systemic Descriptive Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 Emphasis Areas ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 Systemic Findings by Mode ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 37 State Highways in San Mateo County ............................................................................................................................... 45 Safety on At-Grade State Highways ........................................................................................................................................................................ 46 Existing Plans and Directives to Improve Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 48 Caltrans Director’s Policy 36: Road Safety – establishes the VZ commitment ....................................................................... 48 Caltrans Road Safety Action Plan 2023-24 ..................................................................................................................................................... 48 District 4 Bike Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49 District 4 Pedestrian Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 49 Improvements to Date in the County ...................................................................................................................................................................... 49

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 56

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 7
Caltrans Recommendations and Actions ........................................................................................................................................................... 50 Safe System-Aligned Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 51 Engineering ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 51 Policy and Program ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 56 Organize .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 57 Educate .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Coordinate............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 58 Fund .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Research ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 60 Plan .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 61 Project Prioritization ..............................................................................................................................................................63 SamTrans Bus Stop Prioritization ................................................................................................................................................................................. 72 Implementation and Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................ 74

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. “Swiss Cheese” Model Demonstrating Layers of Redundancy .................................................................................................. 13 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool....................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3. Percentage of Total Respondents by City of Residence ..............................................................................................................22 Figure 4. Percentage of Total Responses by Emphasis Areas Selected ............................................................................................... 23 Figure 5. Countywide Pedestrian High Injury Network ...................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 6. Countywide Bicyclist High Injury Network............................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 7. Countywide Motor Vehicle High Injury Network ................................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 8. Countywide Combined High Injury Network ....................................................................................................................................... 35

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 57

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 8

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. C/CAG Constituent Jurisdictions and Partner Agencies ................................................................................................................ 17 Table 2. Calendar of C/CAG Public Engagement Events ................................................................................................................................ 20 Table 3. Crash Data Overview, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022) ........................................................................................................ 26 Table 4. Crashes by Year, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022) .................................................................................................................... 27 Table 5. Crashes by Year and Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022) ............................................................................ 29 Table 6: Crashes by Mode, Countywide (2018-2022) ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Table 7. San Mateo County State Highways and Local Jurisdictions ..................................................................................................... 45 Table 8. Crashes by Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022) .................................................................................................. 47 Table 9. Caltrans SAP Actions Related to LRSP ....................................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 10: Engineering Countermeasures ................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 11. Recommendations and Categories ......................................................................................................................................................... 56 Table 12: Policy/Program Recommendations and Partner Roles .............................................................................................................. 62 Table 13: Local HIN Segments by Mode, Jurisdiction, and Social Equity Neighborhoods ........................................................... 64 Table 14: State Highway HIN Segments by Mode, Jurisdiction, and Social Equity Neighborhoods ....................................... 71

APPENDICES
Appendix A Web Comments received by Agency
Appendix B Phase 2 Engagement Comments
Appendix C Crash Analysis Memo
Appendix D Project Priority Location Memo
Appendix E SamTrans Bus Stop Priority Analysis

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 58

/ 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 59

/ 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 elements
3:
• 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 outcomes 5,7.
• 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 60

/ 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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 61

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 12
Safety and Social Equity
We know that nationwide and statewide, safety impacts and fatal/severe injury crashes affect the population unevenly. The burdens of inequitable infrastructure investments result in more death and severe injury among marginalized populations.

The 2022 USDOT National Roadway Safety Strategy13 notes the following impacts:
• Nationally, the 40 percent of counties with the highest poverty rates in 2019 experienced a fatality rate 35 percent higher than the national average on a per population basis.14 • From 2019 to 2020, traffic-related fatalities among Black people increased by over three times higher than the overall nationwide increase of 7.2 percent.15
• People who are American Indian and Alaska Native have more than double the national fatality rate per population on a per population basis.

Within California, the American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black, and Hispanic population have per population fatality rates 16, 9, and 7 percent higher, respectively, than among the White population. Pedestrian fatality rates are 50, 65, and 37 percent higher, respectively.
16 Within San Mateo County, Black and Hispanic travelers are victims in crashes at rates 2.2 and 1.2 times their share of the population, respectively.

Because of the continual disproportionate impact of crashes and the burden on disadvantaged communities, this plan incorporates social equity into the analysis, project prioritization, and plan recommendations. Social equity will be used to guide future investments and focus areas for non-engineering strategies that can improve safety in line with the Safe System approach.

Alignment with the SHSP
The 2020–2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) sets out California’s vision, goals, and objectives for reducing fatal and severe injury crashes on public roads (local roads and State Highways). To draw this roadmap, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) analyzed crash data and collaborated with traffic safety partners across the state. As a result, the SHSP identified 16 challenge areas, or areas with the most potential to improve roadway safety. Of the challenge areas, six were identified as high-priority areas, or areas with the greatest opportunity to reduce fatality and severe injury.

Whereas the SHSP has historically used the five “Es” (education, enforcement, engineering, emergency response, and emerging technologies) to organize its strategies, as of 2021 State transportation officials shifted

13 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf 14 1 FARS 2019 data publication, 1st release; Poverty rates and Population data by County, U.S. Census. The fatality rate for the top 40 percent of counties by poverty rate was 14.9 per 100,000 population versus 11.0 for the country. 15 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813118 16 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/shsp/combined-shsp-fact-sheets-april- 2022-a11y.pdf

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 62

/ 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-Iowa- FHWA.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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 63

/ 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 64

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 15
• Brisbane: Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2050; establish and promote a Safe System culture to build overlapping layers of safety.
• Burlingame: Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2050. • Colma: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2040. • Daly City (published 2020)17: Eliminate fatalities and serious injuries by 2035. • East Palo Alto: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal injury crashes by 50 percent by 2050.
• Foster City: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050 as part of a broader effort to promote roadway safety in Foster City’s departments, businesses, and residents.
• Half Moon Bay: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050. • Hillsborough: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050.
• Menlo Park (updated 2024)18: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2040. • Millbrae (adopted 2022)19: Systemically identify and analyze roadway safety problems and recommend improvements.
• Pacifica (adopted 2023)20: Residents and visitors to Pacifica are able to safety travel by car, foot, bicycle, transit, and other modes of transportation to access daily needs and recreational opportunities. • Portola Valley:21 To provide for safe and reasonably expeditious movement for local residents and minimize the disruptive influences of through traffic.
• Redwood City (adopted 2022)22: Eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries for all modes by 2030. • San Bruno (adopted 2023)23: Identify and analyze road safety issues from a systemic perspective and recommend improvements.
• San Carlos: Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050. • San Mateo (ongoing): The City is committed to reaching its goal of eliminating all preventable traffic fatalities and severe injuries by 2050.
• South San Francisco (published 2022)24: Support the California vision of moving towards significantly reducing fatalities and serious injuries for all road users. • Unincorporated County (published 2021)25: Reduce the number of fatal crashes to zero by 2035. • Woodside: Achieve 50 percent reduction in fatal and severe injury crashes by 2050.

Plan Goals
This plan acts in the service of achieving several Countywide safety goals. These goals have guided the creation of this plan and serve as markers C/CAG can use to measure the plan’s success moving forward.

17 https://www.dalycity.org/DocumentCenter/View/3369/Vision-Zero-Action-Plan-2020-PDF 18 https://menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Public-Works/Capital-improvement-projects/Vision-Zero-Action-Plan 19 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=15854&repo=r-c2783ec8&searchid=81b66911-b352-477f-ab4f- 4a776cf7f808
20 https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/15778/638278612505239698 21 From the Town’s Circulation Element
22 https://www.redwoodcity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/25615/638016840641870000 23 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/436/Projects
24 https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/30166/638245818532000000 25 https://www.smcsustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/San-Mateo-County-LRSP3-1.pdf

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 65

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 16
The goals include the following:
• Regularly review crash history and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages and abilities.
• Partner with local agencies to incorporate roadway safety into all actions. • Implement context-appropriate safety countermeasures systemically and as part of all projects to target emphasis areas and underserved communities.
• Support agencies in providing opportunities for citizen engagement to identify issues and inform Countywide safety solutions.
• Embrace the Safe System Approach to promote engineering and non-engineering strategies in the community.
• Work with agencies to monitor safety projects and implementation to track progress towards goals.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 66

/ 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 whole- group 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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 67

/ 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 68

/ 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 69

/ 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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 70

/ 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”.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 71

/ 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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 72

/ 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%)

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 73

/ 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 74

/ 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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 75

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 26

COUNTYWIDE DATA ANALYSIS

FINDINGS
A systemic descriptive analysis was conducted to identify patterns, trends, and potential risk factors based on five-year County crash data. The descriptive analysis identifies environmental, design, and user characteristics most associated with fatal and severe injury (F/SI) outcomes. The data were downloaded from the Transportation Injury Mapping System19F
26 (TIMS) Crash database representing injury and fatal crashes for the full years 2018 through 2022.

The analysis was limited to roadways and crashes that occur on locally owned roadways and along at-grade State Highway facilities. The analysis excluded all Caltrans-owned grade-separated freeways and ramps, with the exception of crashes occurring within the influence area of ramp terminal intersections (which typically include Caltrans and locally owned roadways).

The subsequent State Highways in San Mateo County Section beginning on page 43 describes at-grade State Highway trends in the county and provides recommendations for working with Caltrans to improve safety on State Highway roads in the County.

Table 3 shows an overview of crashes and share of local/State Highway locations for the data analyzed.

Table 3. Injury/Fatal Crash Data Overview, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Year Total Count
Crashes on
Non-
Freeway
Roadways
Non-Freeway Injury/Fatal Crash Breakdown
State
Highway
Crashes
State
Highway
Share
(percent)
Local
Roadway
Crashes
Local
Roadway
Share
(percent)
2018-2022 12,526 8,468 2,712 43% 5,756 57%
Source: TIMS 2023

26 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 76

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 27
Pre-Pandemic versus Pandemic Comparison
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on travel patterns, behaviors, and traffic volumes. The analysis considered crashes that occurred before the pandemic (2017-2019) and during the pandemic years (2020-2022) to observe changes in safety due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Based on the findings as listed in Table 4, the total number of crashes has decreased, but the number of F/SI crashes before versus after is quite similar (52 compared to 48 percent of the six-year total). This is also evident in the average crash severity score per crash, which indicates that in the pandemic era the average crash severity has been about 20 percent higher compared to 2017-2019.27 Based on Caltrans Traffic Census data, traffic volumes decreased from 2017 to 2021 along State Highway routes Countywide by between 3 and 38 percent (See Table 9 in Appendix C). This means that overall crash frequency decreased alongside traffic volumes—an expected trend—but that the frequency for the most severe crashes remained relatively stable.

Table 4. Injury/Fatal Crashes by Year, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Year Count
percent of 6-
year Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
percent of
Total F/SI
Crashes
Average
Crash
Severity
Score
2017-
2019
6,109 58% 555 52% 22.8
2020-
2022
4,436 42% 518 48% 27.2
Total 10,545 100% 1,073 100% 24.7
Source: TIMS 2023
Table 5 shows the total number of crashes has decreased from pre-pandemic to pandemic era in most County jurisdictions with the exception of East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, and Woodside. The Cities of Atherton, Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, Woodside, and Unincorporated San Mateo County (64 percent of total jurisdictions) all recorded higher F/SI crashes in the pandemic era.

27 The crash severity score is a normalized measure that scores a crash based on its average societal cost and compares it to a typical reported crash resulting in property damage only (PDO). For example, a crash at a signalized intersection resulting in death or severe injury is weighted 120 times a PDO crash; a crash resulting in a minor injury is weighted 11 times a PDO; and crash resulting in a possible injury is weighted six times a PDO. A higher average crash severity score means that those crashes resulted in more severe outcomes more often.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 77

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 28

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 78

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 29
Table 5. Injury/Fatal Crashes by Year/Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Jurisdiction Year F/SI Other Crashes Total
Atherton 2017-2019 2 116 118
2020-2022 3 41 44
Belmont 2017-2019 5 164 169
2020-2022 5 130 135
Brisbane 2017-2019 8 53 61
2020-2022 8 23 31
Burlingame 2017-2019 3 212 215
2020-2022 11 116 127
Colma 2017-2019 22 9 31
2020-2022 0 1 1
Daly City 2017-2019 4 544 548
2020-2022 39 434 473
East Palo Alto 2017-2019 10 250 260
2020-2022 33 229 262
Foster City 2017-2019 4 106 110
2020-2022 10 74 84
Half Moon Bay 2017-2019 10 77 87
2020-2022 9 82 91
Hillsborough 2017-2019 4 30 34
2020-2022 2 13 15
Menlo Park 2017-2019 23 430 453
2020-2022 15 252 267
Millbrae 2017-2019 11 142 153

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 79

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 30
Jurisdiction Year F/SI Other Crashes Total
2020-2022 24 107 131
Pacifica 2017-2019 21 249 270
2020-2022 24 167 191
Portola Valley 2017-2019 2 25 27
2020-2022 10 11 21
Redwood City 2017-2019 41 783 824
2020-2022 50 546 596
San Bruno 2017-2019 56 266 322
2020-2022 23 187 210
San Carlos 2017-2019 15 155 170
2020-2022 19 139 158
San Mateo 2017-2019 58 715 773
2020-2022 23 326 349
South San Francisco 2017-2019 66 530 596
2020-2022 43 424 467
Unincorporated 2017-2019 113 625 738
2020-2022 137 529 666
Woodside 2017-2019 14 73 87
2020-2022 30 87 117
Source: TIMS 2023

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 80

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 31
Hot Spot analysis/ High Injury Network Identification
A hot spot analysis involves analyzing historic crash data for the County and within each local jurisdiction. Hot spot analysis is a valuable method to identify locations with disproportionate histories of crashes, but it is not intended to reveal roadway factors that contribute to high crash risk. To identify the modal High Injury Networks (HINs) for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles, a sliding window analysis was conducted as described in Appendix C
Dynamic maps of all local jurisdiction HINs, as well as of the combined Countywide HIN, can be viewed at this link. Static maps are contained in the body and as part of Appendix C of this plan. On these maps, routes labeled as “Non-Highway” are not part of the State’s highway network. • The pedestrian HIN is represented by 98 miles of the street network that had the highest concentration of weighted crashes on a per-mile basis. The minimum weighted crash threshold was substantially higher along State routes (i.e., Caltrans roadways) compared to local roads. This differential scoring was used to keep State routes from dominating the HIN and precluding insights about locally controlled roadways. The Pedestrian HIN covers just 3.4 percent of the street network for the County but accounts for half of all pedestrian crashes and 69 percent of fatal and severe injury pedestrian crashes from 2018 to 2022. Roughly 12 percent of the pedestrian HIN is along a State route, and 10 percent of the pedestrian HIN is along El Camino Real (SR 82).
• The bicyclist HIN was produced using the same approach as the pedestrian HIN (i.e., evaluating State routes separately from local streets and using the same relative scoring). The bicyclist HIN represents 96 miles of the street network and accounts for 3.3 percent of the street network. Twenty-seven percent of the network is along a State route, with El Camino Real comprising nearly 10 percent of the bicyclist HIN mileage. Most crashes along the bicyclist HIN involved both a bicyclist and a motorist (82 percent of total crashes; 67 percent of F/SI crashes), while the remaining crashes were solo bicyclist crashes. • The Motor Vehicle HIN was developed using the same per-mile weighted analysis as the pedestrian and bicyclist HIN but the crash thresholds for State highways and local roadways. The motor vehicle HIN represents 283 miles of the street network and accounts for about 10 percent of the street network, 63 percent of all injury motor vehicle crashes, and 44 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crashes. Forty-two (42) percent of the network is along a State route.

To consolidate a network of high injury segments for San Mateo County and its specific jurisdictions, motor vehicle HIN, pedestrian HIN and bicycle HIN were combined to identify, for every roadway segment in the County, whether it is part of zero, one, two, or all three of the modal HINs.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 81

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 32
Figure 5. Countywide Pedestrian High Injury Network

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 82

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 33
Figure 6. Countywide Bicyclist High Injury Network

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 83

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 34
Figure 7. Countywide Motor Vehicle High Injury Network

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 84

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 35
Figure 8. Countywide Combined High Injury Network

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 85

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

SYSTEMIC DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS
In addition to the spatial and location-based findings, the analysis analyzed the crash data for systemic findings. Those are organized by mode (pedestrian, bicyclist, and motor vehicles). An overview of crashes by mode for the 5-year period is provided in Table 6. The following pages describe high-level Countywide systemic crash findings. Pages 40-41 show countywide findings in relation to the County emphasis areas.

Table 6: Injury/Fatal Crashes by Mode, Countywide (2018-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Mode Count % of 5-year Total Crashes F/SI Count % of Total F/SI Crashes Pedestrians 1,064 13% 208 23%
Bicyclists 1,058 13% 175 20%
Motor Vehicle Alone 6,328 75% 515 57%
Total 8,450 100% 898 100%
Source: TIMS 2023

EMPHASIS AREAS
The project team analyzed crash data countywide to establish emphasis areas. Emphasis areas are crash dynamic, behavioral, or road user characteristics that agencies can focus on to maximize fatal and severe injury reduction on local roads. Countywide emphasis areas are listed below.

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of all injury crashes but 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, showing a disproportionate involvement in the most severe outcomes. Similarly, bicyclists were involved in 13 percent of all injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.

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.

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)

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 86

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 37

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 increased in severity during the core pandemic years.
• Pedestrian crash frequencies increased in 2022 as pandemic-related restrictions eased and travel and activities begin to increase, although the overall share of severe and fatal crashes dropped back to about 16 percent.

Lighting Conditions
• Lighting condition has a strong correlation with F/SI outcomes. Crashes that occurred in darkness or low- light (i.e., dusk or dawn) conditions were much more likely to result in a F/SI outcome (27 percent) compared to those that occurred during daylight (15 percent), and this disproportionality was even stronger in dark, unlit conditions (32 percent F/SI).

Proximity to Transit Stop
• Intersections within 250 feet of a transit stop had a crash rate of 20 crashes per 100 intersections, compared to just four crashes per 100 intersections for those intersections further away.

Crash Locations
• Most crashes occurred at an intersection (76 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 68 percent of F/SI crashes), with the remainder coded to segment locations (24 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 32 percent of F/SI crashes). • Segment and unsignalized intersection pedestrian crashes tended to be more severe, compared to crashes at signalized intersections. Motorist speeds may be higher midblock than at intersections, resulting in higher kinetic energy and limited reaction time, both of which may contribute to greater injury severity from segment crashes.

Functional Classification
• Primary streets had the highest rate of crashes per 100 miles (340 crashes per 100 miles) and F/SI crashes (81 F/SI crashes per 100 miles), followed by secondary streets (137 crashes per 100 miles; 29 F/SI crashes per 100

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 87

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 38
miles). This finding supports research showing consistent pedestrian crash risk along major arterials, which generally have higher vehicle speeds, higher vehicle volumes, and greater crossing widths. • At intersections, crashes occurred most frequently at:
– Secondary and residential streets (23 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes), – Primary and residential streets (20 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 23 percent of F/SI crashes), and – Residential and residential streets (19 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 13 percent of F/SI crashes).

Intersection Control
• A majority of intersection crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections (63 percent of injury/fatal and 61 percent of F/SI crashes).
• Crashes were concentrated at signalized intersections (51 crashes per 100 intersections; 9 F/SI crashes per 100 intersections).
• Crashes that involved a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk at a signalized intersection with a motorist going straight accounted for the second largest share of F/SI crashes (23 percent); these crashes were also disproportionately severe when they occurred, with 42 percent resulting in a F/SI outcome.

Posted Speed Limit
• Roadways with 25 mph speed limits are underrepresented in F/SI crashes even though they accounted for the largest share of pedestrian crashes. They accounted for 38 percent of pedestrian crashes and 34 percent of F/SI crashes, but 80 percent of the street network has a speed limit of 25mph or less. • Streets with a posted speed limit of 45 mph had the second largest share of crashes (27 percent) and F/SI crashes (29 percent), followed by 35 mph streets (23 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 27 percent of F/SI crashes). These higher speed streets had some of the highest percentages of crashes resulting in an F/SI outcome, average crash severity scores, and crash severity scores per 100 miles. 28 These findings support
the current understanding that higher speed roads have serious safety implications for vulnerable road users.

Pre-Crash Movements
• Most pedestrian crashes involved the following:
– A pedestrian crossing at an intersection with a motorist turning left (24 percent). These crashes most frequently occurred at a signalized intersection (45 percent), but most of the F/SI crashes with this crash type occurred at unsignalized intersections. – A pedestrian crossing at an intersection with a motorist proceeding straight (15 percent). These crashes most frequently occurred at unsignalized intersections for overall crashes (77 percent) and F/SI crashes (59 percent).
– A pedestrian crossing not in a crosswalk with a motorist proceeding straight (13 percent). These crashes most often occurred at segment locations (46 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 53 percent of F/SI crashes), followed by unsignalized intersections (39 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 31 percent of F/SI crashes).

28 The crash severity score is a normalized measure that scores a crash based on its average societal cost and compares it to a typical reported crash resulting in property damage only (PDO). For example, a crash at a signalized intersection resulting in death or severe injury is weighted 120 times a PDO crash; a crash resulting in a minor injury is weighted 11 times a PDO; and crash resulting in a possible injury is weighted six times a PDO. A higher average crash severity score means that those crashes resulted in more severe outcomes more often.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 88

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 39
• Of those three crash types, those that involved a motorist proceeding straight had a higher share of crashes that resulted in a F/SI outcome and a higher average crash severity score.

Alcohol Usage
• The vast majority of crashes did not have any road user found to be under the influence of alcohol (96 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 94 percent of F/SI crashes).

Victim Age
• Pedestrian victims aged between 15 and 29 years of age and between 55 and 59 years of age accounted for the largest share of victims for all injury severities. However, pedestrian victims aged from 40 to 44 and from 55 to 74 years of age had the largest share of F/SI victims.

Bicyclist Findings
Crashes by Year
• Bicyclist crash frequencies were highest during the first two years of the five-year study period and lowest during the core period of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). • Crash severity appears to be getting worse. Bicyclist injury trends showed that 20-23 percent of crashes resulted in a F/SI outcome in 2021-2022, compared to 11-15 percent of crashes in 2018-2020.

Lighting Conditions
• The vast majority of bicyclist crashes occurred during daylight conditions (84 percent), which fits with when most bicyclist trips occur.
• Bicyclist crashes were more likely to result in an F/SI outcome during dark lighting conditions (21 percent) compared to daylight conditions (16 percent).

Weather Conditions
• More than 90 percent of total crashes and F/SI bicyclist crashes occurred during clear weather conditions.

Roadway Conditions
• Most crashes occurred at locations with no unusual conditions (95 percent of crashes). • Though a comparatively small sample, the majority of F/SI bicyclist crashes that occurred with any type of non-typical roadway condition (n=17) were solo bicyclist crashes (n=13), underscoring the vulnerability of bicyclists and the need for well-maintained roads.

Crash Locations
• Most bicyclist crashes (43 percent) occurred at unsignalized intersections, but most F/SI crashes occurred at segment locations (43 percent). Roughly one-third of the F/SI crashes at unsignalized intersections were solo bicyclist crashes.
• Among the crashes at unsignalized intersections, and excluding solo bicyclist crashes, it was most common for both parties to be traveling in the same direction (e.g., an overtaking or dooring crash) in both overall crashes (45 percent) and F/SI crashes (58 percent).
• Among the unsignalized same-direction crashes, most involved both the bicyclist and motorist going straight (17 percent).
• Most F/SI crashes at unsignalized intersections involved both parties traveling in perpendicular directions, either both going straight (n=7) or the bicyclist going straight and the motorist making a left turn (n=4).

Functional Classification
• Most bicyclist crashes occurred along:

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 89

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 40
– Secondary streets (39 percent),
– Residential streets (20 percent), and
– Primary streets (20 percent).
• At intersections, crashes occurred most frequently at:
– Secondary-residential intersections (28 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 24 percent of F/SI crashes), – Residential-residential intersections (18 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 13 percent of F/SI crashes), – Primary-residential intersections (17 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 16 percent of F/SI crashes), and – Tertiary-residential intersections (16 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 18 percent of F/SI crashes).

Intersection Control
• Most crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections, accounting for 67 percent of injury/fatal crashes and 70 percent of F/SI crashes. When looking at crashes per 100 intersections, crashes were concentrated at signalized intersections (38 crashes per 100 intersections; 5 F/SI crashes per 100 intersections). The percentage of crashes that resulted in a F/SI outcome was comparable between location types, with 15 percent of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome at unsignalized intersections compared to 13 percent at signalized intersections.

Posted Speed Limit
• Higher-speed streets tend to higher crash severity scores per 100 miles. Most crashes and F/SI crashes occurred along 45 mph roadways (32 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 31 percent of F/SI crashes), while only 8 percent of the network is made up of 45 mph streets.
• Streets with a posted speed limit of 40 mph had the largest rate of crashes per 100 miles (n=166) and F/SI crashes per 100 miles (n=138). Given that these streets comprise less than 1 percent of the network, these statistics indicate that a disproportionate share of overall crashes and F/SI crashes occur on these roads.

Pre-Crash Movements
• Most bicyclist crashes involved:
– Both roadway users proceeding straight at the time of the crash (21 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 18 percent of F/SI crashes). These crashes occurred most frequently at unsignalized intersections (53 percent), whereas F/SI crashes occurred most frequently at signalized intersections (43 percent). – A bicyclist proceeding straight and a motorist turning left (12 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 9 percent of F/SI crashes). Most of these crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections (25 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 46 percent of F/SI crashes).
– A bicyclist proceeding straight and a motorist turning right (11 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 6 percent of F/SI crashes). Most of these crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections (43 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 29 percent of F/SI crashes) and signalized intersections (32 percent of crashes; 53 percent of F/SI crashes).

Violation Types
The most frequent violation types included:
• Automobile right-of-way (19 percent of crashes; 15 percent of F/SI crashes), • Unsafe speed (18 percent of crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes), and • Improper turning (17 percent of crashes; 12 percent of F/SI crashes).

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 90

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 41
Alcohol Usage
• Few reported crashes identified either the motorist or bicyclist as being under the influence of alcohol (less than 2 percent of injury/fatal crashes; less than 5 percent of F/SI crashes).

Motor Vehicle Findings
Crashes by Year
• Motor Vehicle crash frequencies were highest during the first two years of the five-year period and lowest during the core period of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). • Crash severity has decreased, with the highest crash severity observed in 2018 which then decreased during the pandemic years (2020-2021).

Lighting Conditions
• About 26 percent of motor vehicle crashes were observed to have occurred in the dark—22 percent under street lights and 5 without street lights. Crashes with no streetlights had approximately double the per-crash severity score of daylight crashes and 70 percent higher average score than crashes under street lights.

Crash Locations
• About 39 percent of motor vehicle crashes and 52 of F/SI motor vehicle crashes occurred at a segment or midblock location. Unsignalized intersection and roadway segment crashes are both more severe on average than signalized intersection crashes.

Functional Classifications
• Secondary roadways are overrepresented in in F/SI share (36 percent) compared to total share (29 percent).
• Intersection crashes along primary and secondary roads account for the majority of intersection crashes (36 and 29 percent each) and similarly large shares of F/SI crashes (35 and 29 percent). The highest crash severity scores were at intersections along the trunk and primary roadway system where they intersect with lower-order intersections—particularly at unsignalized intersections. This indicates that unsignalized 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 crash severity. Most crashes and F/SI crashes occurred along roadways with speed greater than 40 mph roadways (56 percent of all crashes; 70 percent of F/SI crashes). • Notably, almost 47 percent of the 40 mph+ unsignalized intersection crashes occurred along secondary roadways A majority of crashes at 45 mph or higher intersections were at unsignalized intersections (56 percent)
• Roadways with posted speed limits of 40 mph or higher consist of 12 percent of County roadways but make up 44 percent total crashes and the majority (55 percent) of total F/SI crashes. Crashes that occurred on roadways with a posted speed limit of 40 mph or higher had an average crash severity per mile that was more than thirteen times that of crashes occurring on roadways with a posted speed limit of 25 mph or less.

Crash Types
• At intersections, the most frequent and severe motor vehicle crashes were the following types and locations:

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 91

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 42
– Broadside: 61 percent occurred unsignalized intersections, – Rear-end: 55 percent at occurred at signalized intersections, and – Head-on: 51 percent occurred at signalized intersections. • On roadway segments, the predominant crash types are rear-end (29 percent), hit-object (21 percent), and broadside (18 percent). Weighted by severity, hit-object crashes are disproportionately overrepresented.

Violation Types
The most frequent violation types included:
• Unsafe speed (27 percent of injury/fatal crashes, 23 percent of F/SI crashes), • Automobile right-of-way (19 percent of crashes; 12 percent of F/SI crashes), and • Improper turning (18 percent of crashes; 19 percent of F/SI crashes).

Alcohol Usage
About 10 percent of the motor vehicle crashes included a driver under the influence, but those accounted for 19 percent of F/SI crashes and had an average crash severity score about 1.5 times as high as other motor vehicle crashes.
• Victims between the ages of 10 and 29 are more likely to be injured, including F/SI as result of traffic safety issues on average than other groups. Victims between the ages 15 to 24 are especially overrepresented with victims and F/SI ratios over 2.
• Victims ranging from ages 0 to 14 (children) account for 18 percent of the countywide population and 14 percent of total crashes and 8 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crash victims. • Victims ranging from ages 15 to 24 (young adult) account for 11 percent of the countywide population but account for 22 percent of total crashes and 26 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crash victims.

Victims ranging from ages 65 and up account for 16 percent of the countywide population but account for 10 percent of total crashes and 14 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crash victims.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 92

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. Y oung driver crashes are crashes that involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 93

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:

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 94

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 45

STATE HIGHWAYS IN SAN MATEO
COUNTY
State Highways are some of the most critical interjurisdictional facilities across the C/CAG region. They connect multiple jurisdictions; move high volumes of people across many travel modes; serve critical freight needs; and in some communities serve as high-activity walking, biking, and commercial corridors.

Any planning and project development requires cross-jurisdictional coordination.

The County includes the at-grade State Highways which run through the jurisdictions shown in Table 7.

Table 7. San Mateo County State Highways and Local Jurisdictions Local
Jurisdictions
At-Grade State Routes Freeways
1 35
(Skyline
Blvd)
82 (El
Camino
Real) 84
92 (Half
Moon
Bay Rd)
109
(University
Ave)
114
(Willow
Rd)
US
101 I-280 I-380
Atherton X
Belmont X X
Brisbane X
Burlingame X X X
Colma X X
Daly City X X X X
East Palo Alto X X X
Foster City X
Half Moon Bay X X X
Hillsborough X X
Menlo Park X X X X X X
Millbrae X X X
Pacifica X X
Portola Valley
Redwood City X X X
San Bruno X X X X X
San Carlos X X
San Mateo X X X

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 95

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 46
Local
Jurisdictions
At-Grade State Routes Freeways
1 35
(Skyline
Blvd)
82 (El
Camino
Real) 84
92 (Half
Moon
Bay Rd)
109
(University
Ave)
114
(Willow
Rd)
US
101 I-280 I-380
South San
Francisco

X X X X
Unincorporated
County

X X X X X X
Woodside X X X
Total 3 4 13 5 3 2 2 12 11 1
Safety on At-Grade State Highways
At-grade State Highways serve a high volume of traffic to, though, and within San Mateo County. As a result, they account for a considerable share of countywide crashes.

Table 8 provides a breakdown of reported non-freeway crashes from 2018 to 2022 in the County and a share occurring within each jurisdiction on the State Highway network. Overall, the State Highway network accounted for 43 percent of at-grade crashes within the County and was as high as 77 percent within any jurisdiction.

The following jurisdictions showed the highest variation from that share:
 Brisbane (contains no at-grade State Highways): 100 percent local  Portola Valley (SR 35 defines the southwestern boundary, but otherwise contains no at-grade State Highways): 100 percent local
 Hillsborough: 100 percent local
 Half Moon Bay: 23 percent local
 Unincorporated: 37 percent local
 Woodside: 39 percent local

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 96

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 47
Table 8. Injury/Fatal Crashes by Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Jurisdiction Count
State Highway
Crashes
Percent (%)
State Highway
Crashes
Local
Roadway
Crashes
Percent (%)
Local
Roadway
Crashes
Atherton 121 36 30% 85 70%
Belmont 244 66 29% 178 71%
Brisbane 69 - 0% 69 100%
Burlingame 267 90 30% 177 70%
Colma 11 3 59% 8 41%
Daly City 863 143 29% 720 71%
East Palo Alto 458 150 33% 308 67%
Foster City 150 7 29% 143 71%
Half Moon Bay 145 116 77% 29 23%
Hillsborough 38 - 0% 38 100%
Menlo Park 542 188 33% 354 67%
Millbrae 230 94 38% 136 62%
Pacifica 394 141 56% 253 44%
Portola Valley 39 - 0% 39 100%
Redwood City 1,137 295 26% 842 74%
San Bruno 412 171 36% 241 64%
San Carlos 281 48 18% 233 82%
San Mateo 869 176 29% 693 71%
South San Francisco 866 168 17% 698 83%
Unincorporated 1,147 704 61% 443 39%
Woodside 185 111 61% 74 39%
Total 8,468 2,712 43% 5,756 57%
Source: TIMS 2023

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 97

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 48
Existing Plans and Directives to Improve Safety
Caltrans has already taken steps to address safety on at-grade State Highways in San Mateo County, as included in the following documents, discussed in more detail below:
• Director’s Policy 36: Road Safety
• Road Safety Action Plan 2023-24
• District 4 Bike Plan
• District 4 Pedestrian Plan
CALTRANS DIRECTOR’S POLICY 36: ROAD SAFETY – ESTABLISHES THE VZ

COMMITMENT
Director’s Policy 36, issued in February 2022, establishes a vision for Caltrans to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries (F+SIs) on California’s roadways by 2050.20F
29 The statement includes the following intended results:
• “….to establish a corporate expectation to prioritize safety in order to achieve its goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries by 2050.”
• “All Divisions shall align their programs, plans, policies, procedures, and practices with the Safe System Approach as appropriate to their division.”
• This statement includes a commitment to:
• A safety first mindset
• Prioritize eliminating F+SIs through existing programs and the development of new programs. • Eliminate race-, age-, ability- and mode-based disparities in road safety outcomes.

The policy statement also formally adopts the Safe System Approach, which aligns with this Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan.

CALTRANS ROAD SAFETY ACTION PLAN 2023-24
The Caltrans Road Safety Action Plan 2023-24 lays out a coordinated plan to support Caltrans’ goal of eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes by 2050.21 F 30 Importantly, the Plan includes the following actions relevant to this Countywide LRSP.

29 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/policy/dp_36-a11y.pdf 30 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/safety/road-safety- action-plan-2023-24-a11y.pdf

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 98

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 49
Table 9. Caltrans SAP Actions Related to LRSP
Action Relevance to this Plan

1.5 Propose to extend Caltrans’ delegation to
approve proactive safety projects in addition
to reactive projects.

This plan includes countywide and jurisdiction-specific priority locations identified through a combination of
reactive and proactive measures. C/CAG and local
jurisdictions will look for opportunities to coordinate with Caltrans to identify proactive safety projects (i.e., the locations may not have risen to the top of Caltrans’ own prioritization process).

2.1 Develop best-practice guidance to
improve the safety of pedestrians and
bicyclists on the State Highway System.

This plan includes a list of context-appropriate
recommended countermeasures, including for pedestrians
and bicyclists, for each jurisdiction to improve safety. This list of countermeasures aligns with the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, and jurisdictions may cross check available countermeasures against forthcoming Caltrans best-
practice guidance to identify alignment and, therefore, opportunities to coordinate on projects.

3.1 Develop a statewide inventory of safety
devices to support proactive safety initiatives
and create a framework to extend the
database to include additional roadside
safety features.

DISTRICT 4 BIKE PLAN
The 2018 District 4 Bike Plan includes a list of top tier bicyclist/pedestrian projects on Caltrans facilities.22F 31 The
plan includes over 100 bicycle/pedestrian projects on Caltrans facilities based on how they address safety, mobility, and/or equity. Many of these projects are located on at-grade State Highways. Those are included as an attachment. For those that have not yet been implemented, Caltrans and the relevant jurisdictions will use the advisory group to be formed as a recommendation from this plan to coordinate and bring forward pathways to implementation.

DISTRICT 4 PEDESTRIAN PLAN
The 2021 District 4 Pedestrian Plan includes an assessment of walking conditions and a tiered ranking of priority highway segments and crossings for pedestrian improvements.23F 32 The plan also includes recommendations for
local coordination to advance pedestrian projects.

Improvements to Date in the County
Local jurisdictions have successfully partnered with Caltrans to bring forward safety projects on State Highways in the County. The following projects can serve as a model for cross-jurisdictional coordination in the name of safety improvements:
 Town of Colma – El Camino Real

31 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-4/documents/d4-bike- plan/caltransd4bikeplan_report_lowres-r6.pdf
32 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/active- transportation-complete-streets/district4-finalreport-a11y.pdf

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 99

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 50
The Town of Colma worked closely with Caltrans to develop the 2021 El Camino Real Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Plan which proposes a series of projects along the corridor along with potential funding sources.24F
33 The Town has successfully received SMCTA and OBAG funding to improve the El Camino Real/Mission Road intersection as a result of this plan. The Town is continuing to look for funding and implementation opportunities.
 South San Francisco El Camino Real
The City of South San Francisco has teamed with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, the San Mateo County Office of Education, and the Silicon Valley Bike Coalition to install a demonstration project along a 0.3-mile stretch of El Camino Real. The project includes a class IV separated bike lane, a newly striped crosswalk, and a boarding platform for SamTrans buses. The project proceeded with Caltrans coordination.

Caltrans Recommendations and Actions
Given the nature and scale of crash history along at-grade State Highways, and in light of C/CAG’s and Caltrans’ Vision Zero commitment, Caltrans will participate in the recommended County Safety Advisory Group and will work with the group to achieve the following outcomes:
• Consult the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan and Pedestrian Plan Project list to further advance projects not yet funded.
• Develop a list of safety treatments or project types meeting each of the following three criteria:
– “Caltrans maintained” – Local jurisdictions would be able to install these treatments provided they reach agreement with Caltrans for Caltrans to maintain the treatments. – “Locally maintained” – Local jurisdictions would be able to install these treatments and would be required to maintain on at-grade State Highways without the need for a maintenance agreement. – “Coordination required” – Caltrans would be generally supportive of such a project, but some maintenance details would need to be negotiated.
• Develop a template or exemplar for a maintenance agreement that agencies can use in an “off-the-shelf” fashion to more easily advance safety projects in partnership with Caltrans. • Caltrans will proactively identify when projects are moving into certain project development phases or project streams, to provide the opportunity for local jurisdiction input and coordination to improve safety. • Caltrans will listen to input and help shape areas of need and project opportunity countywide, including proactive safety projects.

33 Available online at https://www.colma.ca.gov/documents/ecr-improvement-plan/

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 100

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 51

SAFE SYSTEM-ALIGNED

RECOMMENDATIONS
This section offers engineering recommendations, which include physical countermeasures to be implemented onto roadways, as well as policy and program recommendations, which work to increase safe travel behavior in roadway users through action-based outreach, strategic funding, and equitable prioritization of resources.

Each individual recommendation is designed to bring the Countywide roadway network and its users into better alignment with the values and practices of the Safe System Approach. When implemented in tandem, however, these twin tracks of recommendations will create the holistic, layered protection in the Countywide roadway network that the Safe System Approach requires.

Engineering
C/CAG does not own any local roadways and therefore will not design, implement, or maintain engineering countermeasures. However, through this project it has coordinated with the participating jurisdictions to develop lists of city- or town-approved countermeasures. The following table presents the cumulative list of countermeasures developed among agencies

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 101

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 52

Table 10: Engineering Countermeasures
Location
Type [1]
Countermeasure Crash Types Cost
All Lighting [2] Nighttime $$
All Roadside Design Features [4] All Varies
SI Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number [2]
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections $
SI Install left-turn lane and add turn phase [2] Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $-$$
SI Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) [2] Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $$$
SI Install raised median on approaches [2] Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U- turns (signalized intersection) [2]
Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized
Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install raised pavement markers and striping [2] Wet, Night, all $ SI Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) [2] read-end, broadside $$$ 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 $

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 102

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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 103

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 54
Location
Type [1]
Countermeasure Crash Types Cost
UI Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) [2] All $$$ UI Convert intersection to roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road) [2] All $$$
UI Convert intersection to mini-roundabout [2] All $$$
UI Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u- turns (unsignalized intersections) [2] All $
UI Install raised medians (refuge islands) [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $ UI Install pedestrian crossings (signs and markings only) [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $ UI Install pedestrian crossings (with enhanced safety features) [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $$$ 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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 104

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 55
Location
Type [1]
Countermeasure Crash Types Cost
UI,SI C urb Radius Reduction [3] All $-$$
R Road diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) [2] All Varies
R Corridor access management [2] Var ies
R Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes [2] All Varies R Install separated bike lanes [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $$$ 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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 105

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 56
Policy and Program
Based on the goals, existing conditions, and opportunities identified in the development of this plan, this section identifies categories of actions C/CAG and identified partners can take to support LRSP implementation. The recommendations fall into a few categories, as shown in Table 11.

The recommendations are described in more detail following the table, and Table 12 on page 62 provides a list of recommendations and partner roles.

Table 11. Recommendations and Categories
Category Near-Term
Recommendations
Ongoing
Recommendations
Long-Term or Ongoing
Recommendations
Organize (O) O1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee O2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Educate (E) E1: Best Practices Training
E2: Law Enforcement Training
E3: Technical Assistance for Safety Education in Schools E4: Communication Protocol
Coordinate
(C)
C1: AB413 Implementation C2: Safe System Enabling
Legislation
C3: Graduated Traffic Fine
Structure

Fund (F) F1: Dedicated Funding F2: Equitable Investment F3: Prioritize Investments
F4: Identify Targeted Enforcement Funding
Research (R) R1: Safety and Equity Impacts
Evaluation
R2: Data Quality Improvements
R3: Crash Data Enhancements
R4: Big Data
Plan (P) P1: Safe Routes to School
P2: Annual Review
P3: Plan Update

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 106

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 57

ORGANIZE
O1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee
Convene the Plan’s Advisory Group as the newly-established San Mateo County Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) to coordinate on safety plan implementation and discuss relevant safety topics in the region, like enforcement coordination and AVs. The TSAC will include seats for the agencies listed in this table and will identify additional seats dedicated to representatives of equity priority communities, vulnerable road users, youth, older adults, parents of school-age children, local businesses, traffic violence victim families, etc.

The TSAC will include representation from Caltrans to allow coordination on State Highway locations in the County. As a member of the TSAC, Caltrans will proactively identify when projects are moving into certain project development phases or project streams, to provide the opportunity for local jurisdiction input and coordination to improve safety. Caltrans will also listen to input and help shape areas of need and project opportunity countywide, including proactive safety projects.

Convene meetings quarterly. Expected agenda topics include (but are not limited to):
• Scheduling and developing and approach for interim evaluations and updated plans (at the jurisdiction and county level)
• Tracking and coordinating funding opportunities, especially where cross-jurisdiction collaboration is desirable
• Keeping agencies apprised of Caltrans, MTC, USDOT, SMCTA, and other funding guidelines and requirements
• Prioritizing items among the remaining recommendations within this plan Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Constituent jurisdictions, County Public Health, Sustainability Department, County Office of Education, SMCTA, California Highway Patrol, MTC, SVBC, Caltrans, County Sheriff’s Office, BART O2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Conduct a safety media campaign. This may be exclusively a media campaign to raise awareness about the emphasis areas identified in this plan, or this may be a high-visibility enforcement campaign. If the latter, the campaign includes dedicated law enforcement with media supporting the enforcement activity to ensure public awareness. Potential communication tools:
 Bus ads
 Social media
 Text messages
Lead agency: County Public Health
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff's Office, California Highway Patrol, Sustainability Department, San Mateo County Office of Education

EDUCATE
E1: Best Practices Training
Through the TSAC, convene best practices training to keep local jurisdictions informed of state-of-the art practices related to safety planning and implementation. Example education session topics may include: (1) support for developing competitive grant applications, (2) share safety best practices including updated safety countermeasure recommendations, (3) training on available data sources.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 107

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 58
C/CAG will organize and schedule the workshops and will seek assistance from MTC and Caltrans in identifying relevant topics and training resources (especially related to grant-related topics).

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: MTC, Caltrans, constituent jurisdictions E2: Law Enforcement Training
Integrate safety into training for new officers (e.g., NHTSA’s pedestrian training for law enforcement).

Lead agency: County Sheriff’s Office
Coordinating partners: California Highway Patrol
E3: Technical Assistance for Safety Education in Schools Continue to fund School Travel Fellowship Program to provide the following:
• technical assistance to schools and planners to implement roadway safety demonstration projects • ATP Project Specialist to work with educators to provide technical assistance (bike rodeos, parent engagement workshops and resources, walk and bike audits, and additional support for walk/bike to school encouragement events) to schools in EPCs
Lead agency: San Mateo County Office of Education
Coordinating partners: C/CAG, County Public Health, Sustainability Department, SVBC E4: Communication Protocol
Adopt and develop safety-related communication protocols in coordination with the TSAC. The protocols will promote consistent public communication regarding language usage and statements related to transportation safety. Encourage language in line with Vision Zero and Safe System principles that acknowledges mistakes are inevitable but death and severe injury are preventable. For example, promote use of the word crash rather than accident to emphasize shared responsibility.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Constituent jurisdictions

COORDINATE
C1: AB413 Implementation
Coordinate among jurisdictions through the TSAC to provide an implementation pathway for Assembly Bill 413, which prohibits the stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle within 20 feet of the approach of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, or 15 feet where a curb extension is present. Prior to January 1, 2025, jurisdictions may only issue warnings unless the violation occurred where red paint or signage prohibits the stopping, standing, or parking.

Communicating and enforcing AB413 presents logistical challenges for local jurisdictions, but through the TSAC they may prepare common and individualized implementation pathways.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Constituent jurisdictions
C2: Safe System Enabling Legislation
Consider advocating for legislation that could support the Safe System Approach—for example, authorization to implement automated enforcement. Include public engagement and input from constituent jurisdictions while the implementation of Assembly Bill 645 brings speed cameras to Glendale, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Jose, and San Francisco.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 108

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 59
Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: MTC, Caltrans, California Transportation Commission (CTC) C3: Graduated Traffic Fine Structure
Through legislative agenda, consider advocating for an income-based graduated traffic fine structure at the state level, so fines do not disproportionately impact people with lower incomes. Such a change would allow traffic enforcement to occur where necessary while tempering disproportionate burdens.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: TSAC members
FUND
F1: Dedicated Funding
Propose ongoing, dedicated funding and staffing for implementation and monitoring of the safety plan, including presiding over the TSAC. This role may be fulfilled by a partial FTE or through staff augmentation.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: SMCTA, MTC, Caltrans, CTC
F2: Equitable Investment
Prioritize investments in disadvantaged communities. Include social equity criteria in scoring when making funding available. Consider using a combination of indices in allowing local agencies to identify disadvantaged communities. For example, consider including C/CAG Equity Focus Areas, MTC Equity Priority Communities, USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities, USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty, and other relevant indices subsequently developed locally, regionally, or federally.

Lead agency: C/CAG
F3: Prioritize Investments
Incorporate the regional High Injury Network and local jurisdictions’ prioritized locations when allocating and scoring funding opportunities for local jurisdictions. (This includes identified locations for the 11 jurisdictions with safety plan updates as part of the regional LRSP and for the ten jurisdictions not included in this plan document.) Award points or a similar priority mechanism for projects that improve conditions in these identified locations. Stipulate community engagement requirements for projects receiving funding.

Lead agencies: C/CAG, SMCTA
F4: Identify Targeted Enforcement Funding
Identify grant opportunities to expand targeted traffic enforcement of emphasis areas or other targeted behaviors associated with fatal/severe injury outcomes. Local jurisdictions lack discretion over law enforcement priorities and some cities who contract with the County Sheriff’s Office would benefit from additional resource allocation dedicated specifically to target behaviors. One such funding opportunity would be through the California Office of Traffic Safety, which has a grant program related to priority program areas provided
documented crash data are available: alcohol impaired driving, distracted driving, drug-impaired driving, emergency medical services, motorcycle safety, occupant protection, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and police traffic services.

Lead agency: C/CAG, SMCTA
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff’s Office

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 109

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 60

RESEARCH
R1: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation
Conduct a study to address traffic injury and enforcement inequities to inform policies, projects, programs, and needed data quality improvements. Solicit feedback on the report's equity analysis from groups representing equity priority communities. Topics for the study may include injury burdens related to homelessness, race/ethnicity, language, income, and immigration status, citations by demographics, citation type, and location.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: MTC, County Sheriff’s Office
R2: Data Quality Improvements
Conduct one or more studies and/or convene working groups to address the following challenges:
• Integrating hospital and police data
• Providing a means to collect and incorporate near-miss data into safety analysis • Collecting and incorporating crash data where AVs are involved • Developing a consistent countywide crash database that would prevent the time lag present in SWITRS, provide accurate and timely monitoring of crashes and allow monitoring of injury trends over time.

Some agencies have successfully used video-based conflict monitoring algorithms to capture near-miss information at select locations. The techniques show promise for identifying conflicts that correlate to crashes, but the ability to scale the technology is still unclear.34 Funding may be available through the California Office of Traffic Safety grant program, which lists Roadway Safety and Traffic Records a s a category among its priority program areas.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: County Public Health, County Sheriff’s Office, constituent jurisdictions, local police departments
R3: Crash Data Enhancements
Study integrating crash data with Police Department's tracking system for timely, efficient reporting and sharing of injury crashes, including geolocated data. Review current crash data form and study existing best practices.

Consider adding select visible disability statuses to the crash data form. If feasible and prudent, add this field to the crash data form.

Lead agency: County Sheriff’s Office
Coordinating partners: California Highway Patrol, C/CAG, MTC

R4: Big Data
Identify a pathway for obtaining and incorporating integrated curb-level activity data including volumes, paths, speeds, and behaviors of pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, etc. These data are available from a number of big data sources on the market. The goal would be to enable improved data availability for safety planning.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: MTC, SMCTA, Constituent Jurisdictions

34 For example, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation evaluated the technology as part of its SMART intersections project. More information is available online at https://www.penndot.pa.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/Planning/Research-And- Implementation/Documents/Smart%20Intersections.pdf

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 110

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 61
PLAN
P1: Safe Routes to School
Continue to conduct school safety assessments at all public and private schools, develop implementation plans for improvements up to one quarter mile from the schools.

Lead agency: San Mateo County Office of Education

P2: Annual review
Provide an annual review of plan implementation progress. This review includes an update and presentation to the C/CAG board and information posted on the C/CAG website.

Lead agency: C/CAG

P3: Plan Update
Update the plan within five years of publication and approximately every subsequent five years. The plan update will revise actions to reflect current crash trends and will integrate technological advancements and changes in best practices as needed.

Alternately, coordinate with all 21 jurisdictions to see that local plans are pursued and updated consistent with best practices within the five-year timeframe.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Constituent jurisdictions

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 111

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 62
Table 12: Policy/Program Recommendations and Partner Roles Recommendation
Agency Involvement (L = Lead; P = Participate)
C/CAG
California Highway Patrol
Caltrans
Constituent Jursidictions
County Office of Education
County Public Health
County Sheriff’ s Office
Sustainability Department
MTC
SMCTA
SVBC
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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 112

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 63

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
The spatial HIN analysis identified the regionally highest-crash locations by frequency and severity. Based on that work and the accompanying systemic analysis, the plan development team worked with participating jurisdictions to identify priority project locations. The methodology and jurisdiction-specific results are included as Appendix D.

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

In line with this plan’s goals, C/CAG supports the development of safety projects and solutions along countywide HIN corridors or along subsequently identified project priority locations. For the 11 participating jurisdictions, those remaining priority locations are included in subsequent chapters. For the 10 jurisdictions with existing or developing plans, refer to those plans documents for identified priority project locations.

This plan places particular emphasis on locations where projects could provide safety benefits to disadvantaged neighborhoods. Accordingly, Table 13 and Table 14 provide summary statistics on the mileage of the Countywide HIN by modal emphasis and by the jurisdictions they are located within. The tables also provide the percentage of each HIN corridor that passes through identified social equity areas:
• C/CAG Equity Focus Areas, as defined in the C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. • MTC Equity Priority Communities (formerly called “Communities of Concern”) as guided by MTC’s Equity Platform.
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty, as defined by the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) developed by the Council on Environmental Quality.
• USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities, as defined by the CEJST.

This plan identifies the following emphasis areas which local agencies may use to define systemic treatments for safety problems town- or city-wide, or to further screen locations among those on the Countywide HIN or on their priority project lists.

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety

2. Nighttime/low light safety

3. Unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors

4. Vulnerable age groups (youth and aging)

5. Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes

6. High speed roadways (35+mph)

7. Alcohol involvement

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 113

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 64
Table 13: Local HIN Segments by Mode, Jurisdiction, and Social Equity Neighborhoods Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HIN
Bicyclist HIN
Motor Vehicle HIN
Total HIN Length, Any Modes
Max 1/2 Mile Crash Severity
Score

ATHERTON

BELMONT

BRISBANE

BURLINGAME
COLMA

DALY CITY

EAST PALO ALTO

FOSTER CITY

HALF MOON BAY

HILLSBOROUGH

MENLO PARK

MILLBRAE

PACIFICA

PORTOLA VALLEY

REDWOOD CITY

SAN BRUNO

SAN CARLOS

SAN MATEO

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

UNINCORPORATED

WOODSIDE
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 7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 114

/ 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 HIN
Bicyclist HIN
Motor Vehicle HIN
Total HIN Length, Any Modes
Max 1/2 Mile Crash Severity
Score

ATHERTON

BELMONT

BRISBANE

BURLINGAME
COLMA

DALY CITY

EAST PALO ALTO

FOSTER CITY

HALF MOON BAY

HILLSBOROUGH

MENLO PARK

MILLBRAE

PACIFICA

PORTOLA VALLEY

REDWOOD CITY

SAN BRUNO

SAN CARLOS

SAN MATEO

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

UNINCORPORATED

WOODSIDE
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%

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 115

/ 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 HIN
Bicyclist HIN
Motor Vehicle HIN
Total HIN Length, Any Modes
Max 1/2 Mile Crash Severity
Score

ATHERTON

BELMONT

BRISBANE

BURLINGAME
COLMA

DALY CITY

EAST PALO ALTO

FOSTER CITY

HALF MOON BAY

HILLSBOROUGH

MENLO PARK

MILLBRAE

PACIFICA

PORTOLA VALLEY

REDWOOD CITY

SAN BRUNO

SAN CARLOS

SAN MATEO

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

UNINCORPORATED

WOODSIDE
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

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 7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 116

/ 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 HIN
Bicyclist HIN
Motor Vehicle HIN
Total HIN Length, Any Modes
Max 1/2 Mile Crash Severity
Score

ATHERTON

BELMONT

BRISBANE

BURLINGAME
COLMA

DALY CITY

EAST PALO ALTO

FOSTER CITY

HALF MOON BAY

HILLSBOROUGH

MENLO PARK

MILLBRAE

PACIFICA

PORTOLA VALLEY

REDWOOD CITY

SAN BRUNO

SAN CARLOS

SAN MATEO

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

UNINCORPORATED

WOODSIDE
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%

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 117

/ 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 HIN
Bicyclist HIN
Motor Vehicle HIN
Total HIN Length, Any Modes
Max 1/2 Mile Crash Severity
Score

ATHERTON

BELMONT

BRISBANE

BURLINGAME
COLMA

DALY CITY

EAST PALO ALTO

FOSTER CITY

HALF MOON BAY

HILLSBOROUGH

MENLO PARK

MILLBRAE

PACIFICA

PORTOLA VALLEY

REDWOOD CITY

SAN BRUNO

SAN CARLOS

SAN MATEO

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

UNINCORPORATED

WOODSIDE
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%

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 118

/ 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 HIN
Bicyclist HIN
Motor Vehicle HIN
Total HIN Length, Any Modes
Max 1/2 Mile Crash Severity
Score

ATHERTON

BELMONT

BRISBANE

BURLINGAME
COLMA

DALY CITY

EAST PALO ALTO

FOSTER CITY

HALF MOON BAY

HILLSBOROUGH

MENLO PARK

MILLBRAE

PACIFICA

PORTOLA VALLEY

REDWOOD CITY

SAN BRUNO

SAN CARLOS

SAN MATEO

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

UNINCORPORATED

WOODSIDE
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

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%

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 119

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 70
Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HIN
Bicyclist HIN
Motor Vehicle HIN
Total HIN Length, Any Modes
Max 1/2 Mile Crash Severity
Score

ATHERTON

BELMONT

BRISBANE

BURLINGAME
COLMA

DALY CITY

EAST PALO ALTO

FOSTER CITY

HALF MOON BAY

HILLSBOROUGH

MENLO PARK

MILLBRAE

PACIFICA

PORTOLA VALLEY

REDWOOD CITY

SAN BRUNO

SAN CARLOS

SAN MATEO

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

UNINCORPORATED

WOODSIDE
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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 120

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 71
Table 14: State Highway HIN Segments by Mode, Jurisdiction, and Social Equity Neighborhoods Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HIN
Bicyclist HIN
Motor Vehicle HIN
Total HIN Length, Any
Modes
Max 1/2 Mile Crash
Severity Score

ATHERTON

BELMONT

BRISBANE

BURLINGAME
COLMA

DALY CITY

EAST PALO ALTO

FOSTER CITY

HALF MOON BAY

HILLSBOROUGH

MENLO PARK

MILLBRAE

PACIFICA

PORTOLA VALLEY

REDWOOD CITY

SAN BRUNO

SAN CARLOS

SAN MATEO

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

UNINCORPORATED

WOODSIDE
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%

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 121

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 72
SamTrans Bus Stop Prioritization
The plan development team analyzed bus stop data provided by SamTrans to identify correlation of roadway and intersection risk factors with crash history around high-ridership bus stops. Systemic roadway and intersection characteristics were identified and used to develop a priority list of bus stops for SamTrans. The detailed methodology and results are included in Appendix E. Table 15 presents the priority bus stop locations as they relate to pedestrian and bicycle crash history, equity, and systemic risk factors.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 122

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 73
Table 15. Priority Bus Stop Locations for Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements

RANK STOP ID STOP LOCATION JURISDICTION

CRASH HISTORY EQUITY SYSTEMIC CHARACTERISTICS
TOTAL
SCORE
(0 -1)
Ped & Bike
Crash
Severity
Score
(0-432)
Ped HIN Bike HIN Ped & Bike Crash
History Score
(Normalized 0-1)
Equity
Score (0-1)
Uncontrolled
Location
(0-1)
Absence of
Sidewalks
(0-1)
> 35 MPH
(0-1)
Char. Score
(Normalized 0-1)
1 344658 Jefferson Ave at Adams St Redwood City 235 1 1 1.27 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.97 2 344657 Jefferson Ave at Adams St Redwood City 224 1 1 1.26 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.97 3 344086 El Camino Real & Lincoln Ave Redwood City 219 1 1 1.25 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.96 4 344095 El Camino Real & Winklebleck St Redwood City 202 1 1 1.23 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.96 5 344203 Middlefield Rd & Dumbarton Ave North Fair Oaks 399 1 1 1.46 1 1 0 0 0.33 0.92 6 344204 Middlefield Rd & Dumbarton Ave North Fair Oaks 399 1 1 1.46 1 1 0 0 0.33 0.92 7 344207 Middlefield Rd & Flynn Ave Redwood City 28 1 1 1.03 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.89 8 341111 N Delaware St & Tilton Ave San Mateo 22 1 1 1.03 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.89 9 344087 El Camino Real & Main St Redwood City 22 1 1 1.03 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.89 10 351002 3745 Bayshore Blvd-Andrys Trailer Park Brisbane 165 1 0 0.69 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.89 11 344085 El Camino Real & Jefferson Ave Redwood City 11 1 1 1.01 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 12 344195 Middlefield Rd & Cassia St Redwood City 0 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 13 344196 Middlefield Rd & Elm St Redwood City 0 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 14 344659 Jefferson Ave at Grand St Redwood City 0 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 15 335099 Huntington Ave & Sneath Ln San Bruno 0 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 16 361094 E Hillsdale Blvd & Center Park Ln Foster City 285 1 1 1.33 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.88 17 334127 Grand Ave & Maple Ave South San Francisco 263 1 1 1.30 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.87 18 334128 Grand Ave & Maple Ave South San Francisco 263 1 1 1.30 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.87 19 336039 El Camino Real & Silva Ave Millbrae 371 1 0 0.93 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.86 20 334122 Grand Ave & Eucalyptus Ave South San Francisco 224 1 1 1.26 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.86 21 334123 Grand Ave & Eucalyptus Ave South San Francisco 224 1 1 1.26 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.86 22 344193 Middlefield Rd & 5th Ave North Fair Oaks 213 1 1 1.25 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.85 23 334131 Grand Ave & Spruce Ave South San Francisco 153 1 1 1.18 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.83 24 334132 Grand Ave & Spruce Ave South San Francisco 153 1 1 1.18 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.83 25 344900 El Camino Real & Dumbarton Ave North Fair Oaks 0 0 1 0.50 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.83 26 341278 Peninsula Ave & Humboldt St San Mateo 131 1 1 1.15 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.82 27 344082 El Camino Real & Hopkins Ave Redwood City 120 1 1 1.14 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.82 28 344083 El Camino Real & Hopkins Ave Redwood City 120 1 1 1.14 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.82 29 332221 Mission St & Evergreen Ave-Daly City Daly City 252 1 0 0.79 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.81 30 334124 Grand Ave & Linden Ave South San Francisco 55 1 1 1.06 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.79

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 123

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 74

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

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

This section identifies recommendations for C/CAG and other county-level safety partners to implement the plan. These are aligned with the Safe System Approach and include a framework to measure plan progress over time.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 124

/ City/County Association of Governments
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 75
Table 16. Implementation Goals and Measures of Success
Goal Measure of Success
 Regularly review crash history and community
needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to
reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages
and abilities.
 Partner with local agencies to incorporate
roadway safety into all actions.
 Convene TSAC meetings 2-4 times per year.
 Number of project locations identified in this plan
advanced through project development, reported
at the agency level, and aggregated regionally.
 Annual and three-year total reported crashes,
fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and
crashes by emphasis areas identified.
 Improved data availability or maintenance to
enhance safety analysis and practice.
 Amount of grant funding money awarded for safety
projects.
 Implement context-appropriate safety
countermeasures systemically and as part of
all projects to target emphasis areas and
underserved communities.
 Share of project locations identified in this plan
advanced through project development by
presence within equity focus areas, reported at the
agency level, and aggregated regionally.
 Support agencies in providing opportunities for
citizen engagement to identify issues and
inform Countywide safety solutions.
 Implementation of a high-visibility media campaign
 Percent of school participation in SRTS and roadway
safety education opportunities.
 Quantification of education campaigns, through
number of participants reached, events held, and
similar measures.
 Number or percent of C/CAG-funded safety project
development activities that include community
engagement.
 Number of engagement touchpoints and number of
community member interactions countywide for
safety plans or projects.
 Report-backs from local jurisdictions to the TSAC
regarding community engagement, including
information about outreach to disadvantaged
communities where applicable.
 Embrace the Safe System Approach to
promote engineering and non-engineering
strategies in the community.

 Number of trainings conducted regarding Safe
System elements, available tools, or practices.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 125

/ City/County Association of Governments
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 81
San Mateo C /C AG C ountywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 126

City of
San Carlos

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 127

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

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

LOCAL JURISDICTION

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

PARTNER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Sustainability
Department
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jessica Manzi, SamTrans
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 128

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Consultant Team
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

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

SAFE STREETS RESEARCH &

CONSULTING
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale

CIRCLEPOINT
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison

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

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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 129

/ City of San Carlos
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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 130

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Vision & Goals ...........................................................................................................................................................................4 Plan Development ...................................................................................................................................................................4 Existing Safety Efforts ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Community Engagement and Input ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Engagement Timeline and Events ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Online Map Survey ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Community Engagement Feedback ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Phase 2 Community Engagement Feedback .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Crash Data & Trends ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 Emphasis Areas ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Countywide High Injury Network ................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Project Identification & Prioritization ................................................................................................................................ 16 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Social Equity ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs .......................................................................................................... 23 Project Scopes ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox....................................................................................................................................................................24 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 30 Near-Term Improvements ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ................................................................................................................................................................................ 31 Implementation & Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................ 34

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A Phase 1 pop-up event held at the San Carlos Block Party. ....................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Webmap Comments in San Carlos ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of San Carlos .................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)....................................................................... 16

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 131

/ City of San Carlos
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: San Carlos Priority Locations..........................................................................................................................................................................22

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City of San Carlos Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs ............................................................. 4 Table 2. Community Engagement Phases and Events ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in San Carlos ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 4. Priority Locations ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 5. City of San Carlos Countermeasure Toolbox ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 6. City of San Carlos Policy and Program Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 30 Table 7. City of San Carlos Goals and Measures of Success........................................................................................................................ 34

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 132

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the City of San Carlos. 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 San Mateo City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) will revisit and update this LRSP at least every five years.

The City of San Carlos has a 2023 population of 29,496 per California Department of Finance. The city has 89 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 281 reported crashes on surface streets in the City and 32 fatal/severe injury crashes In that time period, pedestrians were involved in 14 percent of all reported crashes and 28 percent of all fatal/severe injury crashes.

Bicyclists were involved in 14 percent of all reported crashes and 13 percent of all fatal/severe injury crashes. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to San Carlos’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 C/CAG Board and San Carlos City 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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 133

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4

VISION & GOALS
The City of San Carlos’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050. • Promote a culture of roadway safety in San Carlos’s departments, businesses, and residents.

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

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

2. Implement safety countermeasures systemically and as part of all projects to target emphasis areas and underserved communities.

3. Promote plan recommendations with identified safety partners to incorporate roadway safety through safety projects and educational campaigns in San Carlos.

4. Provide opportunities for community engagement to identify issues and inform safety solutions across the community.

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

6. Identify opportunities to incorporate social equity into safety improvements.

7. Monitor implementation of the San Carlos LRSP to track progress towards goals.

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

Table 1. City of San Carlos 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. The City’s audits are included on its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan website.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road
Users
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master
Plan
The 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan establishes a long- term vision for improving walking and bicycling in San Carlos and provides a strategy to develop a comprehensive bicycling and

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 134

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
walking network that provides access to transit, schools, and downtown.
2017 Neighborhood
Traffic Management
Program (NTMP)
The City’s 2017 NTMP helps the City achieve an efficient multi- modal transportation system and maintain safe streets by providing a process for identifying traffic-calming and speed reduction measures to reduce speeds, improve pedestrian safety, reduce cut-through traffic, and reduce collisions and noise and air pollution.

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 San Carlos’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:

Figure 1. A Phase 1 pop-up event held at the San Carlos Block Party.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 135

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
• 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
• San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
Community Engagement and Input
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.

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

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

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

Shared draft prioritized locations
and types of engineering
recommendations; received
comments on locations and
votes/input on types of treatments
and desired locations
Belmont Farmers’ Market
December 20, 2023 Woodside Public Library
January 9, 2024 Colma BART Station
January 16, 2024 Atherton Library
January 18, 2024 Brisbane Farmers’ Market
February 7, 2024 Portola Valley Bicycle, Pedestrian, &
Traffic Safety Committee

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 136

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7
March – April 024 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

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.
.

Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. There were 69 comments made within the City of San Carlos in addition to the conversations and feedback recorded at the Phase 1 event in August. The comments received are provided in Appendix A. The comments included the following:

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
Biking Concerns/Requests
• Add new bike infrastructure such as protected bike lanes, separated bike lanes, road diets and bike paths on overpasses/underpasses.
• Requests for maintenance of existing bike infrastructure such as repaving bike lanes. • Requests for a more connected bike network.
• Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, vehicle speeds, right of way issues, and turning conflicts at intersections. • Remove on-street parking to make more way for bikes along the roadway.

Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 137

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
• Request to provide modal filters: to allow only bicycles and pedestrians on certain streets.

Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Add new pedestrian infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure such as building new sidewalks, widening existing sidewalks, raised pedestrian crossing, pedestrian refuge islands, and high visibility crosswalks.
• Support for additional pedestrian signals and signage to enhance pedestrian safety. • Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including right of way issues, speeding, and running STOP signs.
• Concerns regarding curb ramps being insufficient for wheelchair or other mobility challenged roadway users.

Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Multiple concerns regarding running STOP signs.
• Concerns regarding speeding observed at multiple locations. • Concerns regarding illegal parking along roadways and on sidewalks.

Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Concerns regarding narrow lanes and steep slopes in the city. • Support for additional signals and signs to reduce vehicle conflict points at intersections. • Requests to convert two-way streets to one-way streets. • Clear sight triangles to improve visibility on intersection approaches. • Request to provide more parking downtown.

The location and modal emphasis of comments in San Carlos is presented in Figure 70. 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. During the Belmont Farmers’ Market outreach, community members shared feedback on locations specific to San Carlos. The following themes were identified for locations in the City of San Carlos:

General Comments
• Concerns that some roadways are too narrow for traveling • Concerns that some three- or four-way intersections are confusing to navigate Bicycle Comments
• Desire for separated bike lanes, specifically on hilly street like Brittan Avenue Motor Vehicle Comments
• Concerns about congestion on roadways that connect to highways, such as Windsor Drive • Concerns about speeding on roadways, such as Industrial Road

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 138

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 9

Figure 3. Webmap Comments in San Carlos

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 139

/ City of San Carlos
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 freeway 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. Near-miss data could serve as a good surrogate measure for safety but are very difficult to accurately define and record systematically. 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.2This plan includes recommendations that would improve jurisdictions’ ability to capture one or both of those elements and enhance future crash analyses.

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

Emphasis Areas
The project team analyzed crash data in San Carlos 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 San Carlos:

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 San Carlos, pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in 28 percent and 13 percent of the 32 reported F/SI crashes. The pedestrian share is higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (14 percent).

1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu 2 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-And- Implementation/Documents/Smart%20Intersections.pdf

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 140

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 11

Victims between the ages 50 – 69 and 75 to 84 are also more likely to be severely injured than other groups. In San Carlos, 21 crashes or 7 percent of all reported injury crashes involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.

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

In San Carlos, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among motor vehicle crashes (in 30 percent of injury crashes).

6. 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 San Carlos, 7percent of all reported injury crashes involve impaired driving.

The next pages present summary findings from a crash data review that compares the City of San Carlos 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 141

18%
(1,164)
13%
(26)
San Carlos—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
29%
(58)
10%
(21)
12%
(25)
36%
(73)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
San Carlos compares:

CountywideSan
Carlos 7% 5%
of reported collisions
in San Carlos
involved drugs or
alcohol
of reported collisions
in San Carlos
involved young
drivers1
(21) (15)
29%
(1,858)
Total Crashes
In San Carlos, 281 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
82% (233)
State Highway
18% (48)
San
Carlos

1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.

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

Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (38)
Bicycle Crashes (40)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (203)
13% (4)
59% (19)
28% (9)14% (38)
14% (40)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
72% (203)
San Carlos
San Carlos
San Carlos
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Compared to the countywide total, where
5% (472) of reported collisions involved
young drivers2
Compared to the countywide total,
where 8% (625) of reported collisions
involved drugs or alcohol
8%
(625)
5%
(472)

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 142

San Carlos—Crash History
San Carlos
San Carlos
San Carlos
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (4)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (10)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (43)
All Injury Crashes (203)
All Injury Crashes (40)
All Injury Crashes (38)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (19)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (4)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (9)
25% (1)
11% (1)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
21% (43)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how San Carlos compares to Countywide crashes:
10% (4)
26% (10)
37% (7)
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (38)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (40)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
Countywide
Countywide
Agency
Agency
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
29%
(11)
24%
(256)
Motorist Making
left turn
16%
(6)
15%
(163)
Motorist proceeding
straight
8%
(3)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
18%
(7)
21%
(186)
10%
(4)
12%
(106)
20%
(8)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
35%
(14)
35%
(372)
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 143

/ City of San Carlos
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 San Carlos
Roadway name
All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Belmont Ave San Carlos 0.6 X
Brittan Ave San Carlos 1.4 X X
Laurel St San Carlos 1.5 X
San Carlos Ave San Carlos 1.4 X
El Camino Real
San Carlos, Atherton, Menlo Park,
Redwood City, Millbrae, San Bruno,
Belmont, San Mateo, Burlingame,
South San Francisco, Colma,
Unincorporated

23.5 X X X
Alameda de las
Pulgas
San Carlos, Atherton, Redwood
City, Belmont, San Mateo,
Unincorporated

6.7 X X X
Old County Rd
San Carlos, Belmont,
Harbor/Industrial

3.4 X X
Holly St San Carlos, Redwood City 1.0 X X
Industrial Rd San Carlos, Redwood City 2.4 X X

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 144

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of San Carlos

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 145

/ City of San Carlos
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)

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 146

/ City of San Carlos
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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 147

/ City of San Carlos
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 C. Figure 8 also shows the locations.

Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Brittan Ave and Cordilleras
Ave
Intersection No X X
2 Brittan Ave and Cedar St Intersection No X X X
3 Brittan Ave and Elm St Intersection No X X
4 Greenwood Ave and
Tamarack Ave
Intersection No X
5 Brittan Ave and Rosewood
Ave
Intersection No X X
6 Woodland Ave and Brittan
Ave
Intersection No X
7 Brittan Ave and Chestnut St Intersection No X
8 Brittan Ave and Orange Ave Intersection No X X
9 Walnut St and Brittan Ave Intersection No X X
10 Brittan Ave and Old County
Rd
Intersection No X X

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 148

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
11 Industrial Rd and Brittan
Ave
Intersection No X
12 Laurel St and Brittan Ave Intersection No X X
13 Industrial Rd and
Washington St
Intersection No X X
14 Edmonds Rd and Edmond
Dr
Intersection No X
15 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
San Carlos Ave
Intersection No X
16 Tanklage Rd and Industrial
Rd
Intersection No X
17 Cambridge St and San
Carlos Ave
Intersection No X
18 Circle Star Way and G St Intersection No X
19 Brittan Ave and Hudson Ct Intersection No X
20 Upland Ave and San Carlos
Ave
Intersection No X
21 Brittan Ave and Dayton Ave Intersection No X
22 Brittan Ave and Brook St Intersection No X
23 Industrial Rd and San
Carlos Ave
Intersection No X
24 American St and Industrial
Rd
Intersection No X
24 Industrial Rd and
Montgomery Ln
Intersection No X
25 Terminal Way and
Industrial Rd
Intersection No X
26 Center St and Industrial Rd Intersection No X
27 Industrial Way and Taylor
Way
Intersection No X
28 Industrial Rd and Cherry Ln Intersection No X
29 San Carlos Ave and Laurel
St
Intersection No X
30 Brittan Ave and Alameda
De Las Pulgas
Intersection No X

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 149

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
31 Rockridge Rd and Alameda
De Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
32 Lupin Ave and Alameda De
Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
33 San Carlos Ave and Club Dr Intersection No X
34 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Alma St
Intersection No X
35 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Graceland Ave
Intersection No X
36 Old Country Rd and Taylor
Way
Intersection No X
37 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Carmelita Ave
Intersection No X
38 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
St Francis Way
Intersection No X
39 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Pine Ave
Intersection No X
40 Quarry Rd and Old Country
Rd
Intersection No X
41 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Madera Ave
Intersection No X
42 Eaton Ave and Alameda De
Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
43 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Oakview Dr
Intersection No X
44 Hill Way and Alameda De
Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
45 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Wildwood Ave
Intersection No X
46 Ridge Rd and Alameda De
Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
47 Orange Ave and Arroyo Ave Intersection No X
48 Arroyo Ave and Walnut St Intersection No X
49 Cedar St and Arroyo Ave Intersection No X
50 Brittan Ave, from Industrial
Rd to Crestview Dr
Corridor Yes X X X

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 150

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
51 San Carlos Ave, from city
limits W of Cranfield to E of
Industrial Rd
Corridor No X X
52 Industrial Rd, from city
limits N of Quarry to Center
St
Corridor No X X
53 Alameda De Las Pulgas,
from San Carlos Ave to
Eaton Ave
Corridor No X X
54 Old County Rd, from
Commercial St to city limit
S of Bing St
Corridor No X X
55 Arroyo Ave, from Tamarack
Ave to Industrial Rd
Corridor No X X
56 Cedar St, from San Carlos
Ave to Brittan Ave
Corridor No X X X
57 Laurel St, from Bush St to
Brittan Ave
Corridor No X X
58 Holly St, from Magnolia Ave
to Industrial Rd
Corridor No
59 Cherry St, from Cedar St to
El Camino Real
Corridor No
60 Cordilleras Ave, from San
Carlos Ave to Brittan Ave
Corridor No X X
61 Howard Ave, from Old
County Rd to Industrial Ave
Corridor No
62 Chestnut St, from San
Carlos Ave to Woodland
Ave
Corridor No
63 Bransten St, from Old
County Rd to Industrial Rd
Corridor No
64 Commercial Ave, from Old
County Rd to Industrial Rd
Corridor No
65 Washington St, from Old
County Rd to Industrial Rd
Corridor No X

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 151

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
Figure 8: San Carlos Priority Locations

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 152

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

POLICY & PROGRAMS
This section presents Safe System-aligned recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the City of San Carlos. 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 153

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 24
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:
 Brittan Ave—Crestview Dr to Industrial Rd. Recommended improvements include:
o Pedestrian crossing signs and markings
o Signs with fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
o Edgeline rumble strips/stripes (outside of residential areas) o Separated bike lanes
o Improved signal hardware (lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number)
o Installation of advance stop bar before crosswalk (bicycle box) o Modified signal phasing to include leading pedestrian interval o Reduction in travel lanes
 San Carlos Ave—city limits to Industrial Rd. Recommended improvements include:
o Improved signal hardware (lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number)
o Installation of advance stop bar before crosswalk (bicycle box) o Modified signal phasing to include a leading pedestrian interval o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
o Separated bike lanes
Another corridor of interest for City concept advancement is Alameda de las Pulgas. Development of that project scope is beyond the scope of this plan but represents a next step for the City. For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix D.

Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
This section presents Safe System-aligned engineering recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the City of San Carlos. 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 San Carlos Countermeasure Toolbox
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1

Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Lighting* All Nighttime 0.4 Medium
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and
number*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.15 $ Very high

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 154

/ City of San Carlos
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 left-turn lane and
add turn phase*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

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

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

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

0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised pavement
markers and striping*
SI All crashes 0.1 $ High
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning*
SI Rear-end,
broadside

0.3 $-$$ Medium
No right turn on red SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ Medium
Centerline hardening or
continuous raised median
SI All crashes 0.46 $ Medium
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from signal)*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections
Varies $-$$$ Low
Install pedestrian
countdown signal heads*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $ High
Install pedestrian crossing* SI Pedestrian
crashes,

0.25 $ High

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 155

/ City of San Carlos
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?
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
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 $-$$$ Low
Convert to all-way STOP
control (from two-way or
Yield control)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $ Low
Install signals* UI All crashes 0.3 $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from all-way
stop)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 156

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1

Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from STOP or
yield control on minor
road)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
mini-roundabout*
UI All crashes 0.3 $$ Low
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left turns and U-
turns (unsignalized
intersections)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised medians
(refuge islands)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

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

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

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

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

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

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

0.3 $$$ High
Install transverse rumble
strips on approaches
UI All crashes 0.2 $ High

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 157

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 28
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1

Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
(outside of residential
areas)*
Install splitter islands on
the minor road
approaches*
UI All crashes 0.4 $ Medium
Road diet (Reduce travel
lanes from four to three,
and add a two-way, left-
turn lane and bike lanes)*
R All crashes 0.35 $ Medium
Corridor access
management
R N/A 0.35 $ Medium
Install edgeline rumble
strips/stripes (outside of
residential areas)*
R All crashes 0.15 $-$$$ High
Install separated bike
lanes*
R Pedestrian and
bicycle

0.45 $-$$ Low
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 relocated fixed
objects outside of clear
recovery zone*
R Hit object 0.35 $-$$ High
Install delineators,
reflectors, and/or object
marker*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install/upgrade signs with
new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs*
R Driver behavior 0.3 $ High
Extend pedestrian crossing
time
SI Pedestrian N/A $ High

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 158

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 29
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1

Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
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 $-$$ Low
Bicycle crossing (solid
green paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Bicycle signal/exclusive
bike phase
SI Bicycle N/A $-$$ Low
Curb extensions UI All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
ADA-compliant directional
curb ramps and audible
push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low
Curb radius reduction SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Low
Splitter islands UI, SI All crashes N/A $$ Medium
Approach curvature US, 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 above2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 159

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30
Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines
Recommendations
In addition to the engineering countermeasures and projects recommended above, the City aims to promote policies, programs, and standards that foster a culture of safety. The table below defines several policy and program recommendations organized into thematic categories. Implemented in cooperation with partners, these recommendations will deepen the dedication to safety shared throughout the community and round out the City’s Safe System Approach.

Table 6. City of San Carlos Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
LCS1: Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee Participation
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
LCS3: Communication Protocol
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
Local Enforcement
Coordination (LEC)
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Local Funding (LF) LF1: Dedicated Funding LF2: Equitable Investment LF3: Prioritize Investments
Local Education /
Outreach (LEO)
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
LEO5: Safe City Fleet
Local Planning/
Evaluation (LPE)
LPE1: Biennial Review
LPE2: Plan Update
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 160

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 31

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) • 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 San Carlos 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 San Carlos 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 high- visibility media campaign pertaining to one or more emphasis areas identified in this plan.

Dedicated law enforcement with media supporting the enforcement activity to ensure public awareness.

Potential communication tools:
• Bus ads • Social media • Text messages
Lead agency: County Public Health
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff’s Office, California Highway Patrol, Sustainability Department, SMCOE, City of San Carlos Public Works
LCS3: Communication Protocol
Adopt and develop safety-related communication protocols in coordination with the TSAC. The protocols will promote consistent public communication regarding language usage and statements related to transportation safety. Encourage language in line with Vision Zero and Safe System principles that acknowledges mistakes are inevitable but death and severe injury are preventable. For example, promote use of the word crash rather than accident.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: City of San Carlos 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

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 161

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 32
recreational routes/areas, etc.)
Lead agency: City of San Carlos Public Works
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Trailer
Coordinate with 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 San Carlos 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 San Carlos 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 San Carlos 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 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 San Carlos 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 San Carlos 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.

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 162

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 33
Lead agency: City of San Carlos 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 San Carlos Public Works
LPE1: Biennial Review
Provide a biennial 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 San Carlos Public Works
LPE2: Plan Update
Update the plan, likely as part of a Countywide plan update, 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: C/CAG
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
Continue to participate in school safety assessments at all public and private schools, develop implementation plans for improvements up to one quarter mile from the schools.

Develop a plan and timeline to include all schools in the City.

Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: City of San Carlos 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 San Carlos Public Works

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 163

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 34

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

This section identifies recommendations for San Carlos 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 San Carlos Goals and Measures of Success

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

1. Regularly monitor crashes to respond to
safety problems and changing
conditions. Prioritize locations with high
crash rates for safety improvements.

2. Review proposed improvement plans to
ensure that roadway projects, retrofits,
and maintenance projects incorporate
complete streets that support multiple
modes of travel.
• Number of LRSP project locations advanced through
project development, reported at the agency level
• Three-year total reported crashes, fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and crashes by emphasis
areas identified

3. Advance the active transportation
efforts of the City and regional agencies
to achieve the greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction.
• Distribution at the jurisdiction level for safety projects within equity focus areas (C/CAG EFAs or MTC EPCs)
versus outside these areas
• Report-backs to the City Council and TSAC regarding
community engagement, including information about
outreach to disadvantaged communities where
applicable.
• Implementation of a high-visibility media campaign
• Expansion of SRTS and Roadway Safety Education in
Schools programs to more schools within the City

4. Implement safety countermeasures
systemically and as part of all projects to
target emphasis areas and underserved
communities.

5. Provide opportunities for community
engagement in roadway capital
improvement projects to identify safety
solutions.
• Community engagement included as part of all C/CAG-
funded safety project development activities
• Number of engagement touchpoints and number of
community member interactions citywide for safety plans or projects.
• Report-backs to the City Council and TSAC regarding
community engagement, including information about
outreach to disadvantaged communities where
applicable

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 164

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 35

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

6. 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

7. Monitor implementation of the San Carlos
LRSP to track progress towards goals.
• See above in this table

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 165

/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 36

Appendix A
Webmap Comments
City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

7.e
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 166

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 13, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Appoint Ron Collins to the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District’s Board of Trustees for a Term Expiring December 31, 2028.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff provides no recommendation as board appointments are made at the Council’s discretion.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal impacts associated with appointing a representative to the Board of the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District (“District”).

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

The District’s Board of Trustees consists of 21 members, one from each city and one representative for the County at-large. Trustees are appointed by their respective city councils to govern the District for a term of two or four years.

In April 2022, Ross Graves resigned from the District’s Board of Trustees after representing San Carlos for five years. The City Council began recruitment immediately to find another community member to represent the City on the District Board. After an unsuccessful five-month recruitment, the Council appointed then Councilmember Ron Collins for a term ending December 31, 2024.

Mr. Collins retired from his service on the City Council on December 9, 2024, however, he expressed interest in continuing to represent San Carlos on the District’s Board for another term.

Additional Information on the Board of Trustee.

The District’s Board of Trustees’ terms commence on the first Monday in January. Each person appointed by a city council to be a member of the District’s Board of Trustees shall be a voter in that city. They are responsible for the development and approval of policies and for approving financial transactions, expenditures, the operational budget, and yearly audit.

The District meets at 6:00 p.m. on the second Wednesday of each month, except for August and December. Meetings are held in-person at the District office located at 1351 Rollins Road in Burlingame.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

7.f
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 167

1. Appoint Ron Collins to serve on the District’s Board of Trustees for a term expiring December 31, 2028; or

2. Appoint Ron Collins to serve on the District’s Board of Trustees for a term expiring December 31, 2026; or

3. Appoint an active Councilmember to serve on the District’s Board of Trustees for a Term Expiring December 31, 2026; or

4. Direct staff to recruit to fill the seat; or

5. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Crystal Mui, City Clerk
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. SMC Mosquito and Vector Control District Reappointment Request -11.12.24

7.f
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 168

November 12, 2024
City of San Carlos
Attn: City Clerk
600 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94404

Dear City Clerk,

The current term of office for Ron Collins, representative to the Board of Trustees of this District from the City of San Carlos, will expire on December 31, 2024.

It is kindly requested that the City Council make an appointment or reappointment for the next term following January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2026, or through December 31, 2028. According to the California Health and Safety Code, Section 2020-2030, which dictates appointments to Vector Control District Boards:

 The city council of each city or town may appoint one person to the board of trustees.

 The term of office for a member of the board of trustees shall be for a term of two or four years, at the discretion of the appointing authority.

 Terms of office begin at noon on the first Monday in January.

The common law incompatibility of office doctrine was addressed in SB 1588 (2002), and now, a City Council member may be appointed to the Board of Trustees.

Once an appointment has been made, please forward a letter to that fact indicating the term length (two or four years).

Thank you for your attention to this request,

Brian Weber, District Manager

Docusign Envelope ID: CC62705D-4CF1-49C2-9A08-5CA3367B8B8E

7.f
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 169

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 13, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Receive an Update on Fire and Emergency Services.

RECOMMENDATION:

This report is submitted for information purposes only.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

BACKGROUND:

The Redwood City Fire Department (RCFD) has been contracted to provide fire and emergency services to the City of San Carlos (City) since 2011. It is dedicated to providing essential emergency response services to the community. A provision of the contract with the City requires the RCFD to provide an annual report to the City Council which includes an overview of fire and emergency services and an annual summary of call data and trends. This staff report will satisfy that requirement.

In 2024, the RCFD welcomed Deputy Chief Greg DaCunha as the Fire Chief of San Carlos.

Chief DaCunha's strategic goals for fire and emergency services in 2024 were focused on workforce recruitment and development, operational readiness, sustainability, and community involvement. This staff report highlights key achievements, statistical trends, and strategic initiatives. The RCFD updated the tasks in the City’s Council’s Strategic Plan in August 2024 to enhance the RCFD’s mission to protect life, property, and the environment from fire, medical, disaster, and hazardous materials-related incidents through mitigation, public education, and enforcement.

Major Services Provided:
•Fire Suppression: Responding to and mitigating fires.
•Emergency Medical Services: Addressing medical emergencies and rescues. •Fire Prevention: Conducting fire and life safety inspections, fire origin investigations, and plan reviews.
•Public Assist Calls: Handling non-emergency requests, such as smoke investigations, lockouts, and water leaks.
•Rescue Response: Addressing accidents and hazardous situations. •Community Outreach: Providing education through station tours, school visits, and events like the Public Safety Fair, Junior Fire Academy, and other San Carlos community events.
•CERT: Coordinating Community Emergency Response Team training for disaster

8.a
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 170

preparedness.

The RCFD continues to utilize technology and tools that best protect our community. In addition, we have increased our efforts to invest in our staff with wellness initiatives, professional development opportunities, and new recruitment measures.

ANALYSIS:

The RCFD has consistently met its operational targets in fiscal years (FY) 2022-23 and 2023-24, achieving significant milestones.

Key Accomplishments:

1. Emergency Operations
•Responded to 3158 incidents, with Emergency Medical Services (EMS)/Rescue calls making up 56% of total responses.
•Achieved an average response time of 6:01 minutes, aligning with national standards. •Secured $1.3 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters Grants for upgraded communication equipment. •Participated in five Office of Emergency Services (OES) state and federal deployments and one Urban Search & Rescue activation.

Call Volume
In FY 2024-25 (Reported 12/19/2024), the RCFD responded to 1,453 incidents, including EMS/Rescue and fire calls. EMS/Rescue makes up about 55% of our current call volume. If the calls continue at this trajectory, Engine 13 and Engine 16 are estimated to respond to a little over 3,000 calls for service. The amount is projected to be fairly consistent with the previous three fiscal years.

8.a
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 171

Fire
Rupture Explosion
EMS/Rescue
Hazardous Condition
Service Call
Good Intent
False Call
Severe Weather
TOTALS
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
FY 24-25
(Projection)
FY 23-24
FY 22-22
Call Volume Including Call Type
Year-over-Year Comparison
2% 0%
55%
2%
16%
17%
8% 0%
Fire
Rupture Explosion
EMS/Rescue
Hazardous
Condition
Service Call
Good Intent
Call Types
FY 24-25 (YTD - December 19)

8.a
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 172

In addition to the 1,453 calls Engine 13 and Engine 16 responded to in FY 2024-25 (year-to-date), they also responded to out-of-county state and federal deployments, including FEMA Urban Search & Rescue (US&R) deployments with Task Force 3.

Deployments FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
(through Dec. 19)
OES: Fires/Floods 11 4 5
US&R 0 0 1
Response Times
The RCDF maintained an average response time of 6:01 minutes, consistently meeting the national standards. However, incremental improvements in FY 2023-24 underscore the effectiveness of ongoing training and resource allocation.

The chart below highlights response times for priority calls over FYs 2022-23 and 2023-24. As of December 19, 2024, the department has maintained an average response time of 5:52 minutes.

FY 2024-25 year-to-date (YTD) data shows a downward trend in response times from prior fiscal years, reflecting improved efficiency. Investments in new equipment and training contributed to the improvements.

2. Fire Prevention and Code Enforcement
•Conducted 453 fire and life safety inspections with a 100% completion rate. •Reviewed 208 construction and safety plans, ensuring 100% on-time reviews. •Strengthened fire prevention compliance in collaboration with local businesses. 0:00
1:12
2:24
3:36
4:48
6:00
7:12
8:24
FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 (YTD -
December 19)
Average Response Time

8.a
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 173

The RCFD welcomed Fire Marshal Janice Cheung in 2024. The Community Risk Reduction Department (CRRD) is tasked with proactively reducing fire risks and enhancing community safety through public education, enforcement, and prevention initiatives. Key efforts included:
oTransitioning to a comprehensive Community Risk Reduction model. oConducting annual physical and wellness assessments for staff. oTraining and development of staff members.
oSecuring partnerships for fire safety and compliance improvements.

3. Community Engagement
•26 public education events delivered to 756 participants. •Conducted 18 classes for 415 attendees on fire safety and disaster preparedness. •Enhanced the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program and increased community participation.

Performance Measures FY 2021 -22
Actual
FY 2022-23
Actual
FY 2023-24
Actual
FY 2024-25
(through Dec. 19)
Inspections Conducted 426 440 574 287
State Mandated Inspections (%) 100% 100% 100% 94%
Plans Reviewed On Time 281 208 208 125
Plans Reviewed On Time (%) 100% 100% 100% 100%
Investigations Conducted 8 6 8 2
Fire Investigations with
Determined Cause (%)
50% 33% 63% 50%

4. Workforce Development
•Launched wellness initiatives, including First Responder Resiliency training for all members of the department. Other wellness initiatives included: annual physicals, mental health, peer support, and coaching and counseling sessions. •Standardized recruitment processes with bi-annual hiring events and participation at career fairs.
•Partnered with the College of San Mateo for joint fire academy training programs.

Strategic Goals FY 2024-25:

1. Operational Excellence
•Further reduce response times with optimized resource allocation and training. •Expand deployment readiness for regional and state emergencies.

2. Community Engagement
•Host 36 public education events targeting 800 participants. •Increase CERT training efforts to enhance community resilience.

3. Recruitment and Retention
•Conduct three career fair visits annually and host two recruitment events. •Implement cultural competency training based on a language gap analysis.

8.a
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 174

4. Fire Prevention Bureau Evolution
•Rebrand Fire Prevention Bureau to Community Risk Reduction (CRR). •Develop data-driven fire prevention plans by FY 2025-26.

On behalf of the Redwood City Fire Department, it is our privilege to serve the residents of San Carlos. We remain committed to enhancing public safety, responding to emergencies with excellence, and fostering a safer community through education and preparedness.

Respectfully submitted by:

Greg DaCunha, RCFD Deputy Fire Chief
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager

8.a
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 175

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 13, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Approving the Second Revised and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the San Mateo County Operational Area Emergency Services Council.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Second Revised and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the San Mateo County Operational Area Emergency Services Council.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Adopting the updated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement is not expected to incur additional costs for the City. Instead, it ensures the continued provision of vital emergency management services, including access to resources such as hazmat response teams, public alert systems like SMC Alert, and operational training programs. These services are crucial for enhancing the City’s preparedness and resilience against emergencies.

BACKGROUND:

The Emergency Services Council (ESC) of the San Mateo County Operational Area is a collaborative body comprised of local governments, tasked with coordinating emergency planning and response efforts. These efforts span all phases of emergency management, including prevention, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. Key functions of the ESC include managing hazardous materials responses, maintaining public information systems like SMC Alert, and providing training and exercises for emergency readiness.

The Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) governing the ESC was first established in 1997 as a mechanism to formalize the collaborative approach to emergency services. The agreement was later amended and restated on October 17, 2014 to address operational changes and evolving needs within the San Mateo County Operational Area.

Since the last amendment, San Mateo County’s Department of Emergency Management (DEM) transitioned into an independent entity, separating from the Sheriff's Office, to focus on emergency coordination and management. This organizational shift and the natural evolution of emergency service practices have rendered the 2014 version of the JPA outdated.

To address these changes, the ESC unanimously approved a new set of updates to the JPA.

These updates include standardizing terminology, revising agreement language, and explicitly defining the roles and responsibilities of the ESC, the ESC Finance Committee, and the DEM.

The updated JPA is designed to reflect current organizational structures and operational

9.a
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 176

practices, ensuring the continued effectiveness of regional emergency planning and response efforts.

ANALYSIS:

The updated ESC JPA reflects organizational and operational changes since the last revision in 2014. By aligning with the new structure of the DEM as a standalone agency, the agreement ensures continued coordination and effectiveness in emergency services, including hazmat response, emergency alerts, and training. Adopting this updated agreement is critical to maintaining the City's ability to engage in regional emergency planning and response initiatives.

The specific changes to the agreement can be viewed in Attachment B, JPA MOU Changes Table.

Declining to adopt the agreement could jeopardize the City's access to emergency services and diminish its capacity to coordinate effectively in emergencies. If specific concerns arise, the Council may request revisions to the JPA, delaying adoption but potentially addressing particular issues.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Second Revised and Restated Joint Powers Agreement for the San Mateo County Operational Area Emergency Services Council; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution and request modifications be made to the JPA; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Greg DaCunha, Deputy Fire Chief
Approved for submission by:
_______________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. JPA MOU Changes Table

3. Second Revised and Restated JPA

4. October 17, 2014 JPA 1 st Revised and Restated

9.a
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 177

RESOLUTION NO. 2025- ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS

APPROVING THE SECOND REVISED AND RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS

AGREEMENT FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY OPERATIONAL AREA
EMERGENCY SERVICES COUNCIL.

WHEREAS, the Emergency Services Council (ESC) of the San Mateo County Operational Area was established to coordinate emergency planning and response among local governments, special districts, and other stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, the ESC operates to enhance regional capabilities in all phases of emergency management, including prevention, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation, while also maintaining essential public information systems such as SMC Alert; and WHEREAS, the ESC first formalized its mission through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) on May 20, 2003, which was later amended and restated on October 17, 2014, to address evolving operational needs and practices; and Health and Safety Code Section 13146.3 requires the Fire Department to perform annual inspections on every building used as a public or private school within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, significant changes have occurred since 2014, including the establishment of the San Mateo County Department of Emergency Management (DEM) as a standalone agency separate from the Sheriff’s Office, necessitating updates to the JPA to accurately reflect the ESC's current structure and operations; and
WHEREAS, the ESC unanimously approved updates to the JPA that include standardizing nomenclature, revising agreement language, and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the ESC, the ESC Finance Committee, and the DEM; and WHEREAS, adoption of the updated JPA is essential to ensuring that the City of San Carlos continues to receive critical emergency management services, including hazardous materials response, public alert systems, and emergency training and exercises; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the importance of maintaining strong regional partnerships and adopting agreements that reflect best practices in emergency planning and response.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby:

1.The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety.

2.The City Council of the City of San Carlos approves and adopts the updated Emergency Services Council Joint Powers Agreement, as presented.

3.The City Manager or their designee is authorized to execute the updated Joint Powers Agreement on behalf of the City of San Carlos and take all actions necessary to

9.a
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 178

implement the terms of the agreement.

4.This Resolution shall be effective upon its adoption. * * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 13th day of January 2025, by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:

9.a
January 13, 2025

Packet Pg. 179

Sec
JPA sta the
Rec
Rec

1. 1.

Page 1 ends

San Carlos City CouncilJanuary 13, 2025

San Carlos City Council
January 13, 2025