The Advance Planning Fund accounts for the General Plan maintenance fee collected through building permits and expenditures for activities related to preparing long-term plans and policy documents for the physical and economic development of the City, including the General Plan update. These plans and policies are used for the evaluation of development projects and determining priorities for public improvements.
Prior to 2021-2022, the Community Development Department increased the General Plan maintenance fee to account for the costs associated with several long-range planning efforts the City needs to complete. Although revenue is down in 2021-2022, the maintenance fee is expected to bring in additional revenue in future years given the volume and size of the projects in the development pipeline.
It is anticipated that operating expenditures will be higher in 2021-22 and 2022-23 largely due to the General Pan Update and other department intiatives. In future budget years, Advance Planning staff will be monitoring passage and implementation of new State legislation, the next iteration of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (Plan Bay Area) by the Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, completing near-term Zoning Code Amendments, preparing and adopting the General Plan Update, creating objective design standards for residential development, and implementing general planning, zoning, and policy recommendations as directed by the City Council. In future cycles, the implementation of the General Plan Update and revision of the City’s various specific plans and zoning code will be funded by the Advance Planning Fund. 689 of 846
Construction Services
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ 43,113 $ 41,364 $ 38,728 $ 31,204 $ 20,387 $ 13,325 $ 8,770 Revenues
Interest Earnings $ 49 $ 300 $ 458 $ 479 $ 479 $ 479 $ 479 Plan Check Fees 2,255 3,883 3,156 3,156 3,219 3,284 3,349 Permit Fees 4,027 4,754 4,660 4,660 4,753 4,848 4,945
Other Fees 384 294 525 525 536 546 557
Total Revenues $ 6,715 $ 9,231 $ 8,799 $ 8,820 $ 8,987 $ 9,157 $ 9,331 Expenditures
Personnel $ 5,958 $ 6,859 $ 8,746 $ 9,108 $ 9,290 $ 9,475 $ 9,665 Operating 1,560 2,324 3,012 3,044 3,105 3,167 3,230
Capital Outlay 87 38 39 39 39 39 39
Total Expenditures $ 7,605 $ 9,221 $ 11,798 $ 12,191 $ 12,434 $ 12,682 $ 12,935 Transfer Out $ 859 $ 2,645 $ 4,525 $ 7,446 $ 3,615 $ 1,030 $ 1,046 Ending Fund Balance $ 41,364 $ 38,728 $ 31,204 $ 20,387 $ 13,325 $ 8,770 $ 4,120 Values are shown in thousands.
The Construction Services Fund accounts for building permit revenues and expenditures for activities related to the review of private development projects to achieve high quality and long-term economic growth in the City. Building Division staff members also ensure that new construction meets established standards for health and safety, accessibility, energy efficiency, and provide public education to enhance the safety of existing buildings and better awareness of building codes.
Over the last several years, fund balance has grown significantly. Revenue in this fund is for services to be provided over time, and therefore, the significant fund balance will be needed over time to provide services for existing projects in process. While revenues in the five-year plan are expected to remain stable in the near term, service demand is expected to remain high to fully process existing projects. This is reflected in the ending fund balance being drawn upon over the course of the five-year plan.
Beginning in 2019-20, lease payments through a transfer out have been made to the General Fund for space occupied by construction services staff in City Hall. Additionally, a number of funding commitments are made to transfer out to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund to support the digital storage of property records and electronic review of plans submittals, the traffic model update, and facilities improvements.
Beginning in 2021-22 through 2023-24, as part of the fiscal sustainability plan, and in recognition of the General Fund not charging the full administrative burden to the Construction Services Fund since the Great Recession, a total of $10 million over the three year period to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund will supplant the General Fund transfer to support priority general capital projects, such as the high voltage streetlight conversion. 690 of 846
Gas Tax
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ 2,958 $ 679 $ (29) $ 252 $ 25 $ 250 $ 549 Revenues
Interest Earnings $ 1 $ 3 $ 12 $ 12 $ 12 $ 12 $ 12
State Gas Tax 1,603 1,822 1,989 2,059 2,100 2,141 2,184 Gas Tax In Lieu of Prop 42 718 874 1,015 1,050 1,071 1,093 1,115 Total Revenues $ 2,322 $ 2,699 $ 3,016 $ 3,121 $ 3,183 $ 3,246 $ 3,311 Transfer Out $ 2,799 $ 3,407 $ 2,735 $ 3,349 $ 2,958 $ 2,948 $ 2,948 Reallocate Fund Balance for Creation of Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Fund $ 1,803 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Ending Fund Balance $ 679 $ (29) $ 252 $ 25 $ 250 $ 549 $ 912 Values are shown in thousands.
The Gas Tax Fund accounts for gasoline tax revenues that are utilized for street-related operating and capital costs. The fund makes an annual transfer to the General Fund to partially offset eligible operating costs related to the City's streets and roads maintenance programs. Additionally, it makes annual contributions to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund to fund various capital improvement projects.
Fuel consumption was sharply down during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic but has largely recovered to its prior. In 2022, fuel prices have increased steeply but the price of fuel no longer has a direct effect on local streets and roads revenues because all rates are per gallon, regardless of price. Despite lower fuel consumption, scheduled gax tax rate increases have kept the revenue growing at a modest pace. The State Department of Finance (DOF) currently projects total local allocations (to cities and counties) will grow 14.8 percent in 2021-22 and 10.8 percent in 2022-23. Based on the DOF estimates, staff anticipates that gas tax revenues will reach $2.6 million in 2021-22, and further increase to $3 million for 2022-23. The five-year plan maintains the annual transfer to the General Fund, and makes contributions to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund to fund street reconstruction and rehabilitation projects. As more information becomes available on the impacts to gasoline tax revenues, this plan will be updated accordingly.
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 established transportation taxes that are distributed to cities and counties through the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). When funding began in 2017-18, revenues were deposited into this fund, and then transferred out to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund as eligible projects were identified. In order to create greater visibility to available resources for projects and allow for more efficient reporting on how RMRA funds are being utilized, a new fund was created to account for RMRA funds in 2020-21. This is reflected in the reallocation of the accumulated RMRA fund balance from this fund in 2020-21. 691 of 846
City Housing Fund
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
Beginning Fund Balance $ 979 $ 956 $ 928 $ 813
Revenues
Housing Fees $ - $ - $ 50 $ -
Interest Earnings - - 18 18
Miscellaneous 24 19 16 16
Total Revenues $ 24 $ 19 $ 84 $ 34
Expenditures
Contribution to Other Agencies $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47
Contribution to First Time Home Buyers - - 150 150
Operating - 0 2 2
Total Expenditures $ 47 $ 47 $ 199 $ 199
Ending Fund Balance $ 956 $ 928 $ 813 $ 649
Values are shown in thousands.
The City Housing Fund captures a variety of housing-related revenues, including loan repayments from the defunct federal Rental Rehabilitation Program, a pro rata share of the original homebuyer loans at the Meadow Court housing complex, fees collected for housing loan subordination requests, and the fractional Below Market Rate (BMR) program in lieu fees.
This fund can be used to assist housing-related projects when the fund balance is sufficient and appropriate projects are identified. For the next two years, funds are set aside to assist first-time homebuyers on purchasing housing units that the City has acquired in order to retain their below market rate status. Additionally, funds will be used to pay for financial assistance to Samaritan House for Safe Harbor, the county-wide homeless shelter located in South San Francisco, and the City membership fee for The Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County (HEART), the countywide housing trust fund. These expenditures cannot be covered by other housing funds since they are not located in the city limits of San Mateo. 692 of 846
Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
Beginning Fund Balance $ 6,813 $ 7,072 $ 7,230 $ 7,361
Revenues
Interest Earnings $ 6 $ - $ 64 $ 73
Loan Payments 345 242 214 214
Total Revenues $ 350 $ 242 $ 278 $ 287
Expenditures
Personnel $ 59 $ 44 $ 48 $ 49
Operating 32 40 99 99
Total Expenditures $ 91 $ 84 $ 147 $ 148
Transfer Out $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ 7,072 $ 7,230 $ 7,361 $ 7,501
Values are shown in thousands.
The Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund consists of loan payments, lease payments, sale of property, and any other revenue generated from loans or assets held by City as Housing Successor to the former Redevelopment Agency. State law regulates the use of these funds to support housing projects that assist households whose income ranges up to 80% of median income.
The fund also consists of administrative costs to monitor existing housing projects, manage the existing loan portfolio, and plan for new projects. $2.85 million has been committed to finance the construction of a new affordable housing project in Downtown San Mateo. 693 of 846
Parks and Recreation Revenue Fund
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ 8,242 $ 12,560 $ (1,517) $ 165 $ 1,776 $ 4,162 $ 2,737 Revenues
Interest Earnings $ 12 $ 20 $ 182 $ 187 $ 187 $ 187 $ 187 Parks and Recreation Tax and Fees 4,441 124 2,241 8,941 10,217 5,906 2,500 Total Revenues $ 4,453 $ 144 $ 2,423 $ 9,128 $ 10,404 $ 6,093 $ 2,687 Expenditures
Operating $ - $ 17 $ 16 $ 17 $ 17 $ 18 $ 18
Total Expenditures $ - $ 17 $ 16 $ 17 $ 17 $ 18 $ 18
Transfer Out $ 134 $ 14,204 $ 725 $ 7,500 $ 8,000 $ 7,500 $ 4,000 Ending Fund Balance $ 12,560 $ (1,517) $ 165 $ 1,776 $ 4,162 $ 2,737 $ 1,406 Values are shown in thousands.
The Parks and Recreation Revenue Fund accounts for parks and recreation tax, park impact fees, and park in-lieu fees. Revenues projections are based on residential building projects, and are thus dependent on development activity. Accumulated resources in this fund are utilized to fund parks and recreation related projects through a transfer to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund.
Major transfers planned for 2021-22 include improvements related to citywide play area upgrade and the Central Park Master Plan. Transfers planned beyond 2021-22 continue improvement to citywide play area upgrade, the Central Park Master Plan, recreation facilities strategic plan, and upgrades to the skate plaza.
694 of 846
Traffic Impact Fee
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ 2,763 $ 843 $ (4,804) $ (2,494) $ 1,888 $ 1,270 $ 652 Revenues
Interest Earnings $ 3 $ - $ 32 $ 32 $ 32 $ 32 $ 32
Traffic Impact Fees 534 326 2,500 4,500 500 500 500
Total Revenues $ 537 $ 326 $ 2,532 $ 4,532 $ 532 $ 532 $ 532 Transfer Out $ 2,456 $ 5,974 $ 222 $ 150 $ 1,150 $ 1,150 $ 1,135 Ending Fund Balance $ 843 $ (4,804) $ (2,494) $ 1,888 $ 1,270 $ 652 $ 49 Values shown in thousands.
The Traffic Impact Fee Fund accounts for traffic impact fee revenues that are collected to fund various capital projects to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development and to accomomodate future development. Currently, resources being accumulated in this fund are used mostly to cover the City's match on the Rail Corridor Grade Separation project. Additionally in the five-year plan, transfers are being made to fund the Citywide Traffic Calming project, and the US 101 and Peninsula Avenues Interchange Project. The negative fund balance being shown in the financial plan represents the current expectation that the General Fund and/or the Capital Improvement Projects Fund will need to temporarily loan funds to the Traffic Impact Fee Fund to cover the City's matching portion for grade separation and/or funding for the Railroad Avenue Wall Enhancement project. If that loan is needed, and how much is needed, will depend on future impact fee revenues collected and the timing of each project's progression. This plan will be updated accordingly as more information is available. 695 of 846
Commercial Linkage Fee
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ 5,296 $ 7,157 $ 3,296 $ 8,400 $ 10,520 $ 12,642 $ 14,767 Revenues
Interest Earnings $ 7 $ 10 $ 109 $ 125 $ 127 $ 130 $ 132 Commercial Linkage Fee 1,896 133 5,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Total Revenues $ 1,903 $ 143 $ 5,109 $ 2,125 $ 2,127 $ 2,130 $ 2,132 Expenditures
Operating $ 42 $ 4 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Total Expenditures $ 42 $ 4 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Transfer Out $ - $ 4,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ 7,157 $ 3,296 $ 8,400 $ 10,520 $ 12,642 $ 14,767 $ 16,893 Values shown in thousands.
The Commercial Linkage Fee is an assessment on new commercial developments to address the impacts of new job creation on housing availability and affordability for workers. Developers pay a fee based on square footage of new commercial space depending on type of use: office, retail, or hotel. The funds are to be used for housing programs to assist workers who make up to 120% of the area median income. Examples of housing programs can include acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of housing.
The fund balance is being accumulated over the period of this forecast. Potential projects will be identified as the fund balance reaches an appropriate level. Accumulated resources will be utilized to fund projects through a transfer to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund, and this plan will be updated accordingly as more information is available.
$4 million has been committed from the fund to finance the construction of a new affordable housing project in Downtown San Mateo and the fund drawdown occured in 2021-22. 696 of 846
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Account
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ - $ 2,037 $ 286 $ 650 $ 1,085 $ 1,494 $ 1,977 Reallocated Balance From Gas Tax Fund $ 1,803 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Revenues
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation $ 1,911 $ 2,134 $ 2,349 $ 2,419 $ 2,492 $ 2,567 $ 2,644 Interest Earnings 2 3 15 15 17 17 17
Total Revenues $ 1,913 $ 2,137 $ 2,364 $ 2,434 $ 2,509 $ 2,584 $ 2,661 Transfer Out $ 1,679 $ 3,888 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 Ending Fund Balance $ 2,037 $ 286 $ 650 $ 1,085 $ 1,494 $ 1,977 $ 2,538 Values are shown in thousands.
The Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Fund was created in 2020-21. It accounts for transportation taxes established by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1). Prior to 2020-21, RMRA revenues were deposited in the Gas Tax Fund, and then subsequently transferred to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund to fund eligible projects. Moving this revenue source into its own special revenue fund creates greater visibility to available resources for projects and will allow for more efficient reporting on how these funds are being utilized.
Accumulated resources will be utilized to fund street reconstruction and rehabilitation projects through a transfer to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund. In the five-year plan, the annual transfers average $2.0 million each year. While the five-year plan maintains the transfer to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund to fund street reconstruction and rehabilitation projects, the plan will be updated as more information becomes available on the impacts to RMRA revenues. 697 of 846
PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING
ALLOCATION FUND
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
Beginning Fund Balance $ - $ (15) $ (15) $ 517
Revenues
State Grants $ - $ 342 $ 1,031 $ 500
Total Revenues $ - $ 342 $ 1,031 $ 500
Expenditures
Operating $ 15 $ 342 $ 500 $ 500
Total Expenditures $ 15 $ 342 $ 500 $ 500
Ending Fund Balance $ (15) $ (15) $ 517 $ 517
Values are shown in thousands.
The Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) is a State Grant that is provided to the City, starting in Fall 2020, that will continue on an annual basis based on actual State receipts of document recording fees. These funds are flexible as long as they are used for housing-related projects and programs that assist in addressing the unmet housing needs of San Mateo.
The fund supports two programs to support housing affordability in the City. The first is an operations subsidy for client services at the affordable housing development Montara and a rapid rehousing program with case management, which will use the remainder of the annual grant. 698 of 846
LANDFILL BONDS
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
STREET & FLOOD CONTROL
PROJECTS BOND
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
Beginning Fund Balance $ 2,403 $ 2,923 $ 3,452 $ 4,009 Beginning Fund Balance $ - $ 12 $ 12 $ 12 Beginning Fund Balance $ 5,340 $ 5,688 $ 6,176 $ 6,216 Revenues Expenditures Revenues
Interest Earnings $ 3 $ 15 $ 54 $ 55 Operating $ 74 $ 29 $ 61 $ 63 Interest Earnings $ 5 $ 10 $ 97 $ 99 Garbage Collection Surcharge 600 600 600 600 Debt Service 2,635 2,633 2,632 2,629 Property Taxes 2,441 2,576 2,041 2,049 Total Revenues $ 603 $ 615 $ 654 $ 655 Total Expenditures $ 2,709 $ 2,662 $ 2,693 $ 2,692 Total Revenues $ 2,446 $ 2,586 $ 2,138 $ 2,148 Expenditures Expenditures
Personnel $ 25 $ 24 $ 27 $ 27 Transfer In $ 2,712 $ 2,662 $ 2,693 $ 2,692 Operating $ 65 $ 65 $ 57 $ 59 Operating 37 61 70 70 Debt Service 2,033 2,033 2,041 2,049 Debt Service 8 - - - Ending Fund Balance $ 3 $ 12 $ 12 $ 12 Total Expenditures $ 2,098 $ 2,098 $ 2,098 $ 2,108 Total Expenditures $ 70 $ 86 $ 97 $ 97
Ending Fund Balance $ 5,688 $ 6,176 $ 6,216 $ 6,256
Transfer Out $ 13 $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ 2,923 $ 3,452 $ 4,009 $ 4,567
Values are shown in thousands.
The City has three debt service funds: the Landfill Bonds Fund, the Street and Flood Control Projects Bond Fund, and the General Obligation Bonds Fund. The Landfill Bonds Fund accounts for debt service payments on landfill revenue bonds. Proceeds from these bonds were utilized to finance expenditures related to the final closure of the former landfill site, the construction of related park improvements, and post-closure monitoring costs. These bonds were redeemed in 2017-18 using available fund balance and a $1 million loan from the General Fund. The General Fund was paid back over a three-year period beginning 2018-19 and ending 2020-
21. Surcharge revenues collected will be adjusted in future years to reflect the reduction of the debt service obligation.
The Street and Flood Control Projects Bond Fund is a new fund that accounts for debt service payments on lease revenue bonds issued in 2019-20 to finance the construction and acquisition of public improvements of the City, including street and flood control improvements. As these improvements are part of the Measure S initiatives, revenues from Measure S are transferred into this fund to administer the debt services. Additionally, a benefit assessment district was created in the North Shoreview neighborhood as it relates to the flood control improvements. Assessment levies are expected to be collected beginning 2023-24, and will pay approximately 6.9% of annual debt service beginning 2024-25. The remaining debt service is funded by the Measure S.
The General Obligation Bonds Fund accounts for voter-approved property tax revenues and debt service payments on the City's general obligation bonds that were utilized to finance the construction, acquisition, and improvement of a new main library and the improvement of the City's branch libraries.
Other debt of the City is housed directly in the applicable operating and capital funds, with payments for debt service listed as a line item in the financial plans.
The City is bound by a provision in state law limiting the indebtedness for California cities to 15% of the assessed value of all real and personal property of the city. Based on the 2021-22 total assessed value of $32.6 billion, San Mateo's legal debt limit for 2021-22 was $4.9 billion. For 2021-22, the City was only at 0.33% of its legal debt limit. This statutory limitations applies only to bonded indebtedness of the City payable from proceeds of taxes levied on a property. For San Mateo, this includes only the general obligation bonds. 699 of 846
2% Hotel Tax
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ 3,854 $ (572) $ 300 $ (17) $ (340) $ (644) $ (923) Revenues
Interest Earnings $ 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Transient Occupancy Tax 217 500 539 567 623 686 754
Total Revenues $ 219 $ 500 $ 539 $ 567 $ 623 $ 686 $ 754 Expenditures
Operating $ 142 $ 139 $ 136 $ 139 $ 142 $ 145 $ 148
Debt Service 425 457 720 750 785 820 855
Total Expenditures $ 567 $ 596 $ 856 $ 889 $ 927 $ 965 $ 1,003 Transfer In $ - $ 1,018 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Transfer Out $ 4,079 $ 49 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ (572) $ 300 $ (17) $ (340) $ (644) $ (923) $ (1,172) Values are shown in thousands.
The 2% Hotel Tax Fund accounts for the Measure C voter-approved 2% hotel tax revenue, the related transfers to the Capital Improvement Program Fund, and the debt service on the variable rate bonds that were utilized to partially fund the police administration facility.
Due to COVID, hotel taxes decreased significantly in 2020-21. $4 million was transfered out to support the construction work related to the new Fire Station 25 and to the Borel Park development. As a result, the fund balance went negative at the close of 2020-21. The General Fund made a one-time $1 million transfer to bring the fund back to positve. However, as shown in the five-year plan, the fund will continue facing pressure, largely due to slow revenue recovery and increased interest rates pushing debt service up. However, due to many uncertainties from COVID and the Federal monetary policy, it is determined that General Fund support is not required at this time. The fund will be monitored closely, and the plan will be updated accordingly as more information becomes available.
700 of 846
Capital Improvement Projects
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ 83,433 $ 63,800 $ 12,260 $ 14,294 $ 11,241 $ 11,881 $ 12,777 Revenues
Taxes, Fees, and Charges $ 9,275 $ 31,839 $ 10,880 $ 17,039 $ 17,522 $ 17,102 $ 31,780 Transfers from Sewer Fund 124,307 533,714 39,411 55,013 9,200 6,310 9,712 Other Sources 13,556 40,131 17,988 19,157 13,300 6,550 6,140 Total Revenues $ 147,138 $ 605,684 $ 68,279 $ 91,208 $ 40,022 $ 29,962 $ 47,632 Expenditures
Capital Outlay $ 167,356 $ 654,177 $ 67,357 $ 94,416 $ 39,533 $ 29,218 $ 44,895 Total Expenditures $ 167,356 $ 654,177 $ 67,357 $ 94,416 $ 39,533 $ 29,218 $ 44,895 Other Sources $ 584 $ (3,047) $ 1,112 $ 155 $ 151 $ 152 $ 152 Ending Fund Balance $ 63,800 $ 12,260 $ 14,294 $ 11,241 $ 11,881 $ 12,777 $ 15,666 Values are shown in thousands.
The Capital Improvement Program Fund is where the majority of the City's capital-related financials reside. Revenues for this fund include transfers in from other funds, including the General, Gas Tax, Sewer, Parks and Recreation Revenue, Road Maintenance and Rehabilitaion, and Traffic Impact Fee Funds, as well as from other tax and fee revenues. Projects in the Capital Improvement Program Fund are outlined in the CIP section of this budget 701 of 846
Sewer Fund
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ 224,255 $ 154,515 $ 353,862 $ 193,497 $ 166,237 $ 176,261 $ 215,703 Revenues
Interest Earnings $ 851 $ 950 $ 984 $ 1,012 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Operating Revenues 68,147 71,054 79,903 82,237 84,390 86,866 89,417 Bond/Loan Proceeds and Capital Contributions 5,726 391,947 4,574 4,666 4,308 23,914 - Total Revenues $ 74,724 $ 463,951 $ 85,461 $ 87,915 $ 89,698 $ 111,781 $ 90,417 Expenses
Operating and Maintenance $ 24,262 $ 26,444 $ 27,010 $ 27,576 $ 28,679 $ 29,826 $ 31,020 Capital Projects 105,277 224,548 202,637 73,121 28,174 13,043 12,900 Debt Service 14,925 13,612 14,434 14,478 22,820 29,469 27,835 Total Expenses $ 144,464 $ 264,604 $ 244,081 $ 115,175 $ 79,674 $ 72,339 $ 71,755 Transfer Out $ - $ - $ 1,744 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ 154,515 $ 353,862 $ 193,497 $ 166,237 $ 176,261 $ 215,703 $ 234,365 Values are shown in thousands.
The Sewer Fund consists of the sewer collection systems, the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), and disposal facilities serving the residents and businesses of San Mateo, Foster City, and portions of the neighboring communities of Hillsborough, Belmont, the Crystal Springs County Sanitation District, and certain unincorporated areas of the County. The sewer enterprise system currently serves approximately 30,000 customer accounts in the City and approximately 11,000 customer accounts in Foster City and the subregional customer communities utilizing the WWTP.
The fund's financial plan consists of two elements: (1) the 2022-23 proposed operating budget and forecast of future operational needs, and (2) estimated cash inflows and outflows for sewer capital improvement projects (CIP) during the forecast period. The capital expenses identified in this financial plan, as well as the corresponding bond/loan proceeds, are predominantly related to the execution of the Clean Water Program, which is discussed in detail in the Capital Improvement Program section of this document.
In 2018, the City Council adopted a five-year sewer rate structure for fiscal years 2018-19 through 2022-23 designed to provide sufficient revenues to fund ongoing operations and capital projections. The 50/50 volumetric/fixed fee structure was implemented. The new rate structure introduced a fixed monthly fee to better stabilized revenue and help address revenue reductions due to increased water conservation. A recent Sewer Rate Study found that the past rate increases have put the City's sewer fund in a good financial position. Additionally, the City has been successful in getting a large amount of the Clean Water Program financed with low interest rate loans. As a result, only inflationary level rate increases will be required for future years.
The financial plan will be continually monitored and this plan will be updated accordingly. 702 of 846
Vehicle and Equipment Replacement
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ 19,728 $ 20,041 $ 17,631 $ 12,062 $ 11,677 $ 12,173 $ 12,834 Revenues
Interest Earnings $ 16 $ - $ 236 $ 216 $ 228 $ 238 $ 251 Rental Charges - Vehicles 765 653 719 719 741 741 741
Rental Charges - Computers 221 173 214 214 220 220 220
Rental Charges - Radios 20 14 43 43 44 44 44
Rental Charges - Major Equipment 533 729 719 719 740 740 740 Rental Charges - Furniture 82 69 67 67 69 69 69
Other Revenues 26 8 - - - - -
Total Revenues $ 1,662 $ 1,646 $ 1,998 $ 1,978 $ 2,042 $ 2,052 $ 2,065 Expenses
Vehicle Replacement $ 963 $ 1,384 $ 4,373 $ 523 $ 889 $ 476 $ 1,266 Computer Replacement 44 131 1,270 503 236 72 60
Radio Replacement - - 274 - 399 - -
Major Equipment Replacement 93 307 2,040 1,740 376 1,233 283 Furniture Replacement 26 21 64 7 56 20 27
Other Capital Outlay 399 (264) - - - - -
Contribution to San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department - - - - - - - Total Expenses $ 1,525 $ 1,578 $ 8,020 $ 2,773 $ 1,956 $ 1,802 $ 1,637 Transfer In $ 410 $ 410 $ 704 $ 410 $ 410 $ 410 $ 410
Transfer Out $ 235 $ 2,888 $ 250 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ 20,041 $ 17,631 $ 12,062 $ 11,677 $ 12,173 $ 12,834 $ 13,673 Reserve for Major Building Component Replacements $ 1,640 $ 2,050 $ 2,460 $ 2,870 $ 3,280 $ 3,690 $ 4,100 Remaining Fund Balance $ 18,401 $ 15,581 $ 9,602 $ 8,807 $ 8,893 $ 9,144 $ 9,573 Values are shown in thousands.
The Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund accounts for charges to user departments to fund the replacement of vehicles and equipment. This includes vehicles, computers, radios, furniture, and other major equipment. Funds for future replacement are collected while vehicles and equipment are in service so that when it is time for replacement, adequate funds are available. Accumulated fund balance in this fund is estimated to be over $15 million at the end of fiscal year 2021-22. Unlike the Fleet and Building Maintenance Fund, which is entirely an operating fund and doesn't require a significant fund balance, the Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund should have a significant fund balance by nature. As noted, funds are collected for future replacement while vehicles and equipment are in use so that those funds are available when the replacement is needed. Because of that, funds will accumulate over time for that replacement.
This fund collects annually from the operating departments, so it is also important that the amount of available fund balance considers this. To that end, a long-term spending plan is an important tool for managing this type of fund. Understanding spending needs over the short- and long-term and factoring in fund balance allows the City to set a collection amount that ensures funding is available when vehicles and equipment need to be replaced, but does not maintain such a large fund balance that creates an unneccesary burden on the other funds, particularly the General Fund. This five-year plan captures the long-term spending plans for each of the replacement categories, and sets future collections to ensure funding for replacements is available and fund balance is set at an appropriate level.
In 2018-19, the City's fire operations were transferred to the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department (SMC Fire). Replacement funds that had been collected for the City's fire vehicles, apparatus, and equipment were to be transferred to SMC Fire over a three-year period. The first two transfers to SMC Fire were made in 2018-19 and 2019-20. A review of the fund by each member agency determined that the final and third transfer to SMC Fire was not necessary. SMC Fire has established its own Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund since, and will use that fund for future fire vehicles and equipment replacement.
In 2020-21, $2,000,000 was committed as a transfer out to the Capital Projects Fund to fund the replacement of the City's enterprise resource planning (ERP) software. Additional appropriation of $872,422 was approved for this project in 2021-22, making a total of $2,872,422.
The five-year plan further captures a portion of the fund balance that is reserved for major building component replacements. Since 2017-18, the General Fund transfers $410,000 each year to this reserve. As the reserve balance reaches an appropriate level and major building replacement projects are identified, the accumulated funds will be utilized to fund the projects through a transfer to the Capital Projects Fund, and this plan will be updated accordingly. 703 of 846
Fleet and Building Maintenance
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ (207) $ 421 $ 519 $ 298 $ 170 $ 115 $ 138 Revenues
Charges to Dept. - Building $ 3,462 $ 3,462 $ 3,566 $ 3,709 $ 3,857 $ 4,011 $ 4,172 Charges to Dept. - Fleet 1,697 1,863 1,949 2,027 2,108 2,192 2,280 Other Revenues 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Total Revenues $ 5,167 $ 5,332 $ 5,522 $ 5,743 $ 5,972 $ 6,211 $ 6,459 Expenses
Personnel $ 1,643 $ 1,753 $ 1,939 $ 2,004 $ 2,044 $ 2,085 $ 2,127 Operating 2,863 3,449 3,772 3,836 3,951 4,069 4,191
Capital Outlay 33 32 32 32 33 33 34
Total Expenses $ 4,539 $ 5,234 $ 5,743 $ 5,871 $ 6,027 $ 6,187 $ 6,351 Transfer In $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Transfer Out $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ 421 $ 519 $ 298 $ 170 $ 115 $ 138 $ 246 Values are shown in thousands.
The Fleet and Building Maintenance Fund accounts for charges to user departments and the expenses related to the maintenance of City vehicles and buildings. This fund is primarily operational in nature, with vehicle and equipment replacement expenses being housed in a separate internal service fund. As such, charges to user departments, over time, should be set fairly close to expected expenses, as there is not a need to keep a significant amount of fund balance in this fund. With expenses outpacing revenues in the past few years, collections were set to increase significantly (starting from 2020-21) to ensure the fund remains healthy and with an appropriate level of reserves. 704 of 846
Benefits 2020-21 Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ 401 $ 116 $ 416 $ 661 $ 899 $ 1,131 $ 1,355 Revenues
Internal Service Charge - Pension $ 21,835 $ 23,779 $ 26,530 $ 28,414 $ 29,780 $ 29,768 $ 30,703 Internal Service Charge - Social Security/Medicare 3,075 3,117 3,459 3,528 3,598 3,670 3,743 Internal Service Charge - Healthcare 8,317 8,434 8,615 8,869 9,148 9,472 9,809 Internal Service Charge - Severance Trust 1,189 1,177 1,224 1,248 1,273 1,298 1,324 Internal Service Charge - Other 2,499 2,371 2,650 2,743 2,799 2,856 2,914 Total Revenues $ 36,914 $ 38,879 $ 42,479 $ 44,802 $ 46,599 $ 47,065 $ 48,493 Expenses
Pension $ 21,928 $ 23,975 $ 26,530 $ 28,414 $ 29,780 $ 29,768 $ 30,703 Social Security/Medicare 3,075 3,117 3,459 3,528 3,598 3,670 3,743 Healthcare 8,457 8,216 8,511 8,764 9,043 9,367 9,705
Severance Trust 1,089 1,099 1,143 1,166 1,189 1,213 1,237 Other 2,649 2,172 2,591 2,692 2,757 2,822 2,889
Total Expenses $ 37,198 $ 38,579 $ 42,234 $ 44,564 $ 46,367 $ 46,841 $ 48,277 Ending Fund Balance $ 116 $ 416 $ 661 $ 899 $ 1,131 $ 1,355 $ 1,571 Values are shown in thousands.
The Benefits Fund accounts for the collection of funds from operating departments to cover the cost of employee benefits. The expenses covered by this fund include pension, social security/medicare, retiree healthcare, the City's payment for medical premiums for active employees, funding for the severance trust (to pay for the cashout of unused vacation to employees who retire or otherwise leave the City), as well as a few other benefit costs, such as life insurance and long-term disability insurance. In some cases, the cost of providing these benefits is known and collections can be set accordingly. For example, the normal cost of pensions is set as a percentage of pay, so collections can be set based on that percentage of pay. In other cases, such as for the funding of the severance trust, the cost is an estimate based on historical actuals, but will fluctuate annually based on different factors. Thus, to accommodate the fluctuation of expenses like those related to the severance trust, the fund should maintain some level of fund balance. To that end, collections for the various components of this fund have been set to collect costs to fund the programs adequately while maintaining a level of fund balance that allows for the year-over-year fluctuations without requiring a transfer from the General Fund.
The largest expense category in this fund is related to pension expenses. As discussed in detail in the Budget Overview section of the budget document, pension expenses are expected to increase significantly over the next five to seven years as the result of a number of factors. These increases will continue to put pressure on the operating funds, as a larger and larger percentage of the budget will be required to cover pension cost increases.
After the transfer of the City's fire operations to SMC Fire in 2018-19, with the exception of the Bureau of Fire Protection and Life Safety (Bureau), what remains as the City's responsibility is the former fire department employees' unfunded pension liability and retiree health benefits, as those costs are attributable to years of service to the City. These legacy costs are transferred from the General Fund and administered through this fund. Bureau activities are designed to be full cost recovery, so with the transition to SMC Fire, legacy pension costs for former Bureau personnel are the responsibility of SMC Fire.
Fund balance declined significantly in 2020-21, in part due to the record-high year in Unemployment Insurance benefits. Federal legislation provided extended benefits until September 2021, and there should be a decline in unemployement expenses in the second quarter of 2021-22 as the City re-employs staff or the benefit period expires. While the five-year forecast has the fund building back up its fund balance gradually, actual expenses will be analyzed over time and annual collections will be adjusted accordingly. 705 of 846
Dental
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ 670 $ 791 $ 900 $ 892 $ 869 $ 831 $ 776 Revenues
Internal Service Charges $ 817 $ 794 $ 762 $ 785 $ 809 $ 833 $ 858 Total Revenues $ 817 $ 794 $ 762 $ 785 $ 809 $ 833 $ 858 Expenses
Insurance Premiums $ 696 $ 685 $ 770 $ 808 $ 847 $ 888 $ 931 Total Expenses $ 696 $ 685 $ 770 $ 808 $ 847 $ 888 $ 931 Ending Fund Balance $ 791 $ 900 $ 892 $ 869 $ 831 $ 776 $ 703 Values are shown in thousands.
The Dental Self-Insurance Fund accounts for the City's self-insurance activities related to the dental plan the City provides its employees. Collections for this fund are made by charging departments a flat amount for each employee. Expenses in this fund consist almost entirely of the premiums the City pays on behalf of its employees for dental coverage. As actual expenses are analyzed over time, annual collections amounts will be adjusted accordingly. 706 of 846
Workers' Compensation Insurance
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ 223 $ (183) $ 2,918 $ 1,035 $ 706 $ 784 $ 1,023 Revenues
Interest Earnings $ 18 $ 32 $ 268 $ 306 $ 306 $ 306 $ 306 Internal Service Charges 4,485 4,371 3,623 3,804 3,994 4,194 4,404 Total Revenues $ 4,502 $ 4,403 $ 3,891 $ 4,110 $ 4,300 $ 4,500 $ 4,710 Expenses
Personnel $ 408 $ 413 $ 404 $ 413 $ 421 $ 429 $ 438
Operating 756 945 946 972 1,001 1,031 1,062
Claims 3,145 2,000 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600
Acturial Adjustment 599 (2,057) 324 455 200 200 200
Total Expenses $ 4,908 $ 1,301 $ 4,274 $ 4,440 $ 4,222 $ 4,261 $ 4,300 Transfer Out $ - $ - $ 1,500 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ (183) $ 2,918 $ 1,035 $ 706 $ 784 $ 1,023 $ 1,433 Values are shown in thousands.
The Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund accounts for all workers' compensation self-insurance activities. This includes the cost of claims, insurance, legal and other professional services, and program administration. The total cost of claims constitutes the largest expense in this fund. Workers' compensation expenses can fluctuate significantly year-over-year based on the total cost of claims, which includes any adjustments to the total liability of the fund due to actuariallydetermined changes in experience. Over the past 10 years, total expenses (excluding acturial accounting adjustment) have been as high as $4.3 million and as low as $1.6 million.
Funding for the Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund comes from collections from all of the operations across all funds that include personnel. Departments are charged a percentage of pay for each employee, and the amount of the charge depends on the type of employee. Positions that historically have higher workers' compensation experience, such as police employees, are charged a higher rate than positions with historically lower experience. Collections from departments are set in an effort to ensure adequate funding for this program, including having funds set aside in reserve to cover years where claims expenses were unusually high.
In 2019-20, the fund received a $3.5 million transfer from the General Fund to prevent the fund from going further to a negative balance. However, based on the latest actuarial study, the City's workers' compensation liabilities for 2021-22 were adjusted down by $2 million. As such, the fund will only need to keep $2 million from the General Fund transfer. The excess $1.5 million will be transferred out to the Comprehensive Liability Fund.
With the transfer of the City's fire operations to San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department (SMC Fire), with the exception of former Fire personnel that served in the Bureau of Fire Protection and Life Safety (Bureau), as it is a cost recovery program, claims that were incurred while the fire employees were City employees will remain in this fund and as the City's responsiblility. While SMC Fire has paid the City for the present value of former Bureau legacy workers' compensation, which reflects open claims and claims that have been closed since SMC Fire commencement of operations, as updated actuarial studies are performed in subsequent fiscal years, the City will prepare an annual analysis to 1) compare actuarial assumptions to the current actuarial study, including the discount rate or cost of healthcare, 2) evaluate new claims if the City is assigned proportional responsiblity. The City will then compare the amount of legacy costs paid by SMC Fire (from its Bureau) to the City with the update workers' compensation liability and resume collecting additional costs as appropriate. 707 of 846
Comprehensive Liability
2020-21
Actuals
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Forecast
2025-26
Forecast
2026-27
Forecast
Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,853 $ 589 $ (708) $ 1,748 $ 1,469 $ 1,327 $ 1,356 Revenues
Investment/Interest Earnings $ 44 $ 10 $ 10 $ 28 $ 32 $ 32 $ 32 Interfund Charges 1,400 1,610 2,236 2,761 3,434 4,273 5,322 Total Revenues $ 1,444 $ 1,620 $ 2,246 $ 2,789 $ 3,466 $ 4,305 $ 5,354 Expenses
Personnel $ 116 $ 133 $ 140 $ 143 $ 146 $ 149 $ 152
Insurance Premiums 1,221 1,339 1,771 2,037 2,546 3,183 3,979 Claims 745 923 250 250 258 266 274
Attorney's Fees 346 300 430 430 443 456 470
Other Costs 281 221 199 209 215 222 228
Total Expenses $ 2,709 $ 2,917 $ 2,789 $ 3,069 $ 3,608 $ 4,275 $ 5,103 Transfer In $ - $ - $ 3,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ 589 $ (708) $ 1,748 $ 1,469 $ 1,327 $ 1,356 $ 1,607 Values are shown in thousands.
The Comprehensive Liability Insurance Fund accounts for the City's general liability program. Expenses in this fund primarily consist of insurance premiums, the cost of claims, legal and other professional services, and program administration.
As anticipated, the budget for the general liability program reflects increasingly higher costs. The City's insurance premium was $0.6 million in 2017-18 and is projected to be at $1.7 millon for 2022-23. The California public entity insurance marketplace has been changing dramatically in recent years, and public agencies throughout the state are seeing a significant increase in plaintiff demands and high dollar liability claims.
Areas of particular concern include wildfire, dangerous conditions, road design, intersections, sidewalks, and public safety services. Insurance premiums are anticipated to increase considerably.
In addition to high insurance costs, the last two years have turned out to be some of the unusually high claims years, causing the fund's balance to be negative in short term. To address this, the baseline collections amount has been set to increase in the five-year forecast and $3 million will be transferred from other funds ($1.5 million from the Workers' Compensation Fund and $1.5 million from the Sewer Fund) to help to return the fund to a positive fund balance. Activities in this fund will continually be monitored closely and this plan will be updated accordingly.
708 of 846
Amount Source
A Last Year's Limit $ 234,724,213 2021-22 Limit
B Adjustment Factors
1. Population 0.9910 CA Dept. of Finance
2. Inflation 1.0755 CA Dept. of Finance
1.0658 B1*B2
Total Adjustment % 0.0658 B1*B2-1
C Annual Adjustment $ 15,449,665 A*B
D This Year's Limit $ 250,173,878 A+C
E Tax Proceeds Subject to the Limit
Property Tax $ 80,923,903 2022-23 Budget
Sales Tax $ 29,057,000 2022-23 Budget
Property Transfer Tax $ 11,100,000 2022-23 Budget
Other Tax $ 10,000,553 2022-23 Budget
Interest Allocation $ 4,999,000 2022-23 Budget
Total $ 136,080,456
Amount Under / (Over) Limit $ 114,093,422 D-E
City of San Mateo Appropriations Limit for Fiscal
Year 2022-23
709 of 846
Funded Projects
Project # Project Name
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Plan
2025-26
Plan
2026-27
Plan Five-Year Total
130004 PEDESTRIAN MALL CONSTRUCTION $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000 310330 ART IN PUBLIC PLACES 300,000 300,000 - - - 600,000 310521 MINOR HOME REPAIR 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 - 440,000 310600 CHILD CARE FACILITIES 2,000,000 - - - - 2,000,000 460037 EL CAMINO REAL AT HIGHWAY 92 LANDSCAPRE IMPROVEMENT 22,000 - - - - 22,000 460040 HIGH VOLTAGE STREET LIGHT CONVERSION 1,625,000 4,950,000 - - - 6,575,000 460043 KING CENTER KITCHENS REMODEL 160,000 400,000 - - - 560,000 460048 RELOCATE ELECTRICAL ROOM AT TRANSIT CENTER 50,000 - - - - 50,000 460062 TRASH CAPTURE AT POPLAR AVENUE AND MONTE DIABLO AVENUE 500,000 500,000 250,000 - - 1,250,000 461001 DOWNTOWN PARKING IMPROVEMENTS 500,000 - - - - 500,000 461008 CITYWIDE PAID PARKING EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION - 66,500 155,000 - - 221,500 461214 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECTS 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 - 1,200,000 462004 CITYWIDE BRIDGE MAINTENANCE 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 400,000 462205 TRAIN QUIET ZONE 235,000 - - - - 235,000
462226 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 462249 HILLSDALE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS - 310,000 - - - 310,000 462250 BERMUDA DRIVE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 782,000 5,110,000 - - - 5,892,000 462897 PARK CITYWIDE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT - PUBLIC WORKS 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 - 60,000 463004 CITYWIDE STREET LIGHTS - 195,000 - - - 195,000
463231 CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM 370,000 370,000 370,000 370,000 - 1,480,000 463337 PARROTT DRIVE AND ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION - - 180,000 1,700,000 - 1,880,000 463338 NORFOLK STREET AND FASHION ISLAND BOULEVARD INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION - 150,000 1,910,000 - - 2,060,000 463535 US 101 AND PENINSULA AVENUE INTERCHANGE PROJECT 600,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,600,000 465162 CITYWIDE BICYCLE PARKING 10,000 10,000 10,000 - - 30,000 465333 CITYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL RETIMING - 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000 465432 EL CAMINO REAL LEFT-TURN POCKET - TILTON AVENUE AND BALDWIN AVENUE - 45,000 - - - 45,000 466600 CITYWIDE TRAFFIC CALMING - 150,000 150,000 150,000 135,000 585,000 466601 TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE 200,000 - - - - 200,000
466607 CITYWIDE SIGN INVENTORY AND REPLACEMENT 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 135,000 735,000 467008 CITYWIDE STREET REHABILITATION PACKAGE II 4,000,000 - - - - 4,000,000 467009 CITYWIDE STREET REHABILITATION PACKAGE III 900,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 18,900,000 467773 CITYWIDE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PACKAGE III 3,100,000 3,800,000 3,900,000 3,900,000 - 14,700,000 468007 COLUMBIA DRIVE AND CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD STORM DRAIN CHANNEL 1,500,000 1,390,000 - - - 2,890,000 469031 ADA COMPLIANCE AND TRANSITION PLANNING 50,000 - - - - 50,000 469933 ROOT FOAMING 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 - 1,600,000 469981 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT - SEWER PROJECTS 5,933,000 3,570,528 - - - 9,503,528 469988 EAST SAN MATEO LIFT STATION - 10,517,756 - - - 10,517,756 469997 CITYWIDE STREET REHABILITATION PROGRAM - - - - 4,300,000 4,300,000 46C001 SMALL TRASH CAPTURE DEVICES 250,000 250,000 500,000 750,000 750,000 2,500,000 46F007 CITY HALL RESTROOM IMPROVEMENTS 410,000 - - - - 410,000 46F013 CORP YARD UNDERGROUND TANK REPLACEMENT 750,000 - - - - 750,000 46F014 CITY HALL PROJECTS 150,000 1,750,000 3,100,000 500,000 500,000 6,000,000 46F015 PARK RESTROOM PHASE V (LAKESHORE/SHOREVIEW) - 250,000 - - - 250,000 46F016 PAINT MAIN LIBRARY 50,000 - - - - 50,000
46F017 OFFICES - ACOUSTIC ATTENUATION - LIBRARY 425,000 - - - - 425,000 46F018 PANIC BUTTONS @ ATRIUM COUNTERS & INTERNAL OFFICES - 180,000 - - - 180,000 46F019 SHOREVIEW PICKLEBALL COURTS 380,000 - - - - 380,000 46F020 WASHINGTON PARK BASKETBALL COURT RESURFACING 300,000 - - - - 300,000 46F021 OFFICES - ACOUSTIC ATTENUATION - CITY HALL - 16,000 - - - 16,000 46F022 TRANSACTION COUNTER SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS - - 80,000 - - 80,000 46F023 SHOREVIEW BASKETBALL COURT - RESURFACE - 300,000 - - - 300,000 46F024 GATEWAY PARK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REFURBISHMENT 560,000 - - - - 560,000 46F025 PARKING FACILITY STRUCTURAL REPAIRS - 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,000,000 46F026 NEW CENTRAL PARK PARKING GARAGE - - - - 18,000,000 18,000,000 46M001 RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS 846,125 - - - - 846,125 46R001 HILLSDALE BOULEVARD AND ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS SIGNAL 430,000 400,000 - - - 830,000 46R004 TRAFFIC SIGNAL VIDEO DETECTION REPLACEMENT 100,000 100,000 - - - 200,000 46R009 GRAMMERCY DRIVE RETAINING WALL 75,000 2,350,000 - - - 2,425,000 46R010 25TH AVENUE UNDERGROUNDING - PHASE II 130,000 683,500 3,027,000 - - 3,840,500 46S005 BASIN 4 COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 6,500,000 18,125,000 - - - 24,625,000 46S090 CLEAN WATER PROGRAM (CWP) SEWER FLOW MONITORING AND REPORTING 100,000 90,000 90,000 85,545 125,000 490,545 46S091 CLEAN WATER PROGRAM (CWP) ANNUAL CITYWIDE SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION 11,700,000 8,100,000 3,000,000 5,824,477 5,116,731 33,741,208 46S093 CLEAN WATER PROGRAM (CWP) CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION (CCTV) INSPECTION PROGRAM 600,000 500,000 468,330 - 900,000 2,468,330 46T003 WWTP AND FLOW MANAGEMENT UPGRADE AND EXPANSION 14,100,000 11,210,000 4,216,315 - 3,570,216 33,096,531 46T090 CLEAN WATER PROGRAM (CWP) WWTP ANNUAL MAJOR COMPONENTS - 2,500,000 1,025,114 - - 3,525,114 511000 RADIO DISPATCH CONSOLES 444,000 - - - - 444,000
512000 EXTERNAL RADIO INFRASTRUCTURE - 642,000 - - - 642,000 513000 POLICE RADIOS - HAND HELD & MOBILE - - 662,000 - - 662,000 610008 TREE PLANTING - PARKS DIVISION 400,000 400,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,400,000 610017 CITYWIDE PARK PLAY AREA UPGRADE 566,848 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 9,566,848 610023 SPORTS FIELDS CONVERSION - SYNTHETIC TURF - 500,000 1,000,000 500,000 - 2,000,000 610027 CENTRAL PARK - 2,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 10,000,000 610036 RECREATION FACILITIES STRATEGIC PLAN - 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 6,000,000 610038 SKATE PLAZA UPDATES 400,000 - - - - 400,000
665100 MARINA LIBRARY STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS 3,500,000 - - - - 3,500,000 Total Recommended Project Budgets $ 67,928,973 $ 94,031,284 $ 39,143,759 $ 28,830,022 $ 44,506,947 $ 274,440,985 Funded Projects
710 of 846
Capital Improvement Program Plan Summary
Description
2021-22
Estimated
2022-23
Proposed
2023-24
Projected
2024-25
Plan
2025-26
Plan
2026-27
Plan
Five-Year
Total
Beginning Fund Balance $ 63,799,683 $ 12,259,659 $ 12,971,600 $ 9,168,701 $ 10,197,948 $ 11,481,873 Revenue
GENERAL FUND $ 4,295,000 $ 9,750,000 $ 7,250,000 $ 4,250,000 $ 4,250,000 $ 4,250,000 $ 29,750,000 2% HOTEL TAX FUND TRANSFER IN 49,143 - - - - - -
GAS TAX FUND TRANSFER IN 1,659,294 987,000 1,601,000 1,210,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 6,198,000 MEASURE A 2,311,000 2,391,885 2,475,601 2,562,247 2,651,926 2,744,743 12,826,402 MEASURE S TRACKING FUND TRANSFER IN 2,453,539 3,054,000 1,862,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,450,000 8,466,000 MEASURE W 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 PARKING IN-LIEU FEE 200,000 350,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 18,000,000 19,250,000 PARKS AND RECREATION REVENUE FUND TRANSFER IN 14,203,544 725,000 7,500,000 8,000,000 7,500,000 4,000,000 27,725,000 ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION FUND TRANSFER IN 3,887,568 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 10,300,000 SEWER FUND TRANSFER IN 533,714,255 39,411,000 55,013,284 9,199,759 6,310,022 9,711,947 119,646,012 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND TRANSFER IN 5,973,798 222,000 150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,135,000 3,807,000 TREE REPLACEMENT FEE 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 OTHER SOURCES 35,786,663 7,487,973 10,771,500 9,050,000 2,300,000 1,890,000 31,499,473 Total Revenue $ 605,683,803 $ 67,528,858 $ 90,073,385 $ 40,022,006 $ 29,961,948 $ 47,631,690 $ 275,217,887 Recommended Project Budgets
GENERAL FUND $ 14,137,324 $ 8,977,000 $ 9,766,500 $ 3,232,000 $ 2,335,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 26,310,500 2% HOTEL TAX FUND PROJECTS 49,143 - - - - - -
GAS TAX FUND PROJECTS 1,659,294 987,000 1,601,000 1,210,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 6,198,000 MEASURE A 5,977,015 3,515,000 2,817,000 2,542,000 3,275,000 1,460,000 13,609,000 MEASURE S TRACKING FUND PROJECTS 2,453,539 3,054,000 1,862,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,450,000 8,466,000 MEASURE W 1,001,500 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 PARKING IN-LIEU FEE 5,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 19,000,000 22,000,000 PARKS AND RECREATION REVENUE FUND PROJECTS 14,203,544 725,000 7,500,000 8,000,000 7,500,000 4,000,000 27,725,000 ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION FUND PROJECTS 3,887,568 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 10,300,000 SEWER FUND PROJECTS 533,714,255 39,411,000 55,013,284 9,199,759 6,310,022 9,711,947 119,646,012 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND PROJECTS 5,973,798 222,000 150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,135,000 3,807,000 TREE REPLACEMENT FEE 336,570 200,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 700,000 OTHER SOURCES 65,783,271 7,837,973 11,121,500 8,560,000 1,810,000 1,350,000 30,679,473 Total Recommended Project Budgets $ 654,176,819 $ 67,928,973 $ 94,031,284 $ 39,143,759 $ 28,830,022 $ 44,506,947 $ 274,440,985 Other Sources * $ (3,047,008) $ 1,112,056 $ 155,000 $ 151,000 $ 152,000 $ 152,000 $ 1,722,056 Ending Fund Balance $ 12,259,659 $ 12,971,600 $ 9,168,701 $ 10,197,948 $ 11,481,873 $ 14,758,616 * South Bayfront Levee and South Trunk Impact Fee
Capital Improvement Program Plan Summary
711 of 846
CITY OF SAN MATEO
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 22 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: 10-1311 File ID: 22-6299 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2022
SUBJECT:
Ballot Measure to Increase Existing Real Property Transfer Tax Rate for Properties Sold for $10 Million or More RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce an Ordinance to amend provisions of Chapter 3.48 “Real Property Document Transfer Tax” of the San Mateo Municipal Code to increase the City’s existing real property transfer tax from 0.5% to 1.5% for properties sold or transferred for $10 million or more; and adopt a Resolution to call the election and place the measure on the November 8, 2022 ballot.
BACKGROUND:
The City has taken significant steps to reduce expenditures and respond to the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. While progress has been made to balance the City’s operational budget, the fiscal year 2022-23 General Fund budget is expecting a $4.7 million deficit and the long-range financial forecast indicates the General Fund is expected to draw down nearly $30 million in reserves over the next 5 years. Furthermore, concerns over the State’s potentially unconstitutional reduction of excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds due to the property tax in lieu of Vehicle License Fee (VLF) shortfall could impact the City’s budget. The fiscal year 2022-23 budget is scheduled for adoption during this meeting and further details about the City’s financial forecast were presented during the June 6, 2022 Council review of the proposed budget and capital improvement program.
Nearly $300 million in unfunded capital needs have also been identified, including improvements to recreation and library facilities, repaving roads to prevent failed streets, implementing environmental sustainability efforts, and improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. To maintain and enhance vital services to the community, the City has explored potential revenue enhancement measures.
Earlier this year, the City hired independent survey firm True North Research to gauge the community’s priorities and the feasibility of potential revenue measures that could be placed on the November 8, 2022 ballot. After considering the survey results during a study session on May 16, 2022, the City Council directed staff to proceed with a ballot measure to increase the City’s existing Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) for properties sold or transferred for $10 million or more. A draft ordinance to amend provisions of Chapter 3.48 “Real Property Document Transfer Tax” of the Municipal Code, which includes proposed ballot language, is included as Attachment 2.
Changes to Real Property Transfer Tax
As a charter city, San Mateo has an existing voter-approved RPTT that has been in effect since 1977 and includes a flat rate of 0.5% (one-half percent) for all properties, regardless of their sales price. RPTT applies to commercial as well as residential properties, and is only paid when a property is sold or transferred – ie. it is not paid annually.
Other charter cities in the Bay Area, including San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, and San Jose have recently 712 of 846
CITY OF SAN MATEO
shifted from a flat rate to a tiered structure. Staff evaluated several alternatives to adjust the RPTT to a tiered system, whereby properties sold for a higher amount would pay a higher tax rate. Based on property sales and transfers in fiscal year 2020-21, it is anticipated increasing the City’s RPTT only for properties sold for $10 million or more could generate $4.8 million annually and would only affect 0.5% of properties sold.
It’s important to note that properties sold or transferred for less than $10 million, which constitute the vast majority of total sales, would not experience any change to the existing RPTT. According to the San Mateo County Association of Realtors, in calendar year 2021 in the City of San Mateo the median sale price of a single-family home and of a condo was $1.84 million and $880,000, respectively.
Table 1: RPTT Scenario Based on 2021 Sales
Property Sale Price % of Total sales
in 2021 Tiered Rate Revenue Under Tiered Rate
Revenue Under
Status Quo Difference
$0 to $10 million 99.5% 0.50% $9.5 $9.5 $0.0
$10 million and above 0.5% 1.50% $7.2 $2.4 $4.8
Total (in millions) $16.7 $11.9 $4.8
Revenue Enhancement Measure Evaluation
During the City’s consideration of potential measures, True North Research conducted a split poll to gauge voter support for either a sales tax increase or changes to the RPTT. Half of the 678 participants were polled on a multi-tiered RPTT structure that included the lowest tier set at $2.5 million. Only 49% of respondents indicated support for such a structure, although support increased slightly when asked if they would support setting the lowest tier at $3 million. Although support was higher for the sales tax increase, during the May 16 study session, several Council members indicated concern over proposing a sales tax at this time due to current inflation and as it is traditionally viewed as a more regressive tax.
Council instead preferred an RPTT measure with a more streamlined two-tier structure with only changes to the rate paid by properties sold for $10 million or more. Because the survey did not include this particular RPTT structure, it is unknown how participants may have responded and whether support would have been higher.
Many voters may not be familiar with what an RPTT is, therefore staff and True North Research recommend the City provide the public with neutral information about the measure, as permitted by law. Staff has contracted with TBWBH, a communications consulting firm that specializes in local government measures and has worked extensively in San Mateo County and the Bay Area. Staff is requesting a supplemental budget appropriation of $80,000 of unassigned fund balance from the General Fund to the City Manager's 2021-22 operating budget to cover these consulting services.
General Tax Measure & Ballot Language
General tax measures require a simple majority of voter approval and must be placed on a ballot during a regular election.
Attachment 1 is a resolution to call a general municipal election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 for the purpose of submitting a proposed ordinance to increase the City’s RPTT for properties sold or transferred for $10 million or more. At least four Council votes are needed to approve the ordinance and resolution placing the measure on the ballot.
The proposed 75-word ballot measure is as follows:
To fund essential local general services in the City of San Mateo, such as street repairs, parks, recreation, fire protection, emergency response, and crime prevention; and improving intersections, sidewalks and bike lanes for safety and reduced traffic congestion; shall the measure, increasing the City of San Mateo’s existing transfer tax on property sales of $10 million or more, from 0.5% to 1.5%, generating approximately $4.8 million annually, until ended by voters, with independent audits and all money locally controlled, be adopted? 713 of 846
CITY OF SAN MATEO
The deadline to submit a measure to the County Elections Office is Aug. 12, 2022. While there is one more regularlyscheduled meeting before this deadline on July 18, the Council may introduce the ordinance and place the measure on the ballot at this meeting.
The deadline to submit primary ballot arguments is August 19, 2022, and rebuttal arguments are due August 29, 2022.
Council can decide to allow members of the community to submit ballot arguments, which occurred during 2015 for Measure S. Or if Council prefers to submit a ballot argument itself, a Council subcommittee can draft the argument that would be brought back for full Council consideration at a subsequent meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT:
A supplemental budget appropriation of $80,000 of unassigned fund balance from the General Fund to the City Manager's 2021-22 operating budget is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This item is not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
Att 2 – Proposed Ordinance (Exhibit A to Proposed Resolution)
STAFF CONTACT
Samantha Weigel, Communications Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7005
Rich Lee, Finance Director
[email protected]
(650) 522-7102
714 of 846
CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. __(2022)
ORDERING AND CALLING AGENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TOBE HELD INTHE CITY OF SAN MATEO ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022, SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A MEASURE TO INCREASE THE RATE TO ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT (1.5%) FOR THE EXISTING TAX ON SALE OR TRANSFER OF
PROPERTIES VALUED AT TEN MILLION DOLLARS OR MORE
WHEREAS, San Mateo is a city with excellent quality of life services that maintain our unique community character; and
WHEREAS, the City recently commissioned two independent surveysin the City of San Mateo that show residents are highly satisfied with San Mateo's quality of life and want quality of life services to continue to be addressed in a significant manner; and
WHEREAS, the economic recession, declining revenues, and historical State takeaways – including $44 million dollarsfrom San Mateo’s portion of the state’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund over the last 30 years- have affected-San Mateo's ability to consistently maintain essential city services; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo has over $300 million in unfunded needs, affecting the City's ability to maintain and improve city streets, sidewalks and potholes, among other infrastructure needs; and
WHEREAS, continuing locally controlled funding will give San Mateo local control over local fundsfor local needs, without fear ofsuch funds being taken by the State, and WHEREAS, the San Mateo City Council has taken proactive steps to reduce expenditures, and maintain the level of services the community has come to expect; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo City Council has determined to place on the ballot a measure to increase the tax rate from one-half of one percent (0.5%) to one and one-half percent (1.5%) for the sale or other transfer of properties valued at ten million dollars or more.
WHEREAS, an increase to the City’s Real Property Documentary Transfer tax for properties valued at $10 million or more is only expected to impact approximately 0.5% of properties sold or transferred in the City; and
WHEREAS, increasing locally-controlled funding would permit our City to continue to address the community's priorities, including maintaining parks, open spaces, and recreation facilities; repairing potholes and failed streets that have fallen into disrepair; maintaining emergency medical and fire protection services; providing police and crime prevention programs; addressing traffic issues and homelessness; making changes to reduce environmental impacts and reduce stormwater pollution; and improving sidewalks, bike lanes and roads to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety; and 715 of 846
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCILOF THE CITYOF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council approves the proposed ordinance set forth in Exhibit A, “AnOrdinance of theCityofSanMateoAmendingSections3.48.010and3.48.030ofChapter3.48,‘RealPropertyDocumentTransferTax,’ to Increase the Tax Rate toOne andOne-Half Percent(1.5%)forthe Sale orOther Transfer of PropertiesValued at Ten Million Dollars or More,” attached hereto and incorporated in this Resolution by this reference, for submission to the voters of the City, and orders that the Ballots for the election shall be in the form provided by law, and that the ballot question shall appear on the ballot in the following form and shall be submitted to the voters of the City:
YES
To fund essential local general services in the City of San Mateo, such as street repairs, parks, recreation, fire protection, emergency response, and crime prevention; and improving intersections, sidewalks, and bike lanes for safety and reduced traffic congestion; shall the measure, increasing the City of San Mateo’s existing transfer tax on property sales of $10 million or more, from 0.5% to 1.5%, generating approximately $4.8 million annually, until ended by voters, with independent audits and all money locally controlled, be adopted?
NO
2. In accordance with Elections Code 10403, the City Council hereby calls for an election regarding the above measure and directs that such election be consolidated with all city, county, and statewide elections occurring on November 8, 2022. The election shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by Elections Code section 10418. In all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
3. The City Clerk is directed to forward the proposed measure to the City Attorney for preparation of an impartial analysis in accordance with Section 9280 of the Elections Code.
4. Arguments for and against the proposition may be submitted to the qualified voters of the City in accordance with sections 9282 through 9287 ofthe California Elections Code. The deadline date for submitting ballot arguments for or against the proposition shall be set by the City Clerk.
Proposed arguments shall not exceed 300 words and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Clerk.
The deadline for submitting rebuttal arguments shall be set by the City Clerk. Proposed rebuttal arguments shall not exceed 250 words and shall be submitted to the office of the City Clerk. The provisions of Section 9285(a) of the California Elections Code shall apply to the submittal of rebuttal arguments.
5. The City Council authorizes members of that body collectively or individually, or any San Mateo voter or association of San Mateo residents, to file written arguments in favor or against the proposition, and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the proposition may be submitted to the City Clerk. Any argument filed for or against said proposition not exceeding 300 words shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if filed on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal 716 of 846
officers who is the author of the argument.
6. In accordance with Section 12111 of the Elections Code, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the election on the measure to be published. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the County elections official, and is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to place the measure on the ballot and to cause the ordinance or measure to be printed.
7. The City and other City officers are directed to do all things necessary to meet the requirements of law for the November 8, 2022, municipal election.
8. A supplemental budget appropriation of $80,000 from unassigned fund balance in the General Fund to the City Manager’s 2021-22 operating budget is approved. 717 of 846
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF SAN MATEO
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-__
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AMENDING SECTIONS 3.48.010 AND 3.48.030 OF CHAPTER 3.48, “REAL PROPERTY DOCUMENT TRANSFER TAX,” TO INCREASE THE TAX RATE TO ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT (1.5%) FOR THE SALE OR OTHER TRANSFER OF PROPERTIES VALUED AT TEN MILLION DOLLARS OR MORE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 3.48.010, “Amount,” and Section 3.48.030, “Exemptions” of the San Mateo Municipal Code are amended to read in their entirety as follows:
3.48.010 AMOUNT.
There is imposed on each deed, instrument or writing by which any lands, tenements, or other real property within the City are sold, granted, assigned, conveyed or otherwise transferred to, or vested in, the purchaser or purchasers, or any other person or persons when the consideration or value of the property interest or real property conveyed exceeds one hundred dollars, a tax at the rates set forth below:
(a) For sales or transfers when the consideration or value of the interest or property is less than ten million dollars, a tax rate of one-half of one percent of said consideration or value; and (b) For sales or transfers when the consideration or value of the interest or property is equal to or greater than ten million dollars, a tax rate of one and one-half percent of said consideration or value.
As used herein, "consideration or value" means the total consideration, valued in money of the United States, paid or delivered or contracted to be paid or delivered in return for the transfer of real property, including the amount of any indebtedness, existing immediately prior to the transfer which is secured by a lien, deed of trust or other encumbrance on the property conveyed and which continues to be secured by such lien, deed of trust or encumbrance after said transfer, and also including the amount of any indebtedness which is secured by a lien, deed of trust or encumbrance given or placed upon the property in connection with the transfer to secure the payment of the purchase price or any part thereof which remains unpaid at the time of the transfer.
"Consideration or value" also includes the amount of any special assessment levied or imposed upon the property by a public body, district or agency, where said special assessment is a lien or encumbrance on the property and the purchaser or transferee agrees to pay such special assessment or takes the property subject to the lien of such special assessment.
The value of any lien or encumbrance of a type other than those which are hereinabove specifically included, existing immediately prior to the transfer and remaining after said transfer, shall not be included in determining the value of the consideration.
If the consideration or value cannot be definitely determined, or is left open to be fixed by future contingencies, "consideration or value" shall be deemed to mean the fair market value of the property at the time of transfer after deducting the amount of any lien or encumbrance, if any, of a type which would be excluded in determining the consideration or value pursuant to above provisions of this section. 718 of 846
The terms "real property" and "realty" shall be deemed to mean real property as defined by and under the laws of the state.
3.48.030 EXEMPTIONS.
The tax imposed pursuant to Section 3.48.010 shall not apply to:
(a) Any document given to secure a debt, or a transfer to a beneficiary or mortgagee when it is taken in lieu of foreclosure;
(b) Any document to which the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof; any state or territory, or political subdivision thereof; or the District of Columbia is a party; provided, that the tax may be collected by assessment from any other party liable therefor; (c) Any document of transfer executed to make effective any plan of reorganization or adjustment which is:
(1) Confirmed under the Federal Bankruptcy Code, as amended, (2) Approved in any equity receivership proceeding in a court involving either:
(A) A railroad corporation as defined in Section 101 of Title 11 of the United States Code, as amended.
(B) A corporation as defined in Section 101 of Title 11 of the United States Code, as amended; or
(3) To effectuate a mere change in identity, form or place of organization; (d) Subdivision (c), above, shall only apply to a transfer that occurs within five years of the date of confirmation, approval, or change.
(e) Any document of transfer executed pursuant to and to effectuate any order of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 1083 of Title 26 of the United States Code, as amended; provided, that the order of the Securities and Exchange Commission in obedience to which such transfer is made:
(1) Recites that such transfer is necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of Section 79K of Title 15 of the United States Code, as amended, relating to the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935; and
(2) Specifies the property which is ordered to be transferred; (f) Any document making a transfer of an interest in a partnership or otherwise when the partnership (or another partnership) is considered a continuing partnership within the meaning of Section 708 of Title 26 of the United States Code, as amended, and such continuing partnership continues to hold the realty concerned. 719 of 846
(g) Any document making a transfer of community property, or interest among joint tenants or tenants in common provided that:
(1) The participating owners have held their respective interest for at least 5 years, or all participating owners acquired their respective interests in the same transaction, however recent; and (2) No grantor receives any consideration beyond a release from any indebtedness secured by the property interest being transferred.
(h) Any document of interspousal transfer including: (a) transfer to a trustee for the beneficial use of a spouse or the surviving spouse of a deceased transferor, or by the trustee of such a trust to the spouse of the trustor; (b) transfers which take place upon the death of a spouse; (c) transfer to a spouse or former spouse in connection with a property settlement agreement or decree of dissolution of marriage or legal separation; (d) the creation, transfer, or termination, solely between spouses, of any co-owner's interest. (i) Any document of transfer between parents and children of a single family residence or of property zoned single family residential. The term "children" shall include natural and adopted children, as well as stepchildren if they are legally stepchildren at the time of transfer, and any son-in-law-or daughter-in-law if they are legally in such relationship at the time of transfer.
Section 2. SEVERABILITY. In the event any section, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section, clause or provision shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. It is the intent of the City Council that it would have adopted all other portions of this Ordinance irrespective of any such portion declared to be invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), submission of the tax extension to the voters is categorically exempt from CEQA because it involves the creation of a government funding mechanism which does not involve any commitment to any specific project.
Section 4. PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall be published in summary in a newspaper of general circulation, posted in the City Clerk's Office, and posted on the City's website, all in accord with Section
2.15 of the City Charter.
Section 5. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance was introduced on _____ , and adopted on ______ . This Ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of the City real property document transfer tax and shall take effect10 days after certification of election results by the City Council certifying that the Ordinance was approved by a majority of the voters voting at the general municipal election to be held November 8, 2022.
720 of 846
CITY OF SAN MATEO
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-__
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AMENDING SECTIONS 3.48.010 AND 3.48.030 OF CHAPTER 3.48, “REAL PROPERTY DOCUMENT TRANSFER TAX,” TO INCREASE THE TAX RATE TO ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT (1.5%) FOR THE SALE OR OTHER TRANSFER OF PROPERTIES VALUED AT TEN MILLION DOLLARS OR MORE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 3.48.010, “Amount,” and Section 3.48.030, “Exemptions” of the San Mateo Municipal Code are amended to read in their entirety as follows:
3.48.010 AMOUNT.
There is imposed on each deed, instrument or writing by which any lands, tenements, or other real property within the City are sold, granted, assigned, conveyed or otherwise transferred to, or vested in, the purchaser or purchasers, or any other person or persons when the consideration or value of the property interest or real property conveyed exceeds one hundred dollars, a tax at the rates set forth below:
(a) For sales or transfers when the consideration or value of the interest or property is less than ten million dollars, a tax rate of one-half of one percent of said consideration or value; and (b) For sales or transfers when the consideration or value of the interest or property is equal to or greater than ten million dollars, a tax rate of one and one-half percent of said consideration or value.
As used herein, "consideration or value" means the total consideration, valued in money of the United States, paid or delivered or contracted to be paid or delivered in return for the transfer of real property, including the amount of any indebtedness, existing immediately prior to the transfer which is secured by a lien, deed of trust or other encumbrance on the property conveyed and which continues to be secured by such lien, deed of trust or encumbrance after said transfer, and also including the amount of any indebtedness which is secured by a lien, deed of trust or encumbrance given or placed upon the property in connection with the transfer to secure the payment of the purchase price or any part thereof which remains unpaid at the time of the transfer.
"Consideration or value" also includes the amount of any special assessment levied or imposed upon the property by a public body, district or agency, where said special assessment is a lien or encumbrance on the property and the purchaser or transferee agrees to pay such special assessment or takes the property subject to the lien of such special assessment.
The value of any lien or encumbrance of a type other than those which are hereinabove specifically included, existing immediately prior to the transfer and remaining after said transfer, shall not be included in determining the value of the consideration.
If the consideration or value cannot be definitely determined, or is left open to be fixed by future contingencies, "consideration or value" shall be deemed to mean the fair market value of the property at the time of transfer after deducting the amount of any lien or encumbrance, if any, of a type which would be excluded in determining the consideration or value pursuant to above provisions of this section.
The terms "real property" and "realty" shall be deemed to mean real property as defined by and under 721 of 846
the laws of the state.
3.48.030 EXEMPTIONS.
The tax imposed pursuant to Section 3.48.010 shall not apply to:
(a) Any document given to secure a debt, or a transfer to a beneficiary or mortgagee when it is taken in lieu of foreclosure;
(b) Any document to which the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof; any state or territory, or political subdivision thereof; or the District of Columbia is a party; provided, that the tax may be collected by assessment from any other party liable therefor; (c) Any document of transfer executed to make effective any plan of reorganization or adjustment which is:
(1) Confirmed under the Federal Bankruptcy Code, as amended, (2) Approved in any equity receivership proceeding in a court involving either:
(A) A railroad corporation as defined in Section 101 of Title 11 of the United States Code, as amended.
(B) A corporation as defined in Section 101 of Title 11 of the United States Code, as amended; or
(3) To effectuate a mere change in identity, form or place of organization; (d) Subdivision (c), above, shall only apply to a transfer that occurs within five years of the date of confirmation, approval, or change.
(e) Any document of transfer executed pursuant to and to effectuate any order of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 1083 of Title 26 of the United States Code, as amended; provided, that the order of the Securities and Exchange Commission in obedience to which such transfer is made:
(1) Recites that such transfer is necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of Section 79K of Title 15 of the United States Code, as amended, relating to the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935; and
(2) Specifies the property which is ordered to be transferred; (f) Any document making a transfer of an interest in a partnership or otherwise when the partnership (or another partnership) is considered a continuing partnership within the meaning of Section 708 of Title 26 of the United States Code, as amended, and such continuing partnership continues to hold the realty concerned. (g) Any document making a transfer of community property, or interest among joint tenants or tenants in common provided that:
722 of 846
(1) The participating owners have held their respective interest for at least 5 years, or all participating owners acquired their respective interests in the same transaction, however recent; and (2) No grantor receives any consideration beyond a release from any indebtedness secured by the property interest being transferred.
(h) Any document of interspousal transfer including: (a) transfer to a trustee for the beneficial use of a spouse or the surviving spouse of a deceased transferor, or by the trustee of such a trust to the spouse of the trustor; (b) transfers which take place upon the death of a spouse; (c) transfer to a spouse or former spouse in connection with a property settlement agreement or decree of dissolution of marriage or legal separation; (d) the creation, transfer, or termination, solely between spouses, of any co-owner's interest. (i) Any document of transfer between parents and children of a single family residence or of property zoned single family residential. The term "children" shall include natural and adopted children, as well as stepchildren if they are legally stepchildren at the time of transfer, and any son-in-law-or daughter-in-law if they are legally in such relationship at the time of transfer.
Section 2. SEVERABILITY. In the event any section, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section, clause or provision shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. It is the intent of the City Council that it would have adopted all other portions of this Ordinance irrespective of any such portion declared to be invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), submission of the tax extension to the voters is categorically exempt from CEQA because it involves the creation of a government funding mechanism which does not involve any commitment to any specific project.
Section 4. PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall be published in summary in a newspaper of general circulation, posted in the City Clerk's Office, and posted on the City's website, all in accord with Section 2.15 of the City Charter.
Section 5. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance was introduced on _____ , and adopted on ______ . This Ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of the City real property document transfer tax and shall take effect10 days after certification of election results by the City Council certifying that the Ordinance was approved by a majority of the voters voting at the general municipal election to be held November 8, 2022.
723 of 846
CITY OF SAN MATEO
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 23 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: File ID: 22-6342 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2022
SUBJECT:
Minimum Wage – Informational Update
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive an update on the implementation of the City of San Mateo local minimum wage ordinance and provide direction on potential adjustments.
BACKGROUND:
In August 2016, the City Council adopted an ordinance to incrementally increase its local minimum wage from $10.00 per hour to $15.00 per hour by 2019. Every year after 2019, the local minimum wage has increased based on the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI). As of January 1, 2022, all employers within San Mateo must pay each employee who performs at least two hours of work per week a minimum wage of $16.20 per hour.
The City of San Mateo was the first city in San Mateo County to adopt a local minimum wage, following the trend of cities in Santa Clara County. Subsequently, 9 other cities in the County have adopted their own minimum wage. Redwood City and Belmont set their wage to be equivalent to San Mateo’s. The remaining cities in the County have a minimum wage that is slightly lower. The majority of cities in Santa Clara County have a higher minimum wage than San Mateo’s since they reached $15 an hour earlier and have adjusted upward, based on the rising CPI. The State of California’s minimum wage is currently $14 to $15 per hour, depending on the size of the employer.
Staff prepared a Minimum Wage Comparison Table (Attachment 1) that compares the 2022 minimum wages across different jurisdictions. The table also highlights some differences among other aspects of the minimum wage policies that the City may want to consider and will be outlined in this report.
Initially, there were many concerns from the business community when the minimum wage ordinance was adopted, especially because San Mateo was the first city in the County to adopt a higher minimum wage. Since many other cities followed suit, staff has not received any recent complaints from businesses regarding the annual minimum wage increases.
Cost of Administering the Local Minimum Wage Ordinance
To administer the local minimum wage ordinance, the City issues annual mailings to all businesses that hold a business license within the City in the fall of every year to inform them of the new minimum wage for the upcoming year. The mailing and printing costs are approximately $10,000 per year. In addition to this, staff updates the City’s website with the new minimum wage rates and does more general outreach via the City’s newsletters and social media to inform both businesses and local employees. The minimum wage notices include a phone number for staff from the City Manager’s Office so that people can reach out with general questions about the minimum wage. The City typically fields a large number of phone calls shortly after the mailing goes out and only a handful of calls over the remainder of the year.
The City contracts with the City of San Jose’s Office of Equality Assurance (OEA) to enforce the local minimum wage on 724 of 846
CITY OF SAN MATEO
behalf of the City. The OEA provides this service to the majority of cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties with a local minimum wage. Much of their work includes answering questions regarding the ordinance, conducting complaint intake, investigating employers, calculating back wages owed, calculating the new minimum wage, and preparing and sending written notices to violators.
From 2017 to 2020, the City’s contract with OEA was a pay per service fee with a cap of $30,000 per year, meaning the City was charged based on the hours spent on enforcement each year. However, in 2020, OEA changed their fees from pay per service to a flat fee of $15,000 per year. The change was made to accurately compensate the volume of calls and cases they receive for each city with which they contract. In the past, OEA had difficulty tracking and billing for all of the phone inquiries that they took in for the various cities and therefore typically did not bill for the majority of their work and was operating at a significant loss to the City of San Jose. The change to a flat fee covers all costs for enforcement. The City’s contract with San Jose is set to end June 30, 2023, but the City has the option to extend the term to June 30, 2025. Staff intends to extend the contract since staff does not have the capacity to administer and enforce the minimum wage inhouse.
The local minimum wage ordinance currently costs the City approximately $25,000 per year to administer, not including staff time, for the annual mailings and the contract with OEA. During the first two years of implementation, the City provided $20,000 in funding for outreach to the low-income and non-English speaking community to make sure they were aware of the newly adopted Minimum Wage. Since then, as local minimum wages have become more common in the region, the City has not felt it is necessary to allocate funding for additional outreach. The total costs to the City of San Mateo associated with administering the local minimum wage from 2017 to 2022 are approximately $157,420.
City Staffing Costs
When the local minimum wage was initially adopted, the City had to raise wages for several City positions, including part-time positions in the Parks and Recreation Department. Today, only one City position is currently hiring at the minimum wage, and this seasonal position has remained vacant since before the pandemic.
Although there is only one minimum wage position at the City, other City jobs (such as Dishwasher or Library Aide I) have pay rates only slightly higher than the minimum wage. There is often difficulty in filling these positions because other local employers pay about $18 per hour for these jobs.
Enforcement Actions to Date
Since the adoption of the policy, OEA conducted investigations into three complaints received from 2017 to 2019.
Two of the cases closed because the business closed, sold, or transferred to new owners. The third case resulted in the restitution of $1,485.88 in wages to three employees. There were no investigations from 2020 to 2021. However, in 2022 OEA received a complaint regarding a business not paying the required wage and an investigation is currently underway.
Policy Considerations
Staff researched various local minimum wage ordinances throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara County to compare policies related to the application of the CPI adjustments (as shown in Attachment 1). All cities identified use the annual CPI to adjust minimum wage for future years, but 3 of the 10 cities within San Mateo County and 5 out of 7 within Santa Clara County cap the CPI increase between 3% to 5% per year. Additionally, the State of California has a cap on the CPI at
3.5%. OEA predicts that the CPI for next year will be somewhere between 7% and 8%, increasing our minimum wage by up to an additional $1.30 per hour.
The City Council may want to consider adopting a cap on the CPI to prevent there from being such a sizeable year over year increase, which can be challenging for small businesses to weather. Not having a cap on CPI will also have an impact on the City’s staffing costs, especially for positions within the Library and Parks and Recreation departments. As a counter point for consideration, not having a limit to the CPI increase allows minimum wage workers to have wages that keep up with the costs of goods and services in the region. The cost of living is high in San Mateo and if minimum wage employees cannot afford to live here, the income disparity gap may widen. 725 of 846
CITY OF SAN MATEO
If a cap were to be adopted, the City may also want to consider allowing for a catch-up provision to allow for the wages to eventually realign with inflation. However, it is important to note that none of the cities with a CPI cap currently have a catch-up provision in place.
Another policy option is whether to allow the minimum wage to be adjusted downward in case of a negative CPI.
The City’s local minimum wage ordinance currently does not allow for any downward adjustment, nor does any other jurisdiction that staff researched. As a result, staff does not recommend altering the City’s ordinance on this issue.
The final policy option for consideration is whether to continue to set the minimum wage to the nearest penny or to round it up. Most cities in the San Mateo and Santa Clara County, as well as the State of California, round up their minimum wages. Three of the 10 cities within the San Mateo County and all the cities in Santa Clara County round up their minimum wage to the nearest nickel. The State of California rounds up their minimum wage to the nearest dime.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City of San Mateo also rounds up its minimum wage to the nearest nickel.
Staff seeks City Council guidance on which, if any, policy adjustments to consider. If the Council wants to move forward with any changes, staff will bring forward an ordinance to amend the local minimum wage policy at an upcoming meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The cost to administer the local minimum wage ordinance is approximately $25,000 per year. This cost is included in the City Manager’s annual budget allocation. The annual minimum wage increases, depending on the annual CPI, will likely result in higher staffing costs for the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This minimum wage update is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Minimum Wage Comparison Table
STAFF CONTACT
Denise Garcia, Management Analyst I
[email protected]
(650) 522-7003
726 of 846
Cities/State 2022 Wage CPI INCREASE Wage Round Up
San Mateo $16.20 No Limit None
Belmont $16.20 Up to 3.5% None
Burlingame $15.60 No Limit None
Daly City $15.33 up to 3.5% None
East Palo Alto $15.60 No Limit To the nearest nickel ($.05) Half Moon Bay $15.56 No Limit None
Menlo Park $15.75 No Limit To the nearest nickel ($.05) Redwood City $16.20 No Limit None
San Carlos $15.77 up to 3.5% None
South San Francisco $15.80 No Limit To the nearest nickel ($.05) Cupertino $16.40 up to 5% To the nearest nickel ($.05)
Milpitas $15.65 up to 5% To the nearest nickel ($.05)
Mountain View $17.10 No Limit To the nearest nickel ($.05) Palo Alto $16.45 No Limit To the nearest nickel ($.05)
San Jose $16.20 up to 5% To the nearest nickel ($.05)
Santa Clara $16.40 up to 5% To the nearest nickel ($.05) Sunnyvale $17.10 up to 5% To the nearest nickel ($.05)
CA
$14.00 &
$15.00 up to 3.5% To the nearest dime ($.10)
San Mateo County
Santa Clara County
Minimum Wage Comparison Table
727 of 846
CITY OF SAN MATEO
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 24 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: 10-4666 File ID: 22-6343 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2022
SUBJECT:
Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian Access Plan – Update RECOMMENDATION:
Receive an update on the Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian Access Plan and provide feedback on the proposed projects.
BACKGROUND:
During fiscal year 2019-20, the City was awarded a Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 grant in the amount of approximately $75,000 to fund the Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian Access Plan (Plan). The City provided matching funds to fully fund the project. The Plan aims to create safe, comfortable walking routes to transit for all ages and abilities by assessing the pedestrian path of travel within a one half-mile radius of the City’s three Caltrain stations and other high-quality transit stops. Based on the assessment, infrastructure and programmatic improvements will be recommended at specific locations to complete the pedestrian realm and improve access to transit. Following a competitive process, the City entered into an agreement with Fehr & Peers to assist with developing the Plan.
Project Status
City staff and the consultant team began working on the Plan in April 2021 and developed a scope of work to inventory pedestrian facilities and existing conditions, conduct community outreach, and develop a prioritized project list for implementation. Below is a summary of tasks that have been completed to date. Inventory Facilities and Existing Conditions – The consultant team reviewed existing data from various sources to analyze existing conditions and identify areas of concern within the study area. Data reviewed included land use and demographic data, existing transportation facilities and collision data, upcoming development projects in the study area, and related City master plans such as the 2012 Pedestrian Master Plan and 2020 Bicycle Master Plan.
The data were translated into maps and visuals and are included as Attachment 1. Community Engagement Plan – The draft Community Engagement Plan was presented to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission at the August 2021 meeting for feedback. The final Community Engagement Plan, provided as Attachment 2, guided the outreach effort by establishing outreach goals and identifying engagement activities that would reach target audiences, including seniors, youth, and the Latinx community. A variety of strategies were used to maximize participation and reach a diverse population, including pop-up events at six locations across the study area, three virtual focus group meetings with local community groups, an online survey and interactive mapping activity, and sidewalk decals with a QR code to the project webpage. At the in-person pop-up events, paper surveys were provided in English and Spanish and a Spanish translator was present at the Mi Rancho Supermarket pop-up event. Additionally, the online survey and interactive online mapping activity were provided in both English and Spanish.
728 of 846
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Overall, the team spoke with more than 100 community members at the pop-up events and virtual focus meetings. A total of 327 comments were received from the in-person mapping activity and online interactive map.
In evaluating the feedback, three locations had numerous resident concerns:
28th Avenue and El Camino Real intersection
Hillsdale Caltrain Station at 28th Avenue, Derby Avenue, Curiosity Way Franklin Parkway and Baze Road/Mena Drive
Participants also requested improved station access from the northeast side of the Downtown San Mateo Caltrain Station and better lighting at the Hayward Park Caltrain Station. More detailed findings from the outreach effort are included in Attachment 3.
Project Prioritization – Staff and the consultant team used the findings to develop prioritization metrics for potential projects within the study area. The prioritization served to ensure proposed projects are aligned with the goals of the Plan and located on critical streets that pedestrians use to access transit. The prioritization metrics were presented to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission for feedback at the February 2022 meeting.
Prioritization weights were based on how closely the metrics aligned with the goals of the Plan. Potential projects located on station access streets were given the greatest priority weighting factor to ensure that projects will directly benefit pedestrians accessing transit. Pedestrian collisions and outreach feedback were assigned a medium priority weight, and the remaining metrics were given a lower weight. The prioritization metrics are shown in Attachment 4, which also includes heat maps showing priority locations that resulted from the prioritization process. Areas located outside priority locations, but within the study area, that were identified as needing improvement will be recorded in the Plan.
Proposed Projects
For each location identified as a priority for this project, City staff and the consultant team identified pedestrian-related improvements. These improvements will be included in the final Plan as individual improvement projects for those locations. The improvements are site-specific and were recommended based on outreach feedback, the existing conditions review, and projects in related City master plans. Recommended improvements include:
High-visibility and mid-block crosswalks,
Pedestrian scale lighting,
ADA-compliant curb ramps,
Protected intersections,
Wayfinding signage, and
Widened sidewalks.
A comprehensive list of the proposed projects is provided in Attachment 5. For each study area, projects were assigned a name that correlates to the general location of the project or a major improvement. In the Downtown study area, for example, the projects are named El Camino Real - Downtown, Downtown Gateway, and North Station Access. Within each project are sub-projects, which can be implemented separately from one another. This project identification allows for greater flexibility with implementation, while still achieving the same overall project goals.
Attachment 6 includes graphical displays, or ‘cut sheets’, of the recommended improvements for each study area and a glossary for the icons used in the cut sheep maps. Each cut sheet displays a project on a map with the associated subprojects, and provides a summary of how the proposed improvements will address the issues identified through the Plan assessment.
Next Steps
Following this meeting, City Council and public feedback will be incorporated into the proposed project list. City staff and 729 of 846
CITY OF SAN MATEO
the consultant team will prepare planning-level cost estimates for each project and a list of potential funding sources for implementation. The draft Plan is anticipated to be presented to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission in September 2022, with final City Council adoption anticipated in late fall 2022.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are sufficient funds in the Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian Access Study Project for this work (46m003).
The City’s total budget for the project is approximately $143,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This project update is not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Existing Conditions Review Slide Deck
Att 2 – Community Engagement Plan
Att 3 – Community Engagement Summary Report
Att 4 – Project Prioritization Metrics and Priority Locations Maps Att 5 – Proposed Project List
Att 6 – Proposed Project Cut Sheets
STAFF CONTACT
Nicolette Chan, Assistant Engineer
[email protected]
(650) 522-7326
Sue-Ellen Atkinson, Principal Transportation Planner
[email protected]
(650) 522-7288
730 of 846
Existing Conditions Maps
731 of 846
Contents
• Land Use & Demographics
▪ Land uses
▪ Senior centers & landmarks
▪ CalEnviroScreen
• Transportation Facilities
▪ Roadway typology
▪ Signalized Intersections
▪ Level of Traffic Stress
▪ Pedestrian Collisions
▪ Missing sidewalks
• Planned Improvements
▪ Development projects
▪ Planned pedestrian improvements
732 of 846
Land Use & Demographics
733 of 846
Land Use
Source: City of San Mateo, 2021
734 of 846
Senior Centers and Landmarks
Source: City of San Mateo, 2021
735 of 846
CalEnviroScreen assesses population
characteristics and pollution burden to
measure community vulnerability to
pollution.
The map shows community exposure and
vulnerability to pollution at the census tract
level, using an aggregated percentile index in
comparison with the rest of the state. The
lowest percentile in green reflects census
tracts least impacted by pollution and the
high percentiles in yellow show areas with
higher pollution impacts.
CalEnviroScreen
Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, OEHHA, 2021
736 of 846
CalEnviroScreen
Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, OEHHA, 2021
737 of 846
Existing Transportation
Facilities
738 of 846
Roadway Typology
Number of travel lanes can
be assumed from Open
Street Map or roadway
functional classification
Source: City of San Mateo, 2021
739 of 846
Intersection Traffic Control
Source: City of San Mateo, 2021
740 of 846
Level of Traffic Stress
Source: City of San Mateo, 2021
741 of 846
Pedestrian Collisions
Source: City of San Mateo, 2017-May 2021, City of San Mateo Collision Traffic Data 742 of 846
Pedestrian Collisions
Source: City of San Mateo, 2017-May 2021, City of San Mateo Collision Traffic Data 743 of 846
Sidewalks
Missing Sidewalks
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021
744 of 846
Planned Improvements
745 of 846
Development Projects
Source: City of San Mateo, 2021
746 of 846
Planned Pedestrian Improvements
Source: City of San Mateo, San Mateo
Pedestrian Plan, 2012 747 of 846
SAN MATEO TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
The Community Engagement Plan provides a clear path to inform and develop a successful TOD Pedestrian Access Plan by engaging early and often, targeting outreach for underrepresented demographics, and providing a range of engagement activities to solicit feedback. We recommend the following Community Engagement Plan to ensure the final TOD Pedestrian Access Plan reflects community priorities. The engagement process is designed to achieve the following outcomes:
1. The community knows what a TOD Pedestrian Access Plan is and understands the goals and potential impacts of the plan.
2. Community engagement activities reach and celebrate the voices of populations typically underrepresented in the planning process*, including:
• People who have not previously participated in planning processes • The Latinx community
• Low- and moderate-income households
• Vulnerable users such as seniors and youth
3. The community sees their input in the final TOD Pedestrian Access Plan. *These key groups were identified based on historic patterns of exclusion and recognition that infrastructure that serves our most vulnerable users, serves us all. Feedback received during the San Mateo General Plan engagement phase identified the Latinx community, specifically, as a key demographic often left out precluded the planning process.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
In order to achieve our project and engagement goals, Fehr & Peers and Urban Planning Partners conducted interviews with key stakeholders in the City of San Mateo. Based on outreach from previous planning processes and discussions with City staff, we focused our interviews with three distinct interest groups within the community: seniors, youth, and the Latinx community. We spoke with key representatives with experience and advocacy for their respective community group. Our interviewees and their affiliations are listed below:
Interest
Group Interviewee and Affiliation Interview Date
Seniors Vince Siminitus, Aging and Retirement Activist July 7, 2021 Monika Lee, Chair of the San Mateo Senior Citizens Commission July 15, 2021 Youth
Adam Wilson, Program Manager at Youth Leadership Institute (YLI) San Mateo;
Alheli Cuenca, Bay Area Director of Programs at YLI
July 15, 2021
Latinx
Community
Frances Lobos, Community Health Planner Co-Chair, Diversity & Equity Council
Maria Lorente-Foresti, Director, Office of Diversity and Equity July 12, 2021
748 of 846
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Each interview provided valuable insight and strategies for how to best reach and elicit participation from participants. Essential feedback from each stakeholder group representative(s) that directly informs our overall community engagement plan is outlined below. The feedback from each key stakeholder group was invaluable in determining the type, time, and agenda for an event or activity.
Senior Community
• Late afternoon and early evening meetings on weekdays are best for this group • Including a recognizable and well-known individual in the senior community as part of the meeting agenda is a great way to ensure greater attendance • While some interactive meeting-types can be fun, most seniors feel most comfortable with a community meeting presentation and break-out groups of their peers. Make sure facilitators speak clearly, loudly, and all instructions are easy to read is also essential in these settings. • The best way to promote events for seniors is through The (San Mateo) Daily Journal, NextDoor, and building lobby message/announcement boards. • Getting to and from the Hillsdale Shopping Center is an area of particular concern for many seniors; in particular the nearby pedestrian passageways are seen as unsafe Youth Participants
• Concerns over safety at bus stations and walking even short distances for programs and activities
• Hillsdale Shopping Center is a good place to find youth congregating • Engaging with San Mateo High School directly; could align with back-to-school activities • Providing incentives for participation is key
• Youth value equity, social justice, and healthy communities – frame the plan with these values
• Monday nights are a not preferred by youth
Latinx Community
• Virtual meetings/events will be better for the Latinx community (lower vaccination rates, higher sickness and death rates among middle-aged Latinos) • Greater attendance and reception if the events are sponsored or done in partnership with an existing and trusted community group or organization • Facebook seems to be the best place to reach older Latinx community whereas other social media (TikTok, Instagram) are best for younger generation • Making sure information is accessible in multiple languages and that the event is easy and straightforward to access
• Evening sessions are typically best (not during the 9-5 workday) and Tuesday/Thursday evenings are usually most successful
749 of 846
All stakeholders expressed confusion with the term “TOD” and suggested that we use a less technical term for outreach purposes. We recommend using “San Mateo Walks to Transit” as the primary header on all outreach materials. The full plan name “San Mateo Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian Access Plan” would be introduced in smaller text. 750 of 846
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
Outreach Methods
Who we’re reaching Senior
Community Youth Latinx Community Notes
SM Daily Journal Ad x Will complete this if we can get a free ad or low-cost ad Project Webpage A project webpage hosted on the City’s website will provide information about the project and upcoming outreach events, serve as a landing page for the survey link, and reach the broader community within San Mateo.
NextDoor x Announcement for Community Meeting as well as survey QR code and link.
Flyers x x Virtual flyers (message boards, social media—see below); Physical flyers with survey QR code and link around Hillsdale Shopping Center, Downtown businesses, Caltrain stations, SamTrans bus stops/stations, building announcement boards, school announcement boards. Flyers will be translated into Spanish.
Email Blast + Listserv
+ Text Blast
x x Utilize City’s existing Transportation Projects and Planning listserv as well as Senior Commission listserv of interested parties/newsletters and YLI text blast to San Mateo participants. Email blast will be translated into Spanish as necessary.
Local Interest Group
Meetings (almost all
virtual)
x x x Announcements and brief attendance at up to eight existing meetings potentially including: San Mateo County Diversity and Equity Council, Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council, San Mateo County Immigrant Services, San Mateo County Suicide Prevention Committee, Latino Families Group (at SMHS), YLI Fall Cohort Orientation/Training, Senior Commission, Office of Education and Safety Training Traffic Assessment, Pride Center, and San Mateo County Civic Engagement Training. If requested, meeting visit can be conducted in Spanish.
Groups will be given the survey link and asked to distribute the survey to their networks.
Social Media
(Instagram, Facebook)
x x City of San Mateo social media channels on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook (including Public Works, Library, Parks & Recreation, SMPD). Potential:
SamTrans/Caltrain Instagram, Twitter, Facebook; Diversity and Equity Council Facebook. Social media posts will be translated into Spanish. 751 of 846
Engagement Activities
Who we’re engaging Senior
Community Youth Latinx Community Event Materials and Location Community Meeting1 x Downtown Main Library (Room with courtyard), presentation; translation and interpretation services; breakout group questions and prepped facilitators; poster board maps, stickers, markers, feedback cards; food/snacks. A Spanish interpreter will be available to host a Spanish-only breakout group if needed. This will be advertised on promotional materials.
Map Survey2 x Survey will prioritize areas of concern for the community. Survey will be available in Spanish.
Pop-Up Surveys3 x x One each at Hillsdale Shopping Center, Downtown San Mateo, Latinx-community grocery store or faith-based event (e.g., Mass).
iPads with survey, poster board with map, markers, and stickers (as needed) (availability TBD)
1 Community Meeting: The current plan will be to hold an in-person, indoor/outdoor event at the Main Library in Downtown San Mateo.
However, depending on public health guidelines leading up to the event, there is a possibility the meeting will be held virtually. The meeting will include a presentation with background context on the project purpose, desired outcomes, and primary questions for discussion. The attendees will be separated into 3-4 breakout groups (depending on total attendance) and be asked more specific questions about their experience in San Mateo within the study area. Using maps, stickers, and markers, the group facilitator will capture key information on the map as well as through notetaking. If the meeting is held virtually, we will utilize screen sharing and virtual tools to the same effect. The attendees will come back to a large group for closing thoughts and Q&A. Potential: Senior advocate/local guest speaker to incentivize attendance. 2 Map Survey: To best capture direct feedback on areas within the study area, UPP/F&P will create an interactive map survey to be taken online.
The survey will include an educational introduction and will touch on areas of greatest concern and personal experience as well as a rank-choice ‘wish list’ section that details out the different types of safety and pedestrian improvement opportunities as part of this plan. The survey will ask optional demographic information to best understand the groups we are reaching and be offered in both English and Spanish. The survey link will be distributed through a QR code on sidewalk decals and flyers (see outreach strategies above). 752 of 846
3 Pop-Up Survey: To increase youth participation in the survey, UPP/F&P will do pop-up events/canvassing at the Hillsdale Shopping Center as well as part of Downtown San Mateo (San Mateo Central Park and/or Caltrain station, as available) with iPads for individuals to complete the survey.
KEY QUESTIONS FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS
1. What are your biggest barriers to walking to transit in San Mateo?
2. What specific streets (within the study area) could have a better pedestrian experience? Why?
3. Which streets, walkways, or connections (within the study area) would be most important for us to improve? / Where are your most important walking routes when accessing transit?
4. Of the types of improvements we are considering in this plan, which are your top priority?
SCHEDULE
753 of 846
1 SAN MATEO WALKS TO TRANSIT: ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
Extensive community engagement was planned and performed for the San Mateo Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Pedestrian Access Plan Initiative (renamed ‘San Mateo Walks to Transit’ for all engagement/public-facing purposes). The following summarizes the purpose and goals of outreach, how outreach was conducted, and who was reached, what was heard, and next steps.
PURPOSE AND GOALS
San Mateo Walks to Transit will prioritize proposed improvements using feedback received from the community during the engagement process. In developing and executing the Community Engagement Plan, key goals included:
1. The community knows what a TOD Pedestrian Access Plan is and understands the goals and potential impacts of the plan.
2. Community engagement activities reach and celebrate all voices, including those of populations typically underrepresented in the planning process *, including:
• People who have not previously participated in planning processes and/or have been historically excluded from planning processes;
• The Latinx community;
• Low- and moderate-income households; and
• Vulnerable users such as seniors, youth, and people with disabilities.
3. The community sees their input in the final TOD Pedestrian Access Plan.
For the purposes of this engagement and project, the “community” is defined as people that walk to and take transit. While feedback was welcomed from anyone, the Community Engagement Plan was developed to ensure that the improvements prioritized in the final plan directly address the needs of pedestrians and San Mateo transit users.
*These key groups were identified based on historic patterns of exclusion and the recognition that infrastructure that serves our most vulnerable users, serves us all. Feedback received during the San Mateo General Plan engagement phase identified the Latinx community, specifically, as a key demographic often precluded from the planning process.
HOW WE REACHED OUT AND WHO WE REACHED
San Mateo Walks to Transit engagement covered a wide range of platforms, places, and people.
Engagement included virtual focus groups, social media, email blasts and phone calls, in-person pop-up events. An ongoing online survey and map platform was publicized at all engagement events, in addition to QR code sidewalk decals placed at each Caltrain station within the study area (Hillsdale, Hayward 754 of 846
Community Engagement Summary January 2022
2 Park, and Downtown San Mateo) and three SamTrans bus stops (El Camino Real and 17th Avenue and San Mateo Drive and 2nd Avenue).
BY THE NUMBERS
• Facilitated three focus groups with key stakeholders (28 total attendees across focus groups) • Spoke with approximately 75 community members at in-person pop-up events • Collected 90 comments and targeted feedback at in-person events • Received 237 comments on the online interactive map and 48 survey responses • Attained 414 individual views on the San Mateo Walks to Transit project page on the City’s website
• Totaled 64 scans on QR code sidewalk decals placed strategically across the three Caltrain stations and three SamTrans bus stops within the study area • Provided 20 community organizations and 32 Neighborhood and Homeowner Associations in San Mateo with web links to the project webpage, survey, and interactive map
FOCUS GROUPS
For each focus group meeting, the project was introduced by defining ‘TOD’ and explaining the plan development process, followed by a facilitated group discussion. The focus groups were scheduled during pre-existing group meetings to accommodate the schedules of attendees and maximize participation. The groups selected were identified during the Community Engagement Plan development process as groups of potentially vulnerable users and/or groups not typically involved in the planning process. Variations of the following questions were asked to each group:
• Do you walk to transit in San Mateo?
• What are the areas of greatest concern for walking within the study area? • What walking routes within the study area are your favorite? • Based on the improvement options, which three (3) improvements would you choose to make walking easier?
• Tell us about walking in San Mateo. Are we missing anything? A copy of the presentation can be found in Attachment A.
Focus Group Meetings
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition—San Mateo Local Team
When: Wednesday, September 15, 2021; 6:00 –7:00 PM
San Mateo County Paratransit Coordinating Council
When: Tuesday, October 15, 2021; 1:30 – 2:00 PM
San Mateo County Latino Collaborative
When: Tuesday, October 26, 2021; 3:30 – 4:00 PM
755 of 846
Community Engagement Summary January 2022
3 Meeting notes from each focus group can be found in Attachment B.
POP-UP EVENTS
Two consecutive days of pop-up events were organized across the study area to increase participation, reach those with lesser access or interest in online formats, and to engage with people in their normal day to day activities throughout the study area. In addition to the Caltrain stations in the study area, several of the pop-up event locations were hosted around the key groups identified during the engagement plan phase: seniors, youth, and the Latinx community. The pop-up events included a table with two poster boards showing the study areas, project flyers, hard-copy versions of the online survey in both English and Spanish, as well as stickers, post-it notes, and pens to write and mark suggestions, comments, and concerns on the poster boards.
The Peninsula Regent—Senior Living Facility
When: October 6, 2021, 11:00 AM – 1:30 PM
Location: 1 Baldwin Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
Who was reached: Seniors living in and around Downtown San Mateo including those that use transit, previously used transit, or have never used transit.
The Nueva School (Grades 9-12)
When: October 6, 2021, 2:00 – 4:00 PM
Location: E 28th Avenue close to S Delaware Street
Who was reached: Nueva School students (many of which use transit).
Hillsdale Caltrain Station
When: October 6, 2021, 4:00 – 6:00 PM
Location: E 28th Avenue by South entrance to the station Who was reached: Commuters, students, and transit users.
Downtown San Mateo—North B Street*
When: October 7, 2021, 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Location: Mi Rancho Supermarket, 80 N B St, San Mateo, CA 94401
Who was reached: Members of the Latinx community (from
teens to seniors), people who work and shop in Downtown. *Spanish speaker available for translation and interpretation at this event.
756 of 846
Community Engagement Summary January 2022
4 Downtown San Mateo—South B Street
When: October 7, 2021, 12:00-2:00 PM
Location: Closed off portion of S B Street at 2nd
Avenue
Who was reached: People who work, shop,
and/or bike in Downtown.
Downtown San Mateo—Caltrain Station
When: October 7, 2021, 2:00-5:00 PM
Location: Caltrain Station southbound
platform
Who was reached: Commuters and people
who live and/or work in San Mateo.
ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
To complement both the in-person and focus group engagement activities, Social Pinpoint, a mapping and engagement web platform, was used to develop an interactive mapping tool to collect feedback on pedestrian issues, key pedestrian routes, and other general comments about walking in the study area.
In addition to the interactive map, an accompanying survey was developed that asked qualitative questions related to walking to transit in San Mateo as well as optional demographic questions to get a sense of who was being reached with this tool. The map and survey were available online in both English and Spanish from September 20 to October 31, 2021.
To promote the survey and Social Pinpoint map, social media posts for Instagram, Twitter, NextDoor, and Facebook were developed to distribute information directly to community organizations and groups throughout San Mateo. The main project webpage on the City’s website (www.cityofsanmateo.org/TransitWalk) included a link to the survey and Social Pinpoint Map along with other information about the project.
757 of 846
Community Engagement Summary January 2022
5 Online Map and Survey
The Social Pinpoint Map offered three options for interaction as well as an accompanying survey. The three options were: 1) Pedestrian Issue (orange), 2) Key Pedestrian Route (green), or 3) Comment (blue).
Users were limited to leaving comments within the study area in order to stay within the scope of work of the project and to focus comments in areas of potential improvement. Users were also able to utilize a tool to up-vote/‘like’ or down-vote/‘dislike’ comments that prior users had posted.
The online Social Pinpoint Map and survey can be viewed at the following links:
• Interactive Mapping Tool (English site)
• Interactive Mapping Tool (Spanish site)
The accompanying survey can be found in Attachment C.
Social Media
Social media outreach was conducted using the City’s social media accounts and Fehr & Peer’s social media accounts. There were two rounds of social media posts to publicize the survey as well as a post announcing a survey extension for additional time to gather feedback. The social media posts were designed to capture people’s attention and drive them to the City’s website to complete the survey and provide feedback on the Social Pinpoint Map.
Social media posts and accompanying captions can be found in Attachment D.
ADDITIONAL OUTREACH
In addition to focus groups and the pop-up events, the project website link containing the Social Pinpoint Map and survey was distributed via outdoor street decals placed strategically at Caltrain stations and bus stops along El Camino Real and through emails to over 20 community organizations and 758 of 846
Community Engagement Summary January 2022
6 all San Mateo Neighborhood and Homeowner’s Associations. A comprehensive list of organizations and Neighborhood and Homeowner’s Associations that were contacted (including San Mateo High School Latino Families group, San Mateo Pride Center, and Asian Uplift) can be found in Attachment E.
WHAT WE HEARD:
Through a variety of methods as described above, qualitative, and quantitative input was collected from the community. The data collected and the corresponding findings are summarized below.
SURVEY RESULTS
The following three graphs show key results of the 48 survey responses collected. The first five questions were required, followed by optional demographic questions. Full survey results can be found in Attachment F.
Question 1:
The majority of transit users walk daily, weekly, or occasionally to transit in San Mateo as shown in the chart below. It is important to note that the “Other” category for the “How often do you walk to transit” question was primarily individuals who reported walking to transit prior to the COVID-19 pandemic but are no longer commuting to their workplace or have opted to not take transit for the time being.
Question 2:
The majority of transit users feel safe when walking to transit in San Mateo. Of the respondents who answered that “San Mateo provides a safe walk to transit,” more than 70% answered that they walk to transit either daily or weekly for Question 1. Two-thirds (66%) of respondents reported feeling that San Mateo provides a “somewhat safe walk to transit”, but that their experience could be improved. Two9% 2%
4%
9%
23%
26%
28%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Other
Doesn't use transit
Bike to transit
Doesn't walk to transit
Walk occasionally
Walk weekly
Walk daily
How often do you walk to transit in San Mateo?
Graph 1: N=48
759 of 846
Community Engagement Summary January 2022
7 thirds (66%) of respondents who answered that “San Mateo does not provide a safe walk to transit” also responded that they currently do not walk to transit for Question 1.
Graph 2: N=48
Question 3:
All 48 respondents provided a first rank choice that would have the greatest positive impact on their walking experience. However, as shown below, each respective ranking (2nd through 8th choice) received fewer responses. The chart below reflects the average ranking for the categories that affect walking experience.
Graph 3: N=48
Demographics:
The respondents ages ranged from 14-81 with the majority of respondents being between 20-50. 71% of respondents identified as white, 12% as Asian, 7% as Latino or Hispanic, 7% as other, and 2% as American Indian or Alaskan Native. It is important to note that these responses capture about 10% of 21%
66%
13%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
How would you characterize your walking
experience to transit in San Mateo?
Safe Somewhat safe but could be improved Not safe
14 total responses
14 total responses
15 total responses
15 total responses
19 total responses
25 total responses
36 total responses
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Accessible Pedestrian Facilities
Trees and Landscaping
Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings
Slowing vehicles down
Wider Sidewalks
More Frequent Crossings
Improved Crosswalks
Improved Lighting
What would have the greatest positive impact on your walking experience?
Average Rank
760 of 846
Community Engagement Summary January 2022
8 total survey responders and do not reflect the full range of people who took the survey or who were engaged during the additional engagement events and activities.
SUMMARY OF INPUT
A number of observations, suggestions, and points of concern to consider in the San Mateo Walks to Transit Plan were received through the Social Pinpoint Map and in-person pop-up events. Community feedback is one of the most critical pieces to the prioritization process and the following provides an overview of key data, themes, and top areas of concern from the community. The maps in Attachment G provide a visual reference for comments received on the interactive map and pop-up events. The maps present the density of the comments throughout the study area, the location of the comments by topic as well as by improvements needed, and the key pedestrian routes highlighted by respondents.
The comments received on the interactive map fell under the following categories:
*The Miscellaneous category captures comments or map pinpoints that did not fall into a specific category either because of their general content or because of content less applicable to the scope of the San Mateo Walks to Transit Plan.
39 36
26 24
16 9
1 0
10 20
30 40
Map Comments by Topic
761 of 846
Community Engagement Summary January 2022
9 The following comments had the highest number of up-votes, a feature where people could opt to ‘like’ or affirm a statement/comment provided by a previous map participant. • “There is no East-West crosswalk across El Camino at 28th for Pedestrians and Bikes at the north side of the intersection. The north side of E 28 has the bike ramp to the Hillsdale Train Station.
This Corner is where Bike and People intersect during commute and is poorly configured for that.” (11 upvotes)
• “Currently there are no bike lanes on 28th, and there is no at grade pedestrian crossing across 28th. With three new grade separations supporting 8 net new automobile lanes across town (and zero new bicycle lanes...), the 28th street undercrossing would benefit from a road diet to eliminate bicycle and pedestrian conflicts, and to add a pedestrian crossing at the new Hillsdale Caltrain station.” (10 upvotes)
• “Speeding. Poor visibility.”—at Franklin Parkway & Mena Drive/Baze Road (9 upvotes) • “The access from the Michael’s parking lot on the West-side of the tracks is blocked by a permanent fence. Walkers and Bikes cannot get access to the Train station. This forces all walkers and bike from the West-side of El Camino to access the Hillsdale Station from 28th Ave entrances or to navigate to the East side entrance.” (9 upvotes) • “I love having B St. closed to cars! I hope we do this in more places.” (8 upvotes) • “Crossing El Camino here, even with the light, is scary for pedestrians.”—El Camino Real & 17th/ Bovet (8 upvotes)
The following areas and improvement types were highlighted by participants during our focus group discussions:
• El Camino Real feels the most dangerous for pedestrians because of vehicle speed, narrow sidewalk width, short crossing times for pedestrians, unprotected vehicle right turns onto side street, and limited safe crossing routes for pedestrians. • Improvements should focus on physical changes to streetscape/sidewalk, etc. not just surface paint.
• Better crosswalks needed at Delaware and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th to support pedestrians downtown.
• Buckled and narrow sidewalk conditions experienced around Downtown San Mateo, specifically the side streets west of El Camino Real leading into Downtown. • Faster light intervals (i.e., more frequent “walk” signals) requested at 28th and Delaware for people to avoid jaywalking or running across the median farther east on 28th near the Hillsdale Station.
• Longer crossing times needed and more physical buffers (like landscaping and trees) between vehicle traffic and pedestrians at 28th and El Camino Real.
An additional comment that came up often, especially during pop-up engagement events, was the lack of reliability and limited service of SamTrans buses in San Mateo. In addition, several people asked why there are no east-west bus connections in San Mateo. While this is an improvement that is out of the scope of the San Mateo Walks to Transit Plan, it is important to note this barrier and concern with using transit in San Mateo.
762 of 846
Community Engagement Summary January 2022
10 KEY TAKEAWAYS
Key Takeaways for this Project
Based on the various platforms used to solicit feedback and comments from the community, the following areas within the study area were flagged as areas of greatest concern:
Top Areas of Concern (in descending order):
1. Intersection of 28th Ave and El Camino Real
2. Hillsdale Caltrain Station at 28th Ave, Derby, & Curiosity Way (access & crossing tracks)
3. Franklin Parkway and Baze Rd-Mena Drive
4. Hayward Park Caltrain Station (access & crossing tracks)
5. 17th Ave and El Camino Real
6. Intersections along 2
nd Avenue between San Mateo Drive and N Railroad Ave
7. El Camino Real between Tilton Ave and E 5th Ave
8. El Camino Real and 20th Ave
9. Monte Diablo Ave between N Eldorado St and Fremont St
10. Tilton Ave between N B St and S Fremont St
11. Intersections along S Delaware St between 1st Ave and E 4th Ave
12. S Eldorado St at E 3
rd Ave and E 5th Ave
The locations specified in this list are reflected on the following maps. 763 of 846
Community Engagement Summary January 2022—DRAFT
11 764 of 846
Community Engagement Summary January 2022—DRAFT
12 765 of 846
Community Engagement Summary January 2022—DRAFT
13 In addition to these top areas of concern, a high number of people participating on the interactive map and at in-person events commented on how much they’ve enjoyed the portion of S. B Street that is closed off to vehicle traffic and access. While a few concerns about reduced parking in the downtown area were received, the majority of people were thrilled with the change and would like to see it become more permanent (i.e., more defined, and aesthetically complimentary barriers, wider sidewalks, more attractive parklet seating, etc.).
In general, comments provided in-person were typically more positive about walking in San Mateo than the tone of comments provided in the interactive map. While individuals that were engaged in-person provided suggestions for improvements and targeted areas of concern, it is important to note this group of respondents were already opting to walk to or around transit areas in San Mateo.
Key Takeaways from the Engagement Process
The San Mateo Walks to Transit engagement process allowed for opportunities for learning and growing to be applied to future projects going forward. Below is an outline showing what worked well and what could be done in the future to further improve the engagement process and outcomes.
Successes
• A wide range of outreach and engagement methods were utilized which allowed us to reach different people and receive different types of comments with each type of engagement. • All materials were translated into Spanish and the City’s first pop-up event at Mi Rancho Supermarket, a market primarily serviced by Latinx community members and residents, was organized with a Spanish speaker from our staff. As a result, we were able to engage with a large number of people in the Latinx community at this location. • The City’s first pop-up event was held at The Peninsula Regent, a senior residency home in Downtown San Mateo, to ensure seniors were heard (as a key demographic identified early in the process). The City’s new partnership with The Peninsula Regent is a resource that can be used for future outreach efforts.
Room for Improvement
While a wide range of individuals was reached through both in-person and virtual means in this process, there is still room for improvement and lessons learned through this engagement process.
1. Allocate additional budget and time to:
o Include multiple bi- or multi-lingual individuals for certain pop-up events, hold focus groups with a few more region-specific community organizations, and expand text translation to include Chinese in addition to Spanish to reach more groups that have been historically excluded from the planning process.
o Provide incentives for participating in outreach (raffle prizes, local business coupons, etc.) to encourage greater participation.
2. Partner with additional organizations represented by the Latinx community, such as the Latino Families group at San Mateo High School and organizations represented in the San Mateo County Latino Collaborative, to organize either in-person or virtual events for direct feedback 766 of 846
Community Engagement Summary January 2022
14 instead of relying on a more passive online engagement platform. Based on the limited response to the Spanish-language online map, additional outreach methods are recommended to capture responses more comprehensively from the Spanish-speaking community.
3. Engage more directly with youth through either an event or classroom-specific presentation and discussion with San Mateo High School, Aragon High School, and/or the Youth Leadership Institute (YLI). Engage with these groups early in the process to avoid scheduling and time constraints in this effort.
Conclusion
The San Mateo community that we engaged is eager for the San Mateo Walks to Transit Plan to be completed and for these requested improvements to be implemented to ensure a safer, more enjoyable walk to and around transit.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A—Focus Group Presentation
Attachment B—Focus Group Meeting Notes
Attachment C—Online Survey (English & Spanish)
Attachment D—Social Media Content
Attachment E—Community Organizations and Groups
Attachment F—Online Survey Results
Attachment G—Online Map Results
767 of 846
ATTACHMENT A—FOCUS GROUP POWERPOINT
768 of 846
769 of 846
770 of 846
771 of 846
772 of 846
773 of 846
774 of 846
775 of 846
ATTACHMENT B—FOCUS GROUP MEETING NOTES
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Meeting Notes
Question 1: Do you walk to transit in San Mateo?
• 100% of the time. Yes walk to transit
• Try and stay active
• Sitting (in a car) is not healthy
• More sustainable
• Get to transit in other methods besides cars – sustainability, safety for others • Convenience
• Walk within 5 mins
• Walk if other modes like bus or bike is not available Question 2: What are the areas of greatest concern for walking within the study area? • Transit doesn’t go across the Bay
• Hayward Park area – convenient to walk,
• Hayward Park is dark, trash, homeless, glass everywhere, shopping carts o Unsafe feeling, esp. dark out
o Walking to Safeway across tracks not safe, parking lot is bad o 17th path – hard to get to station
▪ Driveways, glass
• Hillsdale – sidewalks on 28th to connect to train station – around fieldworks o Wider sidewalks more comfortable
o At underpass there is narrow sidewalk, conflict with bikes that use sidewalk o No access to shared use path
o Conflicts between peds and bikes, and narrow, makes it less comfortable o Places with lack of crosswalks less safe
o Want to cross at 28th at the station instead of walking up to Delaware or ECR o Lots of other people cross where there is no crosswalk • Suggest we walk both stations at dusk and see what that is like Question 3: What walking routes within the study area are your favorite? o Walk to Mall
o Library
o Downtown
o Lots of B street closed which is nice
o Love Hillsdale station – sometimes take it downtown and back o Hard to get past ECR
o Not comfortable crossing ECR
o Cars run red lights – feel safer with more peds
o Enjoy walking around downtown SM
o Live in north central – walk from here and not too bad 776 of 846
o On western side – downtown -closed B street and main street are nice right by the station o Being able to get dinner and grocery shop, etc. near transit is great o More destinations make a space more enjoyable and walkable and more comfortable o Infrastructure is designed to prioritize peds in downtown o LPIs are nice
o ECR still scary to cross in downtown but having LPIs that are new are helpful o Some elderly people don’t have enough time to cross at 28th o Schools and libraries downtown – having LPIs across ECR is helpful Question 4: Based on the improvement options, which three (3) improvements would you choose to make walking easier?
o Ped improvements
o Everything on this list
o Trees and landscaping are nice – shade is very nice esp. on hot day o Physical barrier helpful for children
o All equally important
o Need flashing beacons from car perspective
o Audible push button -helpful for a lot of people – consider ADA o More likely to cross at the right time
o Crosswalks helpful but need the advance limit line
o Median island on 4th Ave – really nice by gateway park by 3rd/4th Ave o Wider sidewalks – feel like almost all sidewalks in SM are not wide enough o Narrow sidewalks everywhere. Esp. West side B street
o Burlingame Ave works well
o Trees and landscaping – dual benefit (buffer and wider sidewalk) – esp. ECR where there is not on street parking to buffer
o Median islands
o Flashing beacons
o Midblock crossing across 28th at Hillsdale station – flashing beacon would be nice here o Use strategically
o Context specific solutions
o Lighting at hayward park
o Medians at 28th Ave and 4th Ave
o Should 4th be a road diet?
o Physical modifications to roadway more than just paint o Crosswalks are less helpful if just paint
o Speed bumps
Question 5: Tell us about walking in San Mateo. Are we missing anything? o Kids, strollers
o Claremont, Delaware – no trees – too hot in summer – more trees would be great o Wider sidewalks – having to walk off sidewalks in some places o here in Shoreview, there are no trees along the sidewalks and tiny sidewalks 777 of 846
o Yes, the urban heat island effect is definitely inequitably distributed across neighborhood in San Mateo - I agree that the tree canopy in treeless neighborhoods should be considered a pedestrian improvement.
o 28th btw ECR and Delaware jaywalking
o Usually on ECR where distance between safe crossing locations is so long so ppl jaywalk and very unsafe but people still do it
o Intersections near mall and ECR – make safer
o 31st better with new mall improvements
Questions for us:
• What funding do we have?
• Grant funded project – all projects identified will need to find funding sources • Part of this project is to identify funding sources
• Private development and grants – group all projects to tie into grant funding applications 778 of 846
Paratransit Coordinating Council Meeting Notes
Question 1: What are the areas of greatest concern for pedestrians within the study area? • Ped access to ECR and the SamTrans bus lines
• Timing of street crossings
• Curb cuts
• Paratransit data – Tina could provide some
• Elevator at the Caltrain station – ramp is long and steep – hard to use without an electric wheelchair, hard to use with crutches
• Access from west side of hayward station, next to Norman’s hobby shop- north side of 28th (wire fence, hobby shop parking lot) by ECR– easement for direct access to station through lot – access from the housing – level entrance to station
• Some pushback on 28th st bike lane from Baymeadows
• Overall happy with the improvements done around hayward station • Beyond ½ mile of San Mateo downtown station – lots of different types of housing (seniors, disabled), does this take into consideration people outside of this radius? Question 2: Based on the improvement options, which three (3) improvements would you choose to make the pedestrian experience easier?
• Audible push buttons (for those legally blind especially) o 28th and ECR needs it
o Can these be countdown, so they know how much time there’s left to cross • Delaware at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th could use better crosswalks with countdowns and better curb cuts (ones that don’t throw people out into the middle of the intersection) o Will likely see more people crossing Delaware with the new housing developments ▪ Suggest leaning on Block 21 development to fund some of these • Longer crossing time across ECR
• 17th/ECR no protected crossings for left turns – drivers are blind turning there (sun) – several crashes here
• Medians should be wider, so a wheelchair user doesn’t block the whole waiting space Question 3: What pedestrian routes within the study area are your favorite? • Like all areas of Bay Meadows to walk through
• Bridgepoint is easy walking, easy to get to 250 bus and shuttles • Downtown
779 of 846
San Mateo County Latino Collaborative Meeting Notes
Question 1: What are the areas of greatest concern for pedestrians within the study area? What have you heard from constituents?
• Any considerations for traffic signals and length of time, ECR • Questions about bikers
• Will any speed limits change?
Question 2: Based on the improvement options, which three (3) improvements would you choose to make the pedestrian experience easier?
• I have family that live very close to the Hillsdale Station. I might also add walkway barriers on the sidewalk when walking over El Camino. I would be nervous to walk in this area with multiple children.
• Nowhere for elderly to sit to rest while on walks – seating would be helpful • Elderly Slower pace crossing the street
• Bright neon flags carried from one side to the other at crosswalks? • Farmers markets by Belmont station – creating more space for events or things to happen to incentivize walking
• Suicide prevention program tied close to stations – any signage in different languages? Any intersections or streets where we know a higher risk of collisions is occurring? to support in other languages provided? Can signage be in other languages? • Wayfinding
• Why this study area?
• Are there plans to expand this work to other areas of the county? • Might need to add a N/A option in survey questions
• Suggest Adding race/ethnicity/language questions to our survey questions 780 of 846
ATTACHMENT C—ONLINE SURVEY
English Version
1. How often do you walk to transit in San Mateo? * (Select one) a. I walk to transit everyday
b. I walk to transit weekly
c. I walk to transit occasionally
d. I use transit but don’t walk there
e. I don’t use transit in San Mateo
f. Other (Please specify)
2. How would you characterize your walking experience to transit in San Mateo?* a. San Mateo provides a safe walk to transit
b. San Mateo provides a somewhat safe walk to transit, but could be improved c. San Mateo does not provide a safe walk to transit.
3. What prevents you from walking to transit more often? Check all that apply.* a. The walk from my house/job/errand is too far from transit b. Transit does not travel when or where I need to travel c. The walk to transit feels unsafe
d. The walk to transit is unpleasant
e. Other (please specify)
The next question asks about improvements measures. See the Glossary (hyperlink) for a description of each choice.
4. What would have the greatest positive impact on your walking experience? Please rank the potential improvements below from most to least important by dragging and dropping them.
□ Improved Lighting
□ Trees and Landscaping
□ Wider Sidewalks
□ More Frequent Crossings
□ Improved Crosswalks (e.g., curb extensions/bulb-outs, median/refuge island) □ Pedestrian Countdown Signals and Longer Crossing Times 781 of 846
□ Accessible pedestrian facilities (e.g., curb ramps, audible push buttons) □ Slowing vehicles down (e.g., speed bumps)
5. What else should we know about walking in the study area? a. [Comment box]
The following questions are included to help us understand whether we are getting input from a representative sample of San Mateo residents, employees, and visitors. All questions are optional.
6. What is your relationship with San Mateo?
Check all that apply.
□ I live in San Mateo
□ I work/go to school in San Mateo
□ I shop in San Mateo
□ Other (Please specify)
7. What is your age? (Optional)
a. [Text box]
8. What is your racial identity? Check all that apply. (Optional) □ American Indian or Alaska Native
□ Asian
□ Black or African American
□ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
□ Latino or Hispanic
□ White
□ Other/Unknown
9. What neighborhood do you live in? (Optional)
▪ 19th Avenue Park
▪ Aragon
▪ Baywood
▪ Baywood Knolls
▪ Baywood Park
▪ Beresford Manor
▪ Bowie Estate Etc.
▪ Eastern Addition/Downtown
782 of 846
▪ Edgewater Isle
▪ Fiesta Gardens
▪ Foothill Terrace
▪ Hayward Park
▪ Hillsdale
▪ Homestead/ Husing
▪ Lakeshore
▪ Laurelwood & Sugarloaf
▪ Lauriedale
▪ Los Prados
▪ Mariner's Isle/ Harbortown
▪ Shoreview
▪ Parkside
▪ San Mateo Highlands
▪ San Mateo Knolls/ Laurel Creek
▪ San Mateo Park
▪ San Mateo Terrace/ Beresford
▪ San Mateo Village
▪ San Mateo Woods/ Bayridge
▪ Westwood Knolls Etc.
▪ Other (please specify)
10. Interested in updates? Provide your email.
a. [Textbox]
783 of 846
Spanish Version
1. ¿Con qué frecuencia camina al transporte público (buses o tren) en San Mateo?* (Seleccione una respuesta)
a. Camino al transporte público todos los días
b. Camino al transporte público cada semana
c. Camino al transporte público ocasionalmente
d. Uso el transporte público, pero no camino para llegar a él e. Uso el transporte público, pero no camino para llegar a él f. Otro (por favor especifique)
2. ¿Cómo describiría su experiencia caminando al transporte público en San Mateo?* a. San Mateo proporciona una caminata segura al transporte público. b. San Mateo proporciona una caminata algo segura al transporte público, pero podría mejorar.
c. San Mateo no proporciona una caminata segura al transporte público.
3. ¿Qué le impide caminar al transporte público con más frecuencia? Seleccione todas las que correspondan. *
a. Es muy largo caminar desde mi casa/trabajo/otros destinos frecuentes al transporte público.
b. El transporte público no viaja cuando y adonde lo necesito. c. La caminata al transporte público se siente insegura. d. La caminata al transporte público es desagradable.
e. Otro (por favor especifique)
La siguiente pregunta corresponde a medidas de mejora. Ver el Glosario para una descripción de cada una de las opciones.
4. ¿Cuáles de estas opciones tendrían el mayor impacto positivo en su experiencia al caminar? Por favor ordene las siguientes mejorías de la más importante a la menos importante. Para ello, puede arrastrar y soltar las opciones para cambiar el orden.
a. Mejorías en la iluminación
b. Árboles y plantas
c. Aceras más anchas
d. Cruces peatonales más frecuentes
e. Mejorías en los cruces peatonales existentes (ej. curb extensions/bulb-outs, median refuge island)
f. Señales peatonales con cuenta regresiva o más tiempo para cruzar la calle g. Infraestructura peatonal accesible (ej. rampas, botones peatonales con audio) h. Disminuir la velocidad de los vehículos
5. ¿Qué otras cosas deberíamos saber sobre el caminar en el área de estudio? * [comment box]
784 of 846
Las siguientes preguntas se incluyeron para ayudarnos a entender si estamos recibiendo aportes de una muestra representativa de los residentes, trabajadores y visitantes de San Mateo. Todas las preguntas son opcionales.
6. ¿Cuál es su relación con San Mateo?
Seleccione todas las que correspondan.
a. Vivo en San Mateo
b. Trabajo/voy a la escuela en San Mateo
c. Hago compras en San Mateo
d. Otro (por favor especifique)
7. ¿Cuántos años tiene? (Opcional)
[comment box]
8. ¿Cuál es su identidad racial? Seleccione toda las que correspondan (Opcional) a. Indio Americano o Nativo de Alaska
b. Asiático
c. Negro o Afroamericano
d. Nativo de Hawaii o de las Islas del Pacífico
e. Latino o Hispano
f. Blanco
g. Otro/Desconocido
9. ¿En qué barrio vive? (Opcional)
▪ 19th Avenue Park
▪ Aragon
▪ Baywood
▪ Baywood Knolls
▪ Baywood Park
▪ Beresford Manor
▪ Bowie Estate Etc.
▪ Eastern Addition/Downtown
▪ Edgewater Isle
▪ Fiesta Gardens
▪ Foothill Terrace
▪ Hayward Park
▪ Hillsdale
▪ Homestead/ Husing
▪ Lakeshore
▪ Laurelwood & Sugarloaf
▪ Lauriedale
▪ Los Prados
▪ Mariner's Isle/ Harbortown
▪ Shoreview
▪ Parkside
▪ San Mateo Highlands
▪ San Mateo Knolls/ Laurel Creek
▪ San Mateo Park
▪ San Mateo Terrace/ Beresford
▪ San Mateo Village
▪ San Mateo Woods/ Bayridge
▪ Westwood Knolls Etc.
▪ Other (please specify)
10. ¿Quiere recibir actualizaciones del proyecto? Indique su correo electrónico. [comment box]
785 of 846
ATTACHMENT D—SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT
San Mateo Walks to Transit
MESSAGING
ENEWSLETTER
Do you walk? Do you take transit? The City of San Mateo needs your feedback and expertise! The City wants to hear how to improve your walk to and from the City’s Caltrain stations and bus stops. Visit San Mateo Walks Transit to share ideas, take the survey, and get updates on the San Mateo Walks to Transit project! The survey closes on October 15th.
SOCIAL MESSAGING
FACEBOOK Please use Emojis as you wish
Hi Neighbors, Are you a transit rider who walks to a bus stop or train station? (insert bus and train emoji) If so, the City of San Mateo wants to hear from you! The City is conducting a survey to identify ways to improve walking routes to transit in San Mateo and we need your expertise! Visit San Mateo Walks Transit to share your ideas, take the survey, and get updates on the San Mateo Walks to Transit project! #SanMateo #commute #walktotransit #publictransportation @SMwalkstotransit @smdailyjournal @sanmateochamber @sanmateoco @SMCountyCommute @sustainmc @Caltrain
TWITTER
Hi neighbors, do you walk to the bus or train? (insert bus and train emoji) Tell us how we can improve your walking experience to transit. (insert walking person emoji) Visit San Mateo Walks to Transit #takeoursurvey
INSTAGRAM
Hi Neighbors, are you a transit rider who walks to a bus stop or train station? (insert bus and train emoji) If so, we want to hear from you! The City is conducting a survey to identify ways to improve walking routes to transit in San Mateo and we need your expertise! Visit San Mateo Walks Transit to share your ideas, take the survey, and get updates on the San Mateo Walks to Transit project!
#Transit #SanMateoCA #commute #Caltrain #publictransportation 786 of 846
ATTACHMENT E—COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND GROUPS
*Groups with which a focus group was conducted
Community Organizations/ Stakeholders:
• Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition San
Mateo Local Team*
• Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC)*
• San Mateo Diversity and Equity
Council*
• Latino Families Group (at SMHS)
• Versailles Senior Condominiums
• The Peninsula Regent
• San Mateo County Latino Collaborative
• San Mateo Pride Center
• Nueva School
• Youth Leadership Institute (YLI)
• San Mateo Senior Commission
• Commute.org
• AbilityPath
• San Mateo County Health Commission
on Disabilities
• Bay Area Community Health Advisory
Council
• San Mateo County Immigrant Services
• San Mateo County Suicide Prevention
Committee
• Office of Education and Safety Training
Traffic Assessment
• San Mateo Library
• Asian Uplift
• Coalition Z
• Downtown San Mateo Association
(DSMA)
Neighborhood and Homeowner’s Associations:
• 19th Avenue Park Association
• 58 N. El Camino Condominium
Association
• Bay Laurels Condominium Association
• Bay Meadows Community Association
(Master HOA)
• Bay Meadows Neighborhood Alliance
• Baywood Owners Improvement
Association
• Baywood Park Homeowners Association
• Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood
Association
• Central Neighborhood Association
• Clearview Homeowners-San Mateo
Woods
• Fiesta Gardens Homeowners
Association
• Gramercy-Mounds El Cerrito
Neighborhood Association
• Hacienda Neighborhood Association
• Harbortown Homeowners Association
• Las Casitas of San Mateo Homeowners'
Association
• Lakeshore Neighborhood Association
(formerly Hillsdale Manor
Neighborhood Association)
• Landsdowne HOA
• Laurelwood Homeowners Association
PMB
• Marina Gardens Homeowners
Association at 1600 Marina Court
• Mariner's Green #2 HOA
• North Central -- HANCSM (Home
Association of North Central San
Mateo)
• North Shoreview Neighborhood
Association
• Parrott Park Homeowners Association
• Ryland Cedar Bay
• San Mateo Glendale Village
Neighborhood Association
• San Mateo Highlands Community
Association
787 of 846
• San Mateo Park Neighborhood
Association (formerly known as San
Mateo Park Association)
• San Mateo United Homeowners
Association
• Shoreview-Parkside Neighborhood
Association
• Sunnybrae Neighborhood Association
• Sugarloaf Homeowners Association
• Ticonderoga Townhomes Association
788 of 846
ATTACHMENT F—ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
9%
4%
2%
9%
23%
26%
28%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Other
Bike
Doesn't use transit
Doesn't walk to transit
Walk occasionally
Walk weekly
Walk daily
How often do you walk to transit in San Mateo?
10 31
6 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 Total
How would you characterize your walking
experience to transit in San Mateo?
San Mateo provides a safe walk to transit
San Mateo provides a somewhat safe walk to transit, but it could be improved San Mateo does not provide a safe walk to transit
789 of 846
49%
19%
30%
2%
What is your relationship with San Mateo?
I live in San Mateo I work/ go to school in San Mateo
I shop and visit in San Mateo Other
790 of 846
14 total responses
14 total responses
15 total responses
15 total responses
19 total responses
25 total responses
36 total responses
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Accessible Pedestrian Facilities
Trees and Landscaping
Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings
Slowing vehicles down
Wider Sidewalks
More Frequent Crossings
Improved Crosswalks
Improved Lighting
What would have the greatest positive impact on your walking experience?
Average Rank
1 5
8 6
3 2
3 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Under 18 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
What is your age?
791 of 846
2%
7%
7%
12%
71%
2.50%
2%
0.04%
6.90%
25.10%
24.10%
52.90%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Other/ Unknown
Latino or Hispanic
Asian
White
What is your racial identity?
Census (2020) Survey
792 of 846
ATTACHMENT G—ONLINE MAP RESULTS
793 of 846
794 of 846
795 of 846
796 of 846
797 of 846
798 of 846
Project Prioritization Metrics
Metric Description Prioritization Weight
Streets Providing Access
to Stations
Streets identified as main walking connections to the
Caltrain stations
High (Station Access Streets)
Low (Connector Streets)
Pedestrian Collisions
Reported pedestrian collisions within the study area
Medium
Community Outreach
Feedback
Pedestrian issues identified through community
outreach Medium
Vulnerable
Communities
(CalEnviroScreen)
Uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic
information to measure community vulnerability to
pollution at the census tract level
Low
Schools Areas within 1 block of Schools Low
Senior Housing Areas within 1 block of Senior Housing Low Development Projects
Upcoming development projects that are either under
review or under construction within the study area Low
799 of 846
Priority Locations
Downtown
Priority Intersections
Priority Corridors 800 of 846
Priority Locations
Hayward Park
Priority Intersections
Priority Corridors
801 of 846
Priority Locations
Hillsdale
Priority Intersections
Priority Corridors
802 of 846
Proposed Project List
Sub-Project # Project Area Name Roadway Name From To Improvements List Downtown
DT-1 Downtown - El
Camino Real
El Camino Real E 5th Ave Crystal Springs
Road
In coordination with Caltrans (long term)
Complete Streets corridor analysis needed. Corridor treatments:
- consider shorter cycle lengths and overall review of signal phasing and timings to improve pedestrian conditions
- consider road diet
- sidewalk width to match City's standard widths outlined in 2012 Pedestrian Master Plan DT-1 Downtown - El
Camino Real
El Camino Real at 5th Ave In coordination with Caltrans short term:
- high-visibility Xwalks
- Ensure there is a 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI in all directions; prioritize turns onto ECR from side streets - add curb extensions along 5th to shadow on-street parking at the northeast & northwest corners to shorten the pedestrian crossing ("paint & plastic" for short term; concrete for medium term) - advance stop bars
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall for crossing 5th Ave medium term:
- directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- add median noses/pedestrian refuge islands on ECR; median should be 6 feet wide at minimum, so it would require widening to the edge of the travel lane (existing yellow line) - protect left turns from 5th Ave as well, if feasible. If not feasible, include split phase and a left turn vehicles yield to peds sign
- add pedestrian countdowns
- upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
DT-1 Downtown - El
Camino Real
El Camino Real at 4th Ave In coordination with Caltrans short term:
- high-visibility Xwalks
- Ensure there is a 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI in all directions; prioritize turns onto ECR from side streets - add curb extensions along 4th to shadow on-street parking on northeast and southeast corners ("paint & plastic" for short term; concrete for medium term)
- advance stop bars
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall for crossing 4th Ave medium term:
- directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- add median noses/pedestrian refuge islands on ECR; median should be 6feet wide at minimum, so it would require working with Caltrans to agree on approach, widen the median to the edge of the travel lane (existing yellow line) or narrow travel lanes
- protect left turns from 4th Ave as well, if feasible. If not feasible, include split phase and a left turn vehicles yield sign
- add pedestrian countdowns
- upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
803 of 846
Sub-Project # Project Area Name Roadway Name From To Improvements List DT-1 Downtown - El
Camino Real
El Camino Real at 3rd Ave In coordination with Caltrans short term:
- high-visibility Xwalks
- Ensure there is a 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI in all directions; prioritize turns onto ECR from side streets -add curb extensions along 3rd to shadow on-street parking on northeast and southeast corners and to close the extra receiving lane space at the NW corner ("paint & plastic" for short term; concrete for medium term)
- advance stop bars
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall for crossing 3rd Ave medium term:
- directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- add median noses/pedestrian refuge islands on ECR; median should be 6feet wide at minimum, so it would require working with Caltrans to agree on approach, widen the median to the edge of the travel lane (existing yellow line) or narrow travel lanes
- protect left turns from 3rd Ave as well, if feasible. If not feasible, include split phase and a left turn vehicles yield sign
- add pedestrian countdowns
- upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
DT-1 Downtown - El
Camino Real
El Camino Real at 2nd Ave In coordination with Caltrans short term:
- advance stop bars
- curb extension into 2nd Ave for Southeast corner ("paint & plastic" for short term; concrete for medium term)
- LPIs + 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance; particularly important for the southern crosswalk (to minimize conflicts with left-turning vehicles)
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI
- extinguishable LT yield to ped sign (for WB) or consider flashing yellow arrow for WB lefts - place pedestrian signal on auto recall for crossing 2nd Ave Medium term:
- curb extensions (that also benefit bus stops) along west side of ECR (Samtrans study proposes relocating southbound bus stop to far side) and northeast corner (bus bulb on ECR and shadow parking on 2nd Ave) - coordination with SamTrans
- directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- add median nose on south side of ECR to create a ped refuge island; median should be 6feet wide at minimum, so it would require working with Caltrans to agree on approach, widen the median to the edge of the travel lane (existing yellow line) or narrow travel lanes - add pedestrian countdowns
- upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
DT-1 Downtown - El
Camino Real
El Camino Real at Crystal Springs
Rd
In coordination with Caltrans
short term:
- curb extension on southwest and northwest corner to align the crosswalk across Crystal Springs. With the curb extensions, the west crosswalk across Crystal Springs can be shifted towards the center of the intersection to create more visibility for pedestrians ("paint & plastic" for short term; concrete for medium term)
- Move stop bar forward on north leg to improve sight lines for southbound vehicles turning right from ECR onto Crystal Springs (sight line currently obstructed by the fountain) - advance stop bar
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI
- Ensure there is a 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- place Crystal Springs pedestrian crossing on automatic recall medium term:
- directional ADA curb ramps (SW and SE)
- add pedestrian countdowns
804 of 846
Sub-Project # Project Area Name Roadway Name From To Improvements List DT-1 Downtown - El
Camino Real
El Camino Real at Baldwin AveBaywood AveIn coordination with Caltrans short term:
- prohibit left turns from ECR all day because this is a school crossing and there will be kids crossing outside of peak hours. We want to be sure we are protecting some of the most vulnerable populations.
Additionally, when restrictions are only for certain periods of time, compliance decreases. - curb extensions to shadow parking on the SW corner into ECR and SE corner into Baldwin ("paint & plastic" for short term; concrete for medium term)
- consider removing RT pocket on Baywood
- advance stop bars at all approaches
- LPIs + 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance on side streets - place pedestrian signal on auto recall for crossing Baldwin Ave & Baywood Ave - location of ped countdown sign on SW corner is blocked by street signs - reposition for visibility medium term:
- curb extensions on west crosswalk -- recommend curb extension at NW corner (would need to be designed such that SB right turns into De Sabla Rd are still feasible), consider building out the median at De Sabla Road to serve as a pedestrian refuge for the west crosswalk and more clearly make vehicles exiting De Sabla Rd T into Baldwin Ave (This would need to be confirmed during design but would help shorten crosswalk and slow vehicles down)
- Consider a "keep clear" stencil on Baywood for De Sabla exiting traffic - add pedestrian countdowns
- protect left turns from Baldwin Ave and Baywood Ave, if feasible. If not feasible, include split phase and a left turn vehicles yield sign; a flashing yellow arrow could also be considered - upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
DT-1 Downtown - El
Camino Real
El Camino Real at Tilton Ave In coordination with Caltrans short term:
- prohibit lefts from El Camino Real, consider all-day prohibition for consistency with Baldwin/Baywood intersection and since when restrictions are only for certain periods of time, compliance decreases. - high-visibility Xwalks across ECR
- Ensure there is a 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI in all directions; prioritize turns onto ECR from side streets - advance stop bars
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall for crossing Tilton Ave medium term:
- curb extensions on Tilton Ave and west side of ECR (bus bulbout) - coordination with SamTrans - directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- add pedestrian countdowns
- upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
805 of 846
Sub-Project # Project Area Name Roadway Name From To Improvements List DT-2-1 Downtown
Gateway
2nd Ave at San Mateo Dr -ideally narrow San Mateo Dr and shift it as far to the east as we can to slow speeds and then create a diagonal crosswalk from the SE corner to the NE corner to improve sight lines - with the extra space, could convert to diagonal parking on the west side of San Mateo Dr - consider split phase or protected lefts for 2nd Ave (which would require a turn pocket on 2nd), or all pedestrian phase to separate left turn vehicles from pedestrians crossing San Mateo Dr. - curb extensions all corners (if not feasible, daylight the intersection) - NW corner radius should be tightened
- advance stop bars
- prohibit parking in intersection (currently allowed on south side). 24 minute meters will be replaced nearby
- directional ADA curb ramps (all corners), would be feasible with the curb extension recommendation - high-visibility Xwalks (all)
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall
DT-2-1 Downtown
Gateway
2nd Ave at S Delaware St - add curb extensions to shadow on-street parking - consider adding turn pockets for protected left turns on 2nd in lieu of curb extensions if left-turn vehicle volumes (and pedestrian crossings) merit it; if so, implement daylighting - directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- high-visibility Xwalks
- Ensure there is a 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance with LPI - extinguishable NRTOR during LPI
- advance stop bars
- add pedestrian countdowns
DT-2-2 Downtown
Gateway
1st Ave at S Ellsworth
Ave
- reduce/remove vehicle/ped conflicts:
* near term improvement: change signal to split phase to protect EB left turns conflicts and add a painted curb extension on the SE corner; enhance crosswalk across the driveway (highvisibility or raised) * long term improvement: shift south leg crosswalk to north of the driveway or to the north leg of the intersection (to avoid left-turn conflicts and be on the side of the Caltrain station); consider a scramble or ped only phase
- curb extension to shadow on-street parking on NE corner - prohibit parking at intersection and add curb extension on west side to shadow on-street parking (between two driveways), spaces will be replaced nearby - directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- high-visibility Xwalks
- LPIs + 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI
- advance stop bars
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall
DT-2-2 Downtown
Gateway
1st Ave S Ellsworth Ave Caltrain tracks - Per Pedestrian Plan, ensure sidewalk is minimum 11 feet wide with a 5-foot through zone; consider widening to the recommended 15-foot wide sidewalk with a 7-foot through zone. Prioritize north sidewalk as it provides the most direct access to the station
DT-2-2 Downtown
Gateway
1st Ave at S B St - with the B St pedestrian mall this becomes a T intersection; implement a pedestrian scramble to reduce conflicts from turning vehicles - coordination required with B Street Pedestrian Mall project - curb extensions at north corners into 1st Ave
- directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- high-visibility Xwalks
- LPIs + 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI
- advance stop bars
- add pedestrian countdowns
DT-2-2 Downtown
Gateway
1st Ave at Transit Center
Way
- add high-visibility crosswalks on west and north legs; consider RRFB for new uncontrolled crosswalk on west leg as additional safety measure for an uncontrolled crosswalk (may require CPUC approval) - directional ADA curb ramps on SW, NW and NE corners (3) (would require tree removal on south side) - curb extension on south side between Main St & parking garage driveway and on NW corner (will also help increase safety of new uncontrolled crosswalk on west leg) 806 of 846
Sub-Project # Project Area Name Roadway Name From To Improvements List DT-2-2 Downtown
Gateway
1st Ave S Ellsworth Ave Caltrain tracks - ensure sidewalk is minimum 11 feet wide with a 5-foot through zone; consider widening to the recommended 15-foot wide sidewalk with a 7-foot through zone DT-2-2 Downtown
Gateway
Transit Center Way
(N-S)
1st Ave Transit Center Way
(E-W)
- widen sidewalk on west side to ensure ADA path of travel and width matching standards outlined in 2021 Ped Master Plan ( 11-ft wide minimum (15-ft recommended) with a 5-ft through zone (7-ft recommended) as it is in the downtown retail core)
DT-2-2 Downtown
Gateway
Transit Center Way
(E-W)
N B St Transit Center Way
(N-S)
- consider reducing travel lanes from two to one westbound and widen sidewalks with that space (this will also help make the Transit Way/Transit Way intersection smaller and more pedestrian-friendly).
Alternatively, consider closing eastbound lane on Transit Center Way to create a nicer entrance to the station
- add wayfinding signage improvements at Transit Center/B Street to reduce driver condition DT-2-2 Downtown
Gateway
Transit Center Way
(E-W)
at Transit Center
Way
- advance stop bars
- high-visibility crosswalks all legs
- directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- consider a raised intersection, perhaps with a decorative element DT-2-2 Downtown
Gateway
Transit Center Way
(E-W)
at N B St - no additional improvements, all suggestions are being implemented with 303 Baldwin development project (project under construction)
DT-2-2 Downtown
Gateway
Ellsworth Ave at Baldwin Ave - curb extensions on northwest, southwest, and southeast corners; daylighting if curb extensions are not feasible
- directional ADA curb ramps on southwest, southeast, northwest corners - high-visibility crosswalks on west and south legs
- LPIs + 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI
- advance stop bars
- add pedestrian countdowns
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall
DT-2-3 Downtown
Gateway
1st Ave at S Claremont St - extend curb extensions into Claremont on west side and add at NE & SE corners - high-visibility crosswalks (all legs)
- advance stop bars
- directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
DT-2-3 Downtown
Gateway
1st Ave at S Railroad Ave - advance stop bars
- high-visibility crosswalks
- directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- consider adding an RRFB to crosswalk across 1st Ave (east leg) to enhance the safety of the uncontrolled crosswalk based on vehicle & pedestrian volumes and vehicle speeds DT-2-3 Downtown
Gateway
1st Ave Claremont St Caltrain tracks - check and ensure clear width for ADA path of travel provided on north sidewalk - ensure sidewalk is minimum 11 feet wide with a 5-foot through zone; consider widening to the recommended 15-foot wide sidewalk with a 7-foot through zone (would likely require parking removal) -- may be a longer term improvement to be implement with new developments DT-2-3 Downtown
Gateway
1st Ave at Caltrain tracks - high-visibility crosswalk across tracks - ensure path across tracks is ADA accessible
807 of 846
Sub-Project # Project Area Name Roadway Name From To Improvements List DT-3-1 North Station
Access
N Railroad Ave
(west of tracks)
Tilton Ave Caltrain station
access point (Mi
Rancho
supermarket)
- widen sidewalk to provide ADA path of travel (sidewalk is currently blocked by poles/garbage cans, parked cars, etc.) if ROW permits
- if not, consider converting street into a shared street/alley with traffic calming so that pedestrian path of travel is ensured on the street
- provide pedestrian scale lighting
DT-3-1 North Station
Access
Railroad Ave N B St N Railroad Ave -restrict parking along this block - add pedestrian scale lighting
- provide wayfinding signage
DT-3-1 North Station
Access
Tilton Ave at N Railroad Ave
(west of tracks)
- stop control the westbound approach as well
- high-visibility crosswalk across Tilton on west leg
- advance stop bar (eastbound)
- curb extensions into Tilton for west leg crossing (NW & SW corners) - ensure adequate lighting in the underpass
DT-3-2 North Station
Access
Cypress Ave Claremont St S Railroad Ave (east side of Caltrain tracks) - Suggest converting Cypress to a one-way westbound to provide space for vehicles not to park on the sidewalks, therefore providing more space for pedestrians on the existing sidewalks - Provide pedestrian scale lighting to enhance sense of safety - provide wayfinding direction to Caltrain station access - Alternatively, suggest removing parking to widen sidewalks and provide ADA path of travel on both sides of the street - 2012 Ped Master plan requires a 7-ft minimum sidewalk with a 5-ft minimum through zone (based on adjacent land use) DT-3-2 North Station
Access
S Railroad Ave at Cypress Ave - provide a new Caltrain station access from Cypress Ave/S Railroad Ave, which would require upgrading sidewalk on S Railroad Ave to provide an ADA path of travel from Cypress to the station access point. If sidewalk widening not feasible, consider converting street into a shared street/alley with traffic calming so that pedestrian path of travel is ensured on the street (including diverters every 1-2 blocks so only bikes and pedestrians can go through )
- add a crosswalk at the intersection on the south leg
- add an ADA ramp on Caltrain track side to connect to the station platform DT-3-3 North Station
Access
Tilton Ave at N B St - directional curb ramp at SW corner - high-visibility crosswalk on south leg
- curb extension on southwest corner to shadow parking on B Street DT-3-3 North Station
Access
Tilton Ave at Delaware St - high-visibility Xwalk markings - curb extensions (nice to have but not as necessary at a less heavily utilized intersection, but could help reduce vehicle speeds on Tilton); if not, add daylighting (all approaches, near side) - advance stop bars
- directional ADA curb ramps
- additional lighting
-If Cypress can't be improved consider extending the shared street recommendation on Railroad to Tilton to provide this pedestrian access
DT-3-3 North Station
Access
Tilton Ave at Claremont St - consider AWSC for traffic calming along Tilton; if it doesn't meet an AWSC warrant, add one crosswalk across Tilton Ave and enhance. Consider raising the crosswalk for traffic calming or add a traffic circle. - lighting
- curb extensions on all corners
- high-visibility Xwalk markings across Claremont (and Tilton based on first bullet point) - advance stop bars
- directional ADA curb ramps
Hayward Park
808 of 846
Sub-Project # Project Area Name Roadway Name From To Improvements List HP-1 El Camino Real -
Hayward Park
El Camino Real at 17th Ave-Bovet
Rd
In coordination with Caltrans
- prioritize SW corner radius tightening and protected left-turns on Bovet/17th - curb extensions to shadow on-street parking at SE corner, & NE corner into ECR -- northeast corner would be a bus bulb if/when bus stop is moved closer to intersection (per SamTrans study) - in coordination with SamTrans
- directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- high-visibility Xwalks
- LPIs + 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI
- advance stop bars
- add pedestrian countdowns
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall for crossing Bovet & 17th - upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
- consider removing dedicated right-turn lane or narrow lanes on Bovet EB to shorten crossings - consider adding a protected EBR overlap phase with the NBL phase and removing the permissive EBR phase (add 'no EBR' blankout sign during EBT phase) to remove the pedestrian-vehicle conflict HP-1 El Camino Real -
Hayward Park
El Camino Real at E 20th Ave In coordination with Caltrans - address skew (long crosswalks, high speed turns) and straighten crosswalks by narrowing lane widths and providing curb extensions on SE corner and curb extension on NE corner into ECR, which would be a bus bulb if/when bus stop is moved closer to intersection (per SamTrans study) - in coordination with SamTrans
- restrict truck turns if needed to address skewed geometry (e.g. NBR and SBR) - directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- high-visibility Xwalks
- LPIs + 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI
- advance stop bars
- add pedestrian countdowns
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall for crossing 20th - upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
- widen sidewalk on 20th -- per 2012 Ped Master Plan sidewalk should be 11-ft wide minimum (15-ft recommended) with a 5-ft through zone (7-ft recommended) as it is adjacent to commercial land uses - add median noses/pedestrian refuge islands on ECR; median should be 6feet wide at minimum, so it would require working with Caltrans to agree on approach, widen the median to the edge of the travel lane (existing yellow line) or narrow travel lanes
- address cross-slope on long driveway with redevelopment on NW Corner/ Xmas tree lot HP-2-1 Hayward Park
West
Leslie St at 17th Ave Coordinate the below improvements with adjacent planning application, if possible:
'- convert to AWSC if warranted, if not, consider traffic calming treatments on 17th. - add high-visibility crosswalk across Leslie St (south leg) and on west side of 17th Ave - add curb extensions to shadow on-street parking on south corners and along north side for new crosswalk and through intersection to discourage parking/stopping in intersection, daylight if curb extensions not feasible
- use curb extensions to address driveway alignment issues if possible - directional ADA curb ramps for two proposed marked crosswalks HP-2-1 Hayward Park
West
17th Ave Leslie St Caltrain Station - improve wayfinding between station entrance and major nearby destinations - provide pedestrian scale lighting along 17th
- widen existing sidewalks to meet requirements and recommendations from 2012 Pedestrian Master Plan; at least ensure continuous ADA path of travel is provided Related Bike Improvements
- Bike Blvd improvements on 17th and Leslie
Caltrain ROW
- Work with Caltrain to formalize existing bike/ped trail from 17th Ave to the Station 809 of 846
Sub-Project # Project Area Name Roadway Name From To Improvements List HP-2-2 Hayward Park
West
Leslie St 17th Ave 19th Ave City Actions
'- provide raised midblock crossing at station entrance north of driveway on east side of Leslie; include curb extensions and ADA curb ramps; provide additional enhancements based on volumes and speeds (currently unavailable)
- address potential ADA cross-slopes across driveways
- improve wayfinding between station entrance and major nearby destinations - provide pedestrian scale lighting along Leslie, including most critically under the SR 92 underpass.
Enhance underpass wall with mural or other placemaking devices. - provide a crosswalk and curb ramps at Gum St
- If redevelopment occurs on east side of Leslie north of Caltrain station entrance, widen existing sidewalk to meet 2012 Pedestrian Master Plan [11' min (15' recommended) with 7' min through zone width (5' recommended; based on adjacent land use of commercial with parallel parking] and consolidate driveways north of the main station entrance.
- If sidewalk or Class 1 path is infeasible on Caltrain property on east side of Leslie, widen west sidewalk to meet 2012 Pedestrian Master Plan standards.
Caltrain ROW
- Work with Caltrain to provide sidewalk to meet requirements and recommendations from 2012 Pedestrian Master Plan or Class 1 multi-use path on the east side of Leslie Street south of the current entrance to 19th Ave.
- Create a new pedestrian gateway entrance to Caltrain platform at the southern end of the station to reduce walking distances to platform and between east and west sides of Hayward Park.
HP-2-2 Hayward Park
West
Leslie St at 19th Ave - provide high-visibility crosswalk on west leg at 19th and Leslie to connect overpass entrance to ballpark and sidewalks.
- If east sidewalk is built on Leslie Street on Caltrain property, connect via high visibility crosswalk on north leg of intersection and directional ADA curb ramps.
- provide curb extensions for crossings to square up the intersection - make this intersection an ASWC
- continue pedestrian-scale lighting from Leslie along 19th Ave to Palm - Consider widening sidewalk on one side of the street to meet City standards, if feasible with trees/utilities
Related Bike Improvements
- Bike Blvd improvements on Leslie and 19th Ave
HP-2-3 Hayward Park
West
Overpass over
tracks (at 19th Ave)
Leslie St Pacific Ave -ADA curb ramps at overpass ramp entrances - ped scale lighting leading to and on the overpass
- improve wayfinding
HP-3 Sunnybrae S Railroad Ave E 16th Ave Caltrain Station - Work with adjacent land owners to formalize bike/ped trail from 16th Ave to the Station entrance through the parking lot
- improve wayfinding between station entrance and major nearby destinations -include an ADA curb ramp to access the path from street - include ADA path of travel through Caltrain parking lot to station platform HP-3 Sunnybrae E 16th Ave S Railroad Ave Delaware St -widen sidewalks within City ROW, if possible to meet requirements and recommendations from 2012 Pedestrian Master Plan -- 7' minimum width with 5' minimum through zone width (based on adjacent residential land use, constrained scenario) -- by narrowing travel lanes or using more of City ROW, not removing parking.
- pedestrian scale lighting
HP-3 Sunnybrae E 16th Ave at S Claremont St - provide high-visibility crosswalk on east leg as well to minimize how often peds cross the street - make existing crosswalks high-visibility
- Daylighting at all corners to improve visibility, consider curb extensions to shadow parking (all corners) if feasible
- rebuild NE curb extension to allow for E leg crosswalk to land outside of a driveway (lower priority) - advance stop bar on north leg
- prohibit parking in intersection; consider a curb extension through the entire intersection on the south side to discourage parking/stopping
- add lighting for north and west crosswalks
HP-3 Sunnybrae E 16th Ave at Delaware St - evaluate the traffic control at this intersection and consider a signal (City is currently evaluating) or roundabout (if roundabout, then it would be only 1 lane approaches) - high-visibility crosswalks all legs
- curb extensions to shadow parking into 16th Ave for east leg - consider narrowing travel lanes at the intersection on west leg to shorten crosswalk 810 of 846
Sub-Project # Project Area Name Roadway Name From To Improvements List HP-3 Sunnybrae S Delaware St at Sunnybrae Blvd - As a part of existing bike blvd project on Sunnybrae, address geometry of cross-streets such as Guildford Ave (T it up) to slow turning speeds coming into Sunnybrae/Delaware. And then T Sunnybrae into Delaware.
- make existing crosswalk high-visibility
- advance stop bars
HP-3 Sunnybrae S Delaware St E 16th Ave Sunnybrae Blvd - ped scale lighting on west side of street (to complement the east side of the street) HP-4-1 Hayward Park
East
Ensure Hayward Park redevelopment addresses existing ADA and ped circulation issues. If redevelopment doesn't occur, the specific recommendations are provided below. -- coordination with Hayward Park redevelopment (project not approved yet)
HP-4-3 Hayward Park
East
Pacific Blvd Concar Dr 19th Ave - widen sidewalk on one side of the street (west side likely better) to meet City standards - provide improvements at 19th/Pacific intersection similar to those identified for Leslie/19th: provide highvisibility crosswalks, curb extensions, and directional ADA curb ramps to connect overpass entrance to Caltrain sidewalk; provide curb extensions on northeast corner to tighten the curb radius and slow down turning vehicles.
HP-4-2 Hayward Park
East
Concar Dr at Station Park Cir92 on/off-rampsIn coordination with Caltrans 'Consider the following in the future to improve ped crossing at Concar / Delaware, if possible to reduce the size of the intersection size and ped crossing distances with additional curb or protected extensions:
- if lanes can be reduced to one or two lanes, we could then T up the off-ramp into Concar to help tighten up the intersection and provide pedestrian crossings on all legs and better connect the developments on the south side to the station (per recommendation above). If reducing to 1 lane is feasible, you could also consider a roundabout. The off-ramp lane reduction would also allow the intersection at Delaware/Concar intersection to be smaller
HP-4-2 Hayward Park
East
Concar Dr at Delaware St Implement Concar Passage plans for protected intersection islands on northeast and southeast corners to accommodate buffered bike lane turning movements, with ADA curb ramps included. - coordination with Concar Passage development project (approved project but building permits not yet filed) Additional pedestrian improvements for all intersection legs include:
- advance stop bars
- high-visibility crosswalks
- LPIs + 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI
- upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall
Hillsdale
H-1 25th Avenue W 25th Ave at Flores St - add curb extensions to shadow on-street parking - directional ADA curb ramps
- lighting
- widen and landscape sidewalks on Flores with new development Coordination with Bicycle Master Plan (which calls for bike lanes on 25th east of Flores and bike route west of Flores)
- consider traffic calming on 25th for the bike route/ future bike lane (per Bike Master Plan) - Convert parking to parallel parking to widen sidewalks or to potentially add parking separated Class IV bikeways
H-1 25th Avenue E 25th Ave at Palm Ave - enhance existing uncontrolled crosswalk across 25th Ave as needed based on speeds and volumes (some basic enhancements suggested below)
- consider adding crosswalk across 25th (west side of Palm) with enhancements for uncontrolled crosswalk based on traffic speeds and volumes
- consider feasibility of a road diet on E 25th; if not feasible, consider addition of a median in place of the parking to allow for a median island and RRFBs
- directional ADA curb ramps
- curb extensions to shadow on-street parking on Palm Ave and 25th Ave (full length of T intersection on south side to discourage stopping/parking); if not feasible, daylight all approaches - high-visibility crosswalk markings
- advance stop bars
- lighting
811 of 846
Sub-Project # Project Area Name Roadway Name From To Improvements List H-1 25th Avenue E 25th Ave at S Delaware St Coordinate with South Delaware ATP project (ATP Cycle 5 grant to design and construct a Class IV bike lane, bike boulevard, and pedestrian facilities, including crosswalks, along South Delaware from 19th Ave. to Pacific Boulevard)
- sidewalk needed on southwest corner and south along Delaware - consider a protected intersection to coordinate bike movements between Class IV on Delaware and Class II on 25th and provide all the pedestrian safety benefits that come with that design if a protected intersection is not feasible:
- consider feasibility of a road diet on E 25th; if not, consider pedestrian-only phase to separate leftturning vehicles from 25th from pedestrians crossing Delaware and the double SBR-turns from pedestrians crossing 25th
- curb extension into Delaware at SW corner
- curb extension on east side of Delaware through intersection to discourage vehicles parking/stopping in intersection; must be designed in coordination with/to allow planned Class IV bikeway per Bike Master Plan
- directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- high-visibility Xwalks
- add NRTOR
- advance stop bars
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall
- upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
H-2 28th Avenue W 28th Ave at Flores St - directional ADA curb ramps (all corners) - curb extensions to shadow on-street parking on 28th (low priority) - consider additional lighting on north side
H-2 28th Avenue El Camino Real at E 28th Ave In coordination with Caltrans & Hillsdale Caltrain Station Bicycle Access Gap Closure Project - add crosswalk on northern leg (continuation of shared path) and add median nose on ECR to create pedestrian refuge -- median should be 6feet wide at minimum; if not, lanes would need to be narrowed (if wider than 11ft)
- consider adding a protected WBR overlap phase with the SBL phase and removing the permissive WBR phase (add 'no WBR' blankout sign during EBT phase) to remove the pedestrian-vehicle conflict - curb extensions at NW and SW corners to shadow parking on 20th and narrow travel lane/widen sidewalk slightly on ECR; curb extension into ECR at SW corner may serve as a bus bulbout if/when SamTrans relocates bus stop there (per SamTrans study) - in coordination with SamTrans - directional ADA curb ramps (all corners, except NW already exists) - high-visibility Xwalks
- LPIs + 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI and permanent NRTOR from 28th onto ECR - advance stop bars
- add pedestrian countdowns
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall for crossing Bovet & 17th - upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
- protect left turns from 28th or include split phasing so that left-turning vehicles are separate from conflicting pedestrians. If not feasible, add LED/extinguishable left turn vehicles yield to peds sign - consider feasibility of a road diet on 28th Ave
H-2 28th Avenue 28th Ave El Camino Real S Delaware St - evaluate the feasibility of a midblock high-visibility crosswalk to facilitate access across 28th between station entrances with good lighting and other enhancements needed based on traffic volumes and speeds, similar to the crossing under the Hillsdale mall on 31st Ave - consider feasibility of a road diet on 28th - in coordination with other City studies H-3-1 31st Avenue/Bay
Meadows
El Camino Real at 31st Ave In coordination with Caltrans - Narrow lane widths on 31st (and ECR) to allow for corners to be expanded/ radius slowed/ crossings shortened (all lanes seem to be 12ft, consider narrowing to 10 or 11ft) - add median nose on north and west crosswalks to create pedestrian refuge; median should be 6feet wide at minimum, so it would require working with Caltrans to agree on approach, widen the median to the edge of the travel lane (existing yellow line) or narrow travel lanes - LPIs + 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI
- advance stop bars
- add pedestrian countdowns for all crossings
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall for crossing 31st Ave - upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
812 of 846
Sub-Project # Project Area Name Roadway Name From To Improvements List H-3-1 31st Avenue/Bay
Meadows
31st Ave at S Delaware St - add curb extensions to shadow on-street parking towards 31st Ave; daylight if curb extensions not feasible
- high-visibility Xwalks
- LPIs + 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI
- advance stop bar on 31st (EB)
- add pedestrian countdowns
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall
- upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
- add wayfinding
H-3-1 31st Avenue/Bay
Meadows
Franklin Pkwy at Baze Rd - assess traffic control needs - does this intersection warrant an AWSC or signal with the new development? if not, assess if further pedestrian crossing enhancements needed for uncontrolled crossings across Franklin (e.g., advance yield markings, median pedestrian refuges) based on traffic speeds and volumes [Bay Meadows TAP included similar recommendations at this location based on which RRFB was installed]
- confirm directional curb ramps are ADA compliant
- high-visibility Xwalks
- curb extensions for northern crosswalk on both sides to shadow parking on Baze Rd - extend median noses, median should be 6feet wide at minimum; if not, lanes would need to be narrowed (if wider than 11ft)
- consider feasibility of a road diet on Franklin Pkwy - coordination with City's Gap Closure Study H-3-1 31st Avenue/Bay
Meadows
31st Ave El Camino Real S Delaware St - provide wayfinding with new access to the station - consider widening sidewalk/ enhancing landscape to make this feel like a primary ped entrance route H-3-2 31st Avenue/Bay
Meadows
Station Curiosity Way Derby Ave Caltrain ROW, coordination needed - consider adding direct station access (and wayfinding) from these areas to avoid pedestrians having to go all the way to 28th to access the station
H-4 Hillsdale
Boulevard
El Camino Real at Hillsdale Blvd In coordination with Caltrans - for WB and NB: remove right turn pocket/lane if feasible based on further study; if the right turn pocket is needed, consider keeping the slip lane and building out the pork chop islands (i.e., make them larger to narrow the right-turn lanes to slow vehicles down, shorten crossings, and provide more space for pedestrians), and raise the crosswalk across the channelized turn. - if slip lanes can be removed, consider repurposing the space to a wider sidewalk - add high-visibility crosswalk on east leg to allow continuous pedestrian connection N-S along east side of ECR
- add median noses on Hillsdale; median should be 6feet wide at minimum; if not, lanes would need to be narrowed (if wider than 11ft)
- directional ADA curb ramps (all corners)
- high-visibility Xwalks
- LPIs + 3.5 ft/sec walking ped clearance
- extinguishable NRTOR during LPI
- advance stop bars
- add pedestrian countdowns
- place pedestrian signal on auto recall for crossing Hillsdale Blvd - upgrade push-buttons to latest ADA standards
- consider feasibility of a road diet on Hillsdale
H-4 Hillsdale
Boulevard
W Hillsdale Blvd at Edison St - curb extensions to shadow parking on southwest and northwest corners - adjust curb extension/corner radius at southeast corner to better align crosswalk across Edison St - consider removing westbound left-turn pocket onto Edison if volumes don't merit it and narrow Hillsdale Blvd and better align northern crosswalk; if not, consider a signal or roundabout as there are too many movements/conflicts for AWSC
- advance stop bars
- high-visibility crosswalks all legs
- directional ADA curb ramps
- pedestrian scale lighting
813 of 846
814 of 846
2 815 of 846
3 816 of 846
Tilton Ave
Tilton AveTilton Ave
Baldwin Ave
San Mateo DrSan Mateo DrSan Mateo Dr
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
B St
2nd Ave2nd Ave2nd Ave
3rd Ave3rd Ave3rd Ave
4th Ave
4th Ave4th Ave
5th Ave5th Ave5th Ave
1st Ave1st Ave1st Ave
Crystal Springs RdCrystal Springs RdCrystal Springs Rd
Tilton Ave
Baldwin Ave
San Mateo Dr
El Camino Real
B St
2nd Ave
3rd Ave
4th Ave
5th Ave
1st Ave
Crystal Springs Rd
RECOMMENDATIONS
DOWNTOWN - EL CAMINO REAL
N
Prohibit left turns from El Camino Real at all
times of the day. Provide curb extensions
along Tilton Ave and the west side of El
Camino Real to reduce crossing distances
and provide space for a bus stop bulbout.
Prohibit left turns from El Camino Real at all times of the day. Provide curb extensions on the west leg to tighten and realign the intersection to better separate De Sabla Road from El Camino Real. Protect left turns from side streets if possible.
Protect left turns from side streets to
reduce conflicts with crossing pedestrians.
Long Term Improvements on El Camino Real
Consider shorter cycle lengths and road diet south of Crystal Springs Road. Widen sidewalks to minimum standards.
Provide curb extensions along the west side of El Camino Real to reduce crossing distances and provide space for a bus stop bulbout. Install a left turn yield to pedestrian sign for westbound turning vehicles or consider a flashing yellow arrow.
Provide curb extensions along the west side of El Camino Real to realign the crosswalk across Crystal Springs Road and tighten the intersection. Move the stop bar forward on the north leg to improve sight lines for southbound vehicles turning right from El Camino Real onto Crystal Springs Road.
YIELD
HERE
TO
817 of 846
5 818 of 846
Baldwin Ave
San Mateo Dr
Ellsworth Ave
B St
2nd Ave
3rd Ave
1st Ave
4th Ave
Claremont St
Delaware St
S. Railroad Ave
Transit Center Way
2nd Ave
San Mateo Caltrain
RECOMMENDATIONS
DOWNTOWN GATEWAY
Consider adding an
RRFB to the crosswalk
across 1st Avenue.
Add a painted curb extension to the southeast corner and enhance the driveway crosswalk to a raised or high-visibility crosswalk. To remove left turn conflicts with crosswalks, implement split phasing.
In the long term, consider shifting the southern crosswalk to the north or adding a pedestrian scramble or pedestrian-only phase.
Provide curb extensions or
consider daylighting and
adding turn pockets for the
protected left turns on 2nd
Avenue.
Reconfigure the intersection by
narrowing travel lanes on San
Mateo Drive, shifting lanes
towards the east, and converting
to diagonal parking on the west
side of the street.
Remove conflicts from 2nd
Avenue by implementing split
phasing, protected lefts, or an all
pedestrian phase.
Provide curb extensions to
tighten corner radii.
Ensure sidewalk minimum is
11 feet wide with 5 foot clear
zone on 1 st Avenue and
Transit Center Way (N-S)
Consider a pedestrian
scramble to reduce
conflicts with turning
vehicles. Provide curb
extensions onto 1st Avenue.
Provide high-visibility crosswalks
on the west and north legs. Include
directional ADA curb ramps and
curb extensions for the west leg,
with consideration for an RRFB.
Consider reducing westbound travel lanes to
widen sidewalks. Alternatively, consider closing
the eastbound lane on Transit Center Way to
create an enhanced entrance to the station. Add
wayfinding signage improvements to reduce
driver confusion. Opportunity for
placemaking/public art.
Consider a raised
intersection. Opportunity for
placemaking/public art.
Provide curb extensions and
directional ADA curb ramps.
Provide high-visibility
crosswalks across the
train tracks.
N
New
Development
819 of 846
SUMMARY
Recommendations in this area focus on improving pedestrian access to the Caltrain station from the north, through a new station entrance near Cypress Avenue and improvements to the existing access on the northwest corner. Specific recommendations include improving the accommodations and experience along the alleyways that provide direct access to the Caltrain station with improved lighting, wayfinding, and generally providing more space for pedestrians by widening sidewalks, restricting parking, or implementing a shared street concept. On Cypress Avenue, this would include considerations for a two-way to one-way street conversion.
Enhancements are recommended at crossings of Tilton Avenue to improve pedestrian comfort for those traveling to and from the north. These include standard visibility improvements such as high visibility markings, advanced stop bars where applicable, improved lighting, and curb extensions where feasible.
Traffic calming is recommended on Tilton Avenue crossings at Claremont to provide consistent crossing opportunities between Delaware and the Caltrain corridor. Options include an all-way stop if warranted, or an enhanced crossing in the form of a raised crossing or traffic circle.
DOWNTOWN - NORTH STATION ACCESS
ISSUES
The North Station location provides direct pedestrian access to the northern end of the San Mateo Caltrain station via North Railroad Avenue. To access the entrance, pedestrians must either walk through the Mi Rancho parking lot or walk down the back alley of North Railroad Avenue, neither of which provide access to the northbound platform. Pedestrians coming from the north must cross Tilton Avenue, which presents visibility issues due to roadway grade changes, parked cars, and poor lighting.
There is no direct access to the Caltrain station from the northeast side.
Key priority metrics
Access Street
High Community
Concern
Pedestrian
Collisions
Vulnerable
Pedestrians
Development
Project
Vulnerable
Community
7 820 of 846
San Mateo Caltrain
Tilton Ave
Ellsworth Ave
B St
Cypress Ave
Catalpa St
Mount Diablo Ave
Claremont St
N. Railroad Ave
Delaware St
S. Railroad Ave
Railroad Ave
Tilton Ave
Ellsworth Ave
B St
Cypress Ave
Catalpa St
Mount Diablo Ave
Claremont St
N. Railroad Ave
Delaware St
S. Railroad Ave
Railroad Ave
Tilton Ave
Ellsworth Ave
B St
Cypress Ave
Catalpa St
Mount Diablo Ave
Claremont St
N. Railroad Ave
Delaware St
S. Railroad Ave
Railroad Ave
RECOMMENDATIONS
NORTH STATION ACCESS
Provide pedestrian-scale lighting under the overpass.
Restrict parking. Provide
pedestrian-scale lighting and
wayfinding.
Provide a directional curb
ramp at the southwest
corner. Provide a high-visibility
crosswalk on the southern leg
and a curb extension on the
southwest corner into B Street.
Provide pedestrian-scale lighting.
Consider implementing an all-way stop control for tra c calming along Tilton Avenue if warranted. Otherwise, consider a raised crosswalk or tra
c circle. Provide pedestrian-scale
lighting and curb extensions on all corners.
Provide a new entrance to the Caltrain station from Cypress Avenue/South Railroad Avenue. Widen sidewalks to meet ADA standards or consider converting South Railroad Avenue to a shared street/alley with tra
c calming to limit vehicular travel and ensure a
clear path for pedestrians. Provide a high-visibility crosswalk on the southern leg of the intersection, with ADA curb ramp to connect to the station platform.
Consider converting Cypress Avenue
to a one-way westbound street to
provide space for vehicles to park on
the street and o
the sidewalks to
provide ADA path of travel on both
sidewalks. Provide pedestrian-scale
lighting and wayfinding. ONE WAYONE WAY
E
B
Widen sidewalks to meet standard widths and provide
ADA path of travel. Alternatively, consider converting the street into a shared street/alley with tra
c calming to
ensure a clear path for pedestrians. Provide
pedestrian-scale lighting.
P CALTRAIN
ENTRANCE
N
821 of 846
822 of 846
10 823 of 846
HAYWARD PARK - EL CAMINO REAL
ISSUES
El Camino Real and SR-92 create barriers for people walking to transit due to the limited pedestrian crossing locations and sidewalks that are narrower than City standards, and thus provide limited buffer between high-speed vehicles and pedestrians along El Camino Real. 17th Avenue-Bovet Road and 20th Avenue are the closest locations to cross El Camino Real for people walking to the Hayward Park Caltrain Station. Both locations have wide corner radii and long crossing distances, which allows turning vehicles to do so at high speeds and creates uncomfortable conditions for people walking to Caltrain or to bus stops on El Camino Real.
SUMMARY
Enhancing the safety and comfort for people crossing El Camino Real at 17th Avenue-Bovet Road and 20th Avenue would improve accessibility between destinations such as Borel Square Shopping Center, San Mateo City Hall, and nearby neighborhoods to bus stops and Caltrain. Near-term improvements include traffic signal improvements, curb extensions, and realigning the crosswalks to slow vehicle turning speeds and reduce pedestrian exposure to conflicting vehicles. Curb extensions and crosswalk adjustments could be completed using quick-build materials to further expedite these improvements. Unique features include bus stop enhancements and wider sidewalks at El Camino Real and 17th and 20th avenues in coordination with SamTrans per the SamTrans El Camino Real Bus Speed & Reliability Study.
A corridor study is recommended in coordination with Caltrans to address the need for more substantial long-term improvements such as wider sidewalks, a holistic review of pedestrianfriendly cycle lengths, and the potential for a road diet to address high vehicle speeds and volumes on the corridor.
All improvements on El Camino Real will require coordination Caltrans. The primary recommendations in this study area are all consistent with Caltrans’ guidance for implementing complete streets principles on the state highway system.
Key priority metrics
Access Street
High Community
Concern
Pedestrian Collisions
Vulnerable
Pedestrians
Development Project
Vulnerable
Community
PROJECT COORDINATION / OVERLAP
SamTrans El Camino Real Bus Speed & Reliability Study
11 824 of 846
Hayward Park
Caltrain
RECOMMENDATIONS
HAYWARD PARK - EL CAMINO
El Camino Real
Bovet Rd
19th Ave
Palm Ave
Gum Ave
Ivy St
20th Ave
17th Ave
SR-92
Straighten crosswalks to address the
skewed intersection/pedestrian
crossings by providing curb extensions
on the east side of El Camino Real and
narrowing travel lane widths.
Widen sidewalks to minimum widths.
Provide curb extensions on El Camino Real to shorten
pedestrian crossings and provide space for a bus stop.
Provide curb extensions at the southwest corner on Bovet Road to tighten the corner radius and slow turning vehicles. Consider removing the dedicated right turn lane or narrowing existing travel lanes on Bovet Road to shorten pedestrian crossings.
Provide protected left turns from Bovet Road and 17th Avenue.
N
Long Term Improvements on El Camino Real
Consider shorter cycle lengths and road diet.
Widen sidewalks to minimum standards.
825 of 846
13 826 of 846
RECOMMENDATIONS
HAYWARD PARK WEST
Hayward Park Caltrain
El Camino Real
Concar Dr
South Blvd
Palm Ave
Gum St
17th Ave
Leslie StLeslie St
19th Ave19th Ave
Provide curb ramps at overpass ramp
entrances. Provide pedestrian-scale lighting
leading to and on the overpass. Improve
wayfinding to/from Caltrain Station.
Provide a raised midblock crosswalk at the station entrance on Leslie Street. Include curb extensions and directional ADA curb ramps. Improve wayfinding between the station entrance and major nearby destinations. Provide pedestrian scale lighting along Leslie Street and under the State Route 92 overpass. Widen sidewalks to minimum standards and
consolidate driveways north of the station entrance as
development on the east side of Leslie Street occurs.
Provide a crosswalk and directional ADA curb
ramps at Gum Street.
Provide high-visibility crosswalks and
directional ADA curb ramps across Leslie Street
and west side of 17th Avenue. Provide curb
extensions on north and south sides of 17th
Avenue to enhance the new crosswalk and
discourage parking/stopping in the intersection.
Use curb extensions to realign driveways.
Improve wayfinding between the station and major nearby destinations. Provide pedestrian-scale lighting along 17th Avenue. Widen sidewalks to minimum standards. Formalize the existing bicycle/pedestrian path from 17th Avenue to the station platform. Consider implementing bicycle
boulevard improvements along 17th Avenue.
Provide a high visibility crosswalk on the west leg at 19th Avenue and Leslie Street to connect the overpass entrance to the ballpark and sidewalks. Provide curb extensions to square up the intersection.
Implement an all-way stop. Continue pedestrian-scale lighting from Leslie along 19th Avenue to Palm Avenue. Consider widening sidewalks to minimum standards and implementing bicycle boulevard improvements along Leslie Street and 19th Avenue.
BLVD
BLVD
BLVD
BLVD
N
Consider a Class 1 shared bicycle and
pedestrian path along the east side of Leslie
Street. Create a new pedestrian station
entrance to the station platform at the
southern end of the station to reduce walking
distances between the east and west sides of
Hayward Park.
CALTRAIN
ENTRANCE
827 of 846
15 828 of 846
S B Street
16th Ave
Claremont St
15th Ave
14th Ave
16th Ave
Delaware St
Su
n
nybrae
Blvd
S Railroad Ave
RECOMMENDATIONS
SUNNYBRAE
Provide pedestrian-scale lighting on
the west side of Delaware Street.
Widen sidewalks to minimum standards by narrowing
travel lanes or using more of City ROW. Provide
pedestrian-scale lighting along 16th Avenue between
Delaware Street and South Railroad Avenue.
Work with adjacent land owners to formalize the
bicycle/pedestrian path from 16th Avenue to the Station entrance through the parking lot and provide an ADA
curb ramp to access the path from the street. Improve
wayfinding between the station entrance and major
nearby destinations. Provide an ADA path of travel
through the Caltrain parking lot to the station platforms.
Provide high visibility crosswalks on all legs, including a new crosswalk on the east leg to minimize how often pedestrians have to cross the street. Provide daylighting to improve visibility. Consider curb extensions through the entire intersection to discourage parking/stopping. Provide intersection roadway lighting for north and west crosswalks.
Evaluate the need for a signal or consider a
single lane roundabout at this intersection.
Provide high-visibility crosswalks at all legs.
Provide curb extensions on 16th Avenue.
Consider narrowing travel lanes at the
intersection on the west leg of 16th Avenue to
shorten the crosswalk.
As a part of the existing bicycle boulevard project on
Sunnybrae, address the geometry of the intersection
with Guildford Avenue. Upgrade existing crosswalk to
high-visibility. Provide advance stop bars.
N
Hayward Park
Caltrain
829 of 846
17 830 of 846
Leslie St
Concar Dr
19th Ave
D
ela
w
are
St
Ensure Hayward Park station
development project addresses
existing ADA and pedestrian
circulation issues.
Pacific
Blvd
Widen the sidewalk on one side of the
street to meet minimum widths.
Assess feasibility of reducing the number of lanes at this intersection, including the o -ramp, in order to "T" the o ramp into Concar Drive and help reduce pedestrians' exposure to vehicles by reducing the size of the intersection and the adjacent intersection at Delaware Street. Crossings should then be provided on all legs to improve access between the southern developments and the Caltrain station.
Implement Concar Passage plans for
protected intersection islands on
northeast and southeast corners to
accommodate bu ered bike lane turning
movements, with ADA curb ramps.
SR-92
Provide curb extensions, high-visibility crosswalks, and directional ADA curb ramps to connect overpass entrance to Caltrain sidewalk; provide curb extensions on northeast corner to tighten the curb radius and slow down turning vehicles.
New
Development
New
Development
RECOMMENDATIONS
HAYWARD PARK EAST
N
Hayward Park Caltrain
831 of 846
832 of 846
20 833 of 846
21 834 of 846
25th Ave
El Camino Real
Flores
St
Palm Ave
Delaware St
RECOMMENDATIONS
25TH AVENUE
N
Build a sidewalk on the westside of Delaware Street. Consider a protected intersection to protect and organize movements between Class IV on Delaware Street and Class II on 25th Avenue and provide pedestrian safety benefits.
Provide enhanced crosswalks such as a RRFB. Provide curb extensions through the intersection to discourage
parking/stopping. Provide pedestrian-scale lighting.
Provide curb extensions, directional ADA curb ramps and pedestrian-scale lighting. Widen sidewalks to minimum standards and provide landscaping by converting parking to parallel parking. Consider tra c calming on 25th Avenue in coordination with the proposed bicycle route and Class IV bikeway.
Consider a road diet on
East 25th Avenue.
835 of 846
23 836 of 846
28th Ave
El Camino Real
Flores
St
Delaware St
27th Ave
E 28th Ave
RECOMMENDATIONS
28TH AVENUE
Hillsdale Caltrain
N
Evaluate the feasibility of a midblock
crosswalk to facilitate access across
28th Avenue between the station
entrances. Provide pedestrian-scale
lighting and consider other safety
features similar to the crossing under
the Hillsdale Mall on 31st Avenue.
Consider the feasibility of a road
diet on 28th Avenue.
Add a new crosswalk on the northern leg on El Camino Real to continue the Class I shared bicycle and pedestrian path. Include a median to provide a pedestrian refuge on El Camino Real.
Consider protecting the westbound right turn and westbound left turn to remove pedestrian conflicts. Provide curb extensions on the west side of El Camino Real and into 28th Avenue to shorten crossing distances and provide space for a bus stop.
Provide directional ADA curb ramps on all
corners. Provide pedestrian-scale lighting on
the north side of the intersection and curb
extensions on 28th Avenue.
837 of 846
25 838 of 846
Franklin Pkwy
El Camino Real
31st Ave
31st Ave
Curiosity Way
B
a
ze
Rd
S Delaware St
Derby Ave
Franklin Pkwy
El Camino Real
31st Ave
31st Ave
Curiosity Way
B
a
ze
Rd
S Delaware St
Derby Ave
Franklin Pkwy
El Camino Real
31st Ave
31st Ave
Curiosity Way
B
a
ze
Rd
S Delaware St
Derby Ave
Hillsdale Caltrain
RECOMMENDATIONS
31ST AVENUE / BAY MEADOWS
N
Consider adding direct station access and
wayfinding from the east and west sides of the
station to create a direct path from the station
to the new developments to the east and the
commercial areas west of El Camino Real.
Provide wayfinding with the new
entrance to the Caltrain station.
Consider enhancing the sidewalk by
adding landscaping or public art.
Assess tra c control needs to determine if an
all-way stop or signal is appropriate. Determine if
pedestrian crossing enhancements are needed
based on speed and volumes. Provide curb
extensions on Baze Road. Consider the feasibility
of a road diet on Franklin Parkway - 31st Avenue.
Consider narrowing travel lanes on 31st Avenue and
El Camino Real to allow for corner radii to be
tightened for shorter crossings. Provide a pedestrian
refuge for the north and west crosswalks.
Provide curb extensions on 31st Avenue to shorten
pedestrian crossings and directional ADA compliant
curb ramps on all corners. Provide high-visibility
crosswalks and wayfinding to the station entrance.
CALTRAIN
ENTRANCE
839 of 846
27 840 of 846
El Camino Real
Edison St
Hillsdale Blvd
Pacific Blvd
36th Ave
RECOMMENDATIONS
HILLSDALE BOULEVARD
N
Provide curb extensions on the west side corners to better align the crosswalk across Edison Street. Consider removing the westbound left-turn pocket onto Edison Street or consider a signal or roundabout to simplify the many conflicting movements. Provide pedestrian-scale lighting.
Consider the feasibility of removing right turn slip lanes/pockets northbound and westbound.
Provide high-visibility crosswalk on east leg to allow for a continuous pedestrian connection along the east side of El Camino Real. Consider the feasibility of a road diet on Hillsdale Boulevard. 841 of 846
842 of 846
31 843 of 846
32 844 of 846
33 845 of 846
34 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
846 of 846