San Carlos City Council
August 25, 2025

Meeting Notes: Downtown Subcommittee
Downtown Specific Plan Project Meeting – Wednesday, August 6, 2025

Attendees
• Councilmember Dugan
• Councilmember Venkatesh
• Nil Blackburn, Assistant City Manager
• Al Savay, Community & Economic Development Director
• Lisa Porras, Planning Manager
• Rendell Bustos, Senior Planner
• Jim Stickley, WRT
• Rohit Tak, WRT
• Brian Canepa, W-Trans
• David Greensfelder, Greensfelder Commercial Real Estate

Councilmember Input/Questions
Phase 1b Improvements

1. (Councilmember Dugan) Takeaway that the location, base, quantity of water for the fountain was agreed upon; just the centerpiece needs to be addressed. Can you clarify if the infrastructure and plumbing for the fountain are relatively firm?

2. (Councilmember Dugan) The swerve of the pedestrian traffic seems less pronounced. Was there a change, or is this a different view? Outdoor Dining and Retail Display Areas

3. (Councilmember Dugan) Is the 5-foot dining zone for El Camino Real driven by actual dimensions there, or is it our decision to limit it there? Clarify whether the dimensions are different for El Camino Real.

4. (Councilmember Venkatesh) Will both sides of San Carlos Avenue have a dining zone? I am less concerned about El Camino Real having a reduced dining zone, because it could be a lower priority there.

5. (Councilmember Dugan) Because the paving surface will be uniform, will there be a line separating the dining zone and other zones?

6. (Councilmember Venkatesh) Can the dining zones be consistent on both sides of El Camino Real?

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 216

7. (Councilmember Dugan) Is 5-feet wide enough for a pedestrian thoroughfare? 10- feet for a pedestrian zone seems fine.

8. (Councilmember Dugan) Will we allow a dining strip for the 600 block plaza (behind Groovy Goose and Blue Line pizza)? I support public seating under City control there. Perhaps we still keep public seating even for special set ups.

9. (Councilmember Dugan) Consider having tables and chairs facing the street like we see in Paris or Rome. Backs of chairs should not face the street.

10. (Councilmember Dugan) I support permanent awnings that incorporate heaters but am concerned about heaters on poles.

11. (Councilmember Dugan) I agree with our current code to disallow permanent attachments into the right-of-way to avoid permanent damage.

12. (Councilmember Venkatesh) Who enforces the outdoor dining codes?

13. (Councilmember Venkatesh) For barriers, it would be nice to have planting barriers with flowers, for example. I would also like to avoid overhead heating on poles.

14. (Councilmember Venkatesh) I like the idea of having specific colors, but consider limiting it to four or so.

15. (Councilmember Dugan) I agree with limiting the number of colors. Consider using the first three which are our principal colors.

16. (Councilmember Dugan) For barriers, consider specifying widths or that they should be planter boxes. They should be wide enough to set onto the pavers without bolts and provide a separation that some restaurants want. The barriers should also come out of the dining zone and the City’s right-of-way.

17. (Councilmember Dugan) I agree with prohibiting advertising on awnings but am open to patterns on awnings.

18. (Councilmember Dugan) Will the retractable side panels be down only during inclement weather?

19. (Councilmember Venkatesh) Are there businesses using retractable panels now?

20. (Councilmember Venkatesh) I like the open barriers. Could the code specify a minimum gap in between barriers?

21. (Councilmember Dugan) Consider specifying a maximum percentage the barriers should not cover.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 217

22. (Councilmember Dugan) For dining and retail, should we be explicit that no subletting should be allowed?

23. (Councilmember Dugan) Charging a fee for tree strip zone dining areas should be discussed. This could be a way to regulate the issue of some businesses having a reduced tree strip zone by charging what businesses are using.

24. (Councilmember Dugan) Parklets should be removed as we become ready for construction. This is a messaging opportunity.

Parking

25. (Councilmember Dugan) We might get to parking maximums as a City, but I don’t think we need to jump there so fast. We are just being faced with removing parking minimums.

Formula Retail/Personal Service Uses

26. (Councilmember Dugan) I agree with having some control over formula businesses come in.

27. (Councilmember Venkatesh) Did Redwood City do something similar, where they allowed more mixed-uses?

28. (Councilmember Dugan) Clarify the problem we are trying to solve. Whether the issues are vacancies, too many restaurants, etc. will help me think about this differently.

29. (Councilmember Dugan) I like the idea of local chains. I am not sure if prohibiting these is the best for our city.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 218

Downtown Restaurant and Retail Business Meeting
08/07/2025 | 8:00 am | Stamp Bar & Grill

DOWNTOWN BUSINESS STAKEHOLDER MEETING
August 7, 2025

Presentation
Lisa Porras, Planning Manager, walked through a series of slides outlining existing and proposed standards for outdoor dining and retail display. Following the presentation, participants shared feedback with City staff.

Attendee Input/Questions

1. (Business Owner – Faith and Spirits) The City could consider raising the maximum height for barrier elements--perhaps a 3-foot barrier plus an additional two feet for a transparent wind barrier (either glass or plexiglass).

2. (RWC Fire) Heaters near plexiglass could pose a safety concern (glass implosion) and emphasized that design and placement of heating and barrier elements will need to be reviewed on a case -by- case basis through the permitting process.

3. (Business Owner – Town) I am not sure about the street closure any longer. If the Fire Department needs access, does it make sense for the street to be closed? No one wants to sit outside without protection. Having no overhead structure is limiting. Without a structure, you cannot add electric heat. Not having a barrier is unwanted by ABC. An issue is that we have western- and eastern-facing businesses. This design would not make me want to go to San Carlos. With retailers, they would be dealing with retail theft by putting goods outside. Also, where is the funding coming from? I would recommend going back to the parklet program in 2016 where there was a high barrier of entry.

Parklets work, but tables outside without sun protection, wind protection, heating elements, and lighting do not work.

4. (Business Owner – The Reading Bug) Clarify the timeline for downtown streetscape improvements.

Many retail businesses are in danger of closing in the next five years.

5. (Business Owner – Faith and Spirits) Does the 9-month timeline for Harrington Park include the stage area, or just the park? I suppose we would not have to worry about our parklets until 2027, or until Harrington Park construction starts? Would we be compensated for our loss of business while others still have theirs?

6. (Retail Business Owner) How will payment be portioned for outdoor retail or dining?

7. (Business Owner – Stamp) City could consider a new parking structure to make it easier for people to shop and dine downtown.

8. (Business Owner – Town) We don’t need or can’t afford a new parking structure. We do employ a lot of people, and we have an outdated parking enforcement program. The second floor of Wheeler Plaza is open. It behooves the City to get better parking enforcement. I see businesses park right behind their business that could be valuable parking or visitors.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 219

Downtown Restaurant and Retail Business Meeting
08/07/2025 | 8:00 am | Stamp Bar & Grill

9. (Business Owner – Reading Bug) There is a lot in the alley behind the 700 block that is almost always empty. It has a large yellow “No Parking” sign. The City might be able to work with the lot owner to create or purchase more parking.

10. (Business Owner – Faith and Spirits) If new umbrella colors are required, would our existing ones be grandfathered in?

11. (Business Owner – Town) Which business owners from the 700 block had been involved in the decision to close the 700 block of Laurel to vehicle traffic?

12. (Chamber San Mateo County) There is a concern from a Chamber perspective about long term effects on businesses and how this is getting funded if development is slowing down. How do businesses plan for this, if business want to move, for example. We have to help our businesses with quick fixes to help our businesses.

13. (Business Owner – Town) We need to focus on where the funding is coming from if development and biotech is slowing down. Parklets generate a lot of revenue and is concerning if these are taken away.

14. (Business Owner – Faith and Spirits) We should have a temporary stage or music Downtown, instead of Music in the Park with food trucks who are not from San Carlos.

15. (Chamber San Mateo County) There used to be a performer who would sing Downtown. This could be a quick fix. We have to be flexible because the Downtown Plan is a vision plan.

16. (Business Owner – Town) I would encourage creating an entertainment zone Downtown.

17. (Business Owner – Stamp) The farmer’s market used to take place on Thursdays (Hot Harvest Nights) and was very popular. The Sunday market is not as popular and is competing with other Sunday markets, people tend to come and go quickly. The owner recommended moving the farmers market to the 700 block (as it’s already closed) to save time and money. The owner also recommended the market be rescheduled to Thursday nights to provide mid-week shopping.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 220

Outdoor Dining/Sidewalk Café and Retail Display Areas
Downtown Business Meeting8:00 am 9:30 amThursday, August 7, 2025

1. Quick Introductions and Meeting Purpose2. Brief History of Outdoor Dining and Retail Display 3. Plan Area - where new standards would apply4. Outdoor Dining/Sidewalk Cafes 5. Retail Display Areas on the Sidewalk6. Tree Strip Zone7. Q&A, Input, Other Comments/Considerations8. Next Steps (Aug 25 City Council Study Session) 2 10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 221

Since 1991: Municipal Code outlines operation, maintenance, and design standards for outdoor dining (sidewalk cafes) and retail display areas2016: Temporary Pilot Program for On-Street Dining2020: COVID parklets2023: Permanent Closure of the 700 block of Laurel Street (Dec 11, 2023)2025: Downtown Streetscape Master Plan (adopted April 28, 2025)Nov. 10, 2025: Adopt Downtown Specific Planstandards for current condition of downtown, ANDstandards based on future streetscape improvements 3 Brief History of Outdoor Dining andRetail Display Areas in San Carlos Meeting Purpose
4Ultimate Goal: Establish standards for outdoor dining and retail display areas in the Downtown Specific Plan. How we get there:To identify business needs / receive input from San Carlos downtown business operators.City Council to provide direction on Monday, Aug 25, 2025Downtown Specific Plan/Standards Adoption, Nov. 10, 2025

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 222

Downtown Specific Plan Area
5 Downtown Specific Plan Outdoor Dining and Retail Display Area locations 6 TREE STRIP ZONETREE STRIP ZONESIDEWALK DINING/RETAIL DISPLAY ZONESIDEWALK DINING/RETAIL DISPLAY ZONELaurel St. 700 blockLaurel St. 600/800 blocksLaurel St. 600/800 blocks

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 223

Future Sidewalk Cafe/Retail Display Areas
7Sidewalk Café/Retail Zone:Laurel Street600 and 800 blocks: 8 feet from building face700 block pedestrian mall: 9 feet from building faceSouth of Arroyo: 4 feet minimum sidewalk clearanceSan Carlos Avenue: 8 feet from building faceEl Camino Real: 5 feet from building face New Plaza in the 600 Block, Laurel (between Blue Line and Paris Baguette) 8No dining/retail within the tree strip. Public seating in the plaza (except during special events).

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 224

Outdoor Dining/Sidewalk Cafe Areas
9Outdoor Dining Standards
10OPERATIONNo amplified sound (live music/entertainment Minor Use Permit)No outdoor cooking or open flamesPortable heating devices subject to Fire approvalNo bussing stations or trash storageOkay to leave furnishings overnightNo subleasing to another businessMAINTENANCEBusiness shall maintain area, adjoining street and gutter in neat, clean, orderly conditionDining activities shall not interfere with pedestrian zone, parking, or trafficFurniture must be kept in good condition; umbrellas shall be kept secure in windy conditions and shall be fire-treated

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 225

Outdoor Dining Standards
11No permanent attachments and no permanent shelters over outdoor eating areasBarriers not required, but if desired they may include planter boxes (but no wrought iron fencing)Improvements and furnishings shall be commercial-grade and made for outdoor use Umbrellas shall be of a solid color (using City official color palette and white); no advertising or signage z Outdoor Dining Standards 12 Permit outdoor dining furniture, umbrellas, and appurtenances to remain within the dining zone overnightProhibit subleasing of outdoor space (and from acquiring more space from your neighbor)Provide more clarity that seating shall not have its back toward the pedestrian zone.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 226

Outdoor Dining Standards
13 Specify that outdoor dining shall comply with ADA access and clear zone requirements Emphasize that portable heaters must meet Fire Code and be set back from trees and flammable objects Permit built-in overhead heaters on overhead trellis if they meet Fire CodeOutdoor Dining Standards 14No permanent attachments on the ground and no permanent shelters over outdoor eating areas

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 227

15 But exclude neon and dayglow colorsOutdoor Dining Standards Official Color Palette plus white (no advertising or signage). 16 Permit patterned or solid color awnings; still no advertisingOutdoor Dining Standards Permit a projecting open lattice

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 228

17 Retractable curtains permitted perpendicular to building façade to block wind or create privacy from neighboring businessesStreet-facing awnings may include retractable windscreens as long as they are transparent and only used in inclement weatherOutdoor Dining Standards Outdoor Dining Standards
18Barriers may include planter boxes (but no wrought iron fencing)Improvements and furnishings shall be commercial-grade and made for outdoor use Require that barrier elements be cohesive in color, size, and material Encourage gaps between planter boxes or barrier elements

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 229

Outdoor Dining Standards
19 Discourage continuous wall.Gaps preferred.Do not allow tripping hazard.

Prohibit faux plants and hedges Maximum barrier height of 3 ft; 4 ft height including plants 20 Outdoor Dining Standards
Prohibit rope barriers, metal crowd barriers, and jersey barriersProhibit platforms and floor coverings

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 230

Outdoor Retail Display Areas on the Sidewalk
21Outdoor Retail Display Standards
22OPERATIONS:Display may only be in front of the businessMerchandise displayed outdoors must be the same as sold inside storeAllow appurtenances to remain overnight or stored inside the businessNo subleasingNo speakers, nor amplified musicMAINTENANCE:Business shall maintain area, adjoining street and gutter in neat, clean, orderly conditionRetail activities shall not interfere with pedestrians, parking, or trafficFurniture must be kept in good condition

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 231

Outdoor Retail Display Standards
23All display elements shall be made of commercial-grade materials and capable of withstanding weatherMerchandise and displays shall be between two and six feet in height Displays and appurtenances shall be stable and secure in all wind and weather conditionsUmbrellas shall be solid color canvas. Awnings can be patterned or solid. Follow City color palette, plus white. No generic advertising or signage is permittedRemove The display and sales area shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the width of the frontage of the associated business storefrontRetail Display Standards 24 Allow patterned or solid color awnings
Clarify that nothing may be bolted or attached to the groundProhibit outdoor display figures

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 232

Retail Display Standards
25 Prohibit platforms or floor coverings
Prohibit plastic card tables, cinderblocks, and cardboard as display elementsRetail Display Standards 26Allow patterned umbrellas and awnings
Allow more than 25% of frontage to be used, consistent with dining Reference ADA accessibility and clear space requirementsZoning Administrator may consider any anomalies

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 233

Tree Strip Zone
27 Laurel Street 600 and 800 Block(Looking South)

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 234

29Tree Strip Zone Policy Considerations
30For restaurant use, not general seating. Owner takes responsibility.Each business is not guaranteed a space, as other streetscape elements may limit equal opportunity.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 235

Tree Strip Zone Standards
31Tables and chairs set back 2.5 feet from a curb face or bollard to allow passengers to enter and exit their vehicles (where parallel parking occurs)5-foot buffer between adjacent tree strip dining areas so pedestrians can access the sidewalkTables and chairs set back four feet from utility access panels, survey monuments, and manholesTables and chairs, setback three feet from fire hydrants or Fire Department ConnectionsADA parking locations require 3 ft wide clear path for each door affects placement of tables/chairsEstablish maximum table sizeTables and chairs in the tree strip zone to match tables and chairs in the dining zone Tables and chairs in from tree strip zone may be stored overnightNo umbrellasNo portable heatersNo barriersMay not string electric lines or lighting between business and tree strip zoneTree Strip Zone Special Considerations cont. 32No objects within the sight distance triangle of an intersection Tables & chairs must be set back 2.5 feet from a curb face or bollard (where parallel parking occurs)

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 236

Thank you.
33Next Steps:1. City Council Study Session: August 252. Release Public Draft Downtown Specific Plan: September 153. Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation: October 204. City Council adoption: November 105. City Council 2nd reading: November 246. Downtown Specific Plan goes into effect: December 24, 2025Questions, Comments, Input, Considerations? 34 10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 237

Existing StandardsZoning Ordinance
35Existing Outdoor Dining Standards
3618.23.140Eating and drinking establishments with outdoor dining areas shall be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the following standards:A. Application Information. Applicant shall submit a site plan and description of the proposed outdoor dining area. The plan shall be drawn to scale showing the location of buildings and structures and in the case of dining in the public right-of-way, the location of street furnishings and trees, curb and on-street parking, adjacent to the proposed outdoor dining. The plan shall show locations, number and the arrangement of planters, fencing, umbrellas, sun screens, tables, chairs, and other portable or affixed appurtenances proposed. Colors and commercial grade materials shall be specified. An electrical plan, when applicable, shall include any lighting and electrical connection proposed including specification of fixtures, type and location. In addition to any other application materials required, an application for an outdoor dining area shall state the anticipated periods of use during the year, and the proposed hours of daily use, including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays; and whether any liquor will be sold or consumed in the area to be covered by the permit.B. Hours of Operation. Hours of operation shall be limited to the hours of operation of the associated eating and drinking establishment and shall be open for a minimum of two service periods per day, except when the establishment is open for only one service per day.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 238

37C. Permits and Licenses. The applicant shall obtain a City of San Carlos zoning clearance/minor architectural review approval and an annual business registration. The applicant shall also obtain approval from the San Mateo County Health Department. In the case of outdoor dining in the public right-of-way, an annual City of San Carlos encroachment permit is required pursuant to Chapter 12.36. As applicable, a current and valid liquor license issued by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverages Control is also required.D. Outdoor Dining Area in the Public Right-of-Way.1. Encroachment Permit Required. An encroachment permit approved by the City Engineer is required for any outdoor dining area located in the public right-of-way. No part of an outdoor dining area shall be permanently attached to the building, public right-of-way or sidewalk.2. Minimum Clearance. For outdoor dining in the MU-DC zoning district, the outdoor dining area may be located no further than the extent of the brick demarcation line that is closest to the front property line. For all other areas, a minimum of four feet of unobstructed sidewalk must remain available for pedestrians. For purposes of the minimum clear path, parking meters, traffic signs, trees, tree grates and all similar obstacles shall constitute obstructions within the sidewalk area.Existing Outdoor Dining Standards 38a. Adjacent to Street. Where the outdoor dining area is located adjacent to a street, an eighteen-inch clearance shall be maintained from the face of the curb to the outdoor dining area unless there is parking parallel to the street, in which case a two-foot clearance is required.b. No Obstructions. Minimum width of access opening shall be forty-four inches. No outdoor dining area shall obstruct any points of building ingress and/or egress.c. Corner Lots. On a corner lot, the outdoor dining area shall not be located within the area bound by the extensions of the corner building walls between the building and the curb.d. Vertical Clearance. Vertical clearance of seven feet shall be maintained.3. Design.a.No Permanent Attachments. Roofs, awnings or umbrellas may be used in conjunction with an outdoor eating area, although permanent shelters over an outdoor eating area are prohibited. Awnings shall be adequately secured, retractable, and shall comply with the Building Code.b. Barriers. The outdoor dining area may be delineated by an edge perpendicular to the sidewalk, but is not required, by the use of barriers such as planter boxes or wrought iron fencing.c. Design. The design of all improvements and furniture shall be of a quality to sustain weather and wear, and shall be of commercial grade materials.Existing Outdoor Dining Standards

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 239

39i.Furniture shall be of durable materials such as wrought iron, wood, steel, or cast aluminum. Tables shall be a size suitable for seating of two to four patrons. Plastic chairs and table and vinyl or plastic tablecloths are not permitted.ii. Planter boxes shall be of quality materials such as finished wood, precast concrete, terra cotta, or other pottery.iii.Umbrellas and awnings shall be solid color canvas. Sun screens shall be a durable fabric and retractable. No generic advertising or signage is permitted.4. Operation.a. Noise Limits. No entertainment or use, operation, or playing of any musical instrument, loudspeaker, sound amplifier, or other machine for the production or reproduction of sound is permitted in the outdoor dining area.b. No Outdoor Cooking or Open Flames. No electrical appliances, heating or cooking of food or open flames shall be allowed in the outdoor dining area. Use of portable heating devices may be permitted with approval from the Fire Marshal.c. No Storage. No structure or enclosure to accommodate the serving or clean-up stations, storage of trash or garbage shall be erected or placed on, adjacent to, or separate from an outdoor dining area on the public sidewalk or right-of-way.Existing Outdoor Dining Standards 40d. Parking. Outdoor dining areas are exempt from the parking requirements of Chapter 18.20, Parking and Loading.e. No Overnight Use. All umbrellas, tables, chairs and other portable appurtenances shall be removed from the outdoor dining area at the end of each business day. No storage in the public right-of-way shall be permitted.5. Maintenance.a. The permittee and the property owner shall maintain the outdoor dining area and the adjoining street, curb, gutter and sidewalk in a neat, clean and orderly condition at all times, regardless of the source of the refuse and litter.b. Activities involving the outdoor dining area shall be conducted in a manner that does not interfere with pedestrians, parking or traffic.c. If necessary, the permittee or the property owner shall clean the surface of the sidewalk by washing or buffing to remove any stains, marks, or discoloration and in accordance with prevailing stormwater and water quality regulations.d. Furniture and appurtenances shall be kept clean and in good condition. Umbrellas shall be kept secure in windy conditions, and fire-treated. (Ord. 1480 (Exh. C (part)), 2015; Ord. 1438 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011)Existing Outdoor Dining Standards

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 240

Existing Outdoor Retail Sales Standards
4118.23.150Outdoor retail sales shall be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the standards of this section.A. Temporary Outdoor Display and Sales. The temporary outdoor display and sale of merchandise shall comply with Section 18.23.240, Temporary uses, and Chapter 18.31, Temporary Use Permits. An encroachment permit is required for any temporary outdoor display and sales within the public right-of-way; reasonable conditions of approval of such permits may be imposed to ensure unobstructed pedestrian movement in a minimum clear zone and to maintain clean sidewalks.B.Downtown Outdoor Display and Sales. Outdoor display and sale of merchandise in downtown districts shall comply with this section and Title 12. Outdoor display and sale of merchandise is permitted on private property in the MU-DC, MU-D, MU-N and the MU-SB. Outdoor display and sale of merchandise is permitted on public property and in the right-of-way in the MU-DC, MU-D with frontage on Laurel Street and San Carlos Avenue, MU-N with frontage on Holly Street, MU-N south of Arroyo Avenue and the MU-SB with frontage on Laurel Street. The display area shall not encroach in a public right-of-way, street, alley, sidewalk or other public property without first obtaining an encroachment permit.Existing Outdoor Retail Sales Standards 421. General Requirements.a. Application Information. Applicant shall submit a site plan and description of the proposed outdoor display and sales area. The plan shall be drawn to scale showing the location of buildings and structures. In cases where outdoor sales are proposed for location in the public right-of-way, the site plan shall include the location of street furnishings and trees adjacent to the proposed outdoor display and sales area. The plan shall show locations, number and the arrangement of portable appurtenances proposed. Colors and commercial grade materials shall be specified. In addition to any other application materials required, an application for an outdoor display and sales area shall state the anticipated periods of use during the year, and the proposed hours of daily use, including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.b. Hours of Operation. Hours of outdoor display and sales shall be limited to the hours of operation of the associated commercial establishment.c. Permits and Licenses. The applicant shall obtain a City of San Carlos zoning clearance/minor architectural review approval and an annual business registration. In the case of outdoor display and sales in the public right-of-way, an annual City of San Carlos encroachment permit is required.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 241

Existing Outdoor Retail Sales Standards
432. Outdoor Retail Sales Standards.a. Design.i. The design of all improvements, sales racks and furniture shall be of a quality to sustain weather and wear, and shall be of commercial grade materials. Vinyl or plastic tablecloths are not permitted.ii. The merchandise in the outdoor display and sales area including but not limited to the display racks, tables and stands shall not exceed a height of six feet and in no case be lower than two feet.iii. Display and sales area fixtures and appurtenances shall be stable and secure in all wind and weather conditions. Umbrellas and awnings shall be solid color canvas. Sun screens shall be a fabric and retractable. No generic advertising or signage is permitted.iv. The display and sales area shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the width of the frontage of the associated business storefront.b. Operation.i. Outdoor display and sales conducted by a business shall be located in front of the associated business storefront.ii. All merchandise or services displayed outdoors shall be of the same types ordinarily sold indoors at the business conducting the sale. All sale transactions shall be conducted indoors.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 242

White Paper on Parking Maximums
Prepared by W-Trans for the City of San Carlos
August 15, 2025

Executive Summary
The City Council expressed concerns about parking maximums when they were last presented at the Council meeting of June 23, 2025. The discussion of maximums will be continued on August 25, 2025.

In addition, the Council requested more information about the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) policy and how it influences eligibility for One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funds; the Council further requested the dollar amount of past OBAG funds San Carlos has received. More information about MTC’s TOC policy is provided on pages 8-10. To date, San Carlos has been awarded approximately $3.5 million in OBAG funding. This includes approximately $2.7 million for such transportation-related projects as pavement rehabilitation on Crestview Drive and pedestrian enhancements at the intersections of Arroyo and Cedar and Hemlock and Orange. More recently, San Carlos received $300,000 via OBAG 3 to support the planning for t he Downtown Streetscape Master Plan and $500,000 to fund installation of electric vehicle chargers.

This white paper defines parking maximums, describes their benefits and drawbacks as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) tool, and discusses how they can help the City remain eligible for One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding. The current proposed maximums are provided in Table 1 and would generally apply to developments within a half mile of major transit stops along the El Camino Real corridor . “Soft” (Tier 1) and “firm” (Tier 2) maximums would be implemented.

Tier 1 maximums would be available by right with Tier 2 maximums offered for added flexibility if applicants:

1. Make at least 25 percent of on-site parking publicly accessible during business hours for non-residential uses or daytime hours (9 a.m. to 6 p.m.) for residential uses;

2. Provide supplemental TDM measures in addition to those required in the TDM ordinance; or

3. Pay an in-lieu or off-set fee to the City to offset the impacts of building additional parking.

Table 1 – Proposed Vehicle Parking Maximums Near Transit Land Use Tier 1 Tier 2
District-Wide Maximums
Multi-Family Residential 0.7 spaces/bedroom 0.8 spaces/bedroom 1 space/unit* Non-Residential 2.0 spaces/1,000 sf 2.5 spaces/1,000 sf 2.5 spaces/1,000 sf Notes: All requirements represent parking maximums; sf = square feet; 1 space/unit is approximately equivalent to

0.6 space/bedroom; Previous hotel maximum eliminated (MTC also confirms that it is not required).

The proposed maximums also include “district -wide maximums” to comply with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transit -Oriented Communities (TOC) policy. District -wide maximums are described in the “District-Wide Caps on Parking” section near the end of the paper.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 243

2 The City could also enact other maximum parking standards that would put the City into at least partial compliance. It is noted that MTC’s scoring for partial compliance with TOC policies has not yet been fully decided.

The following are alternative standards to consider:
• Eliminate residential maximums and maintain a parking maximum of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for commercial development. Only one commercial development approved and/or built since 2019 exceeded this ratio (by a single parking space). This would result in partial compliance with TOC policy, as the commercial maximum would remain compliant.

• Raise residential and commercial maximums to meet current market demands, with or without a district cap. The residential maximum would be 0.9 spaces per bedroom and commercial maximum would be

2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. All residential developments approved and/or built since 2019 have been at or below this maximum with only one commercial development exceeding this ratio (as noted above). These standards would bring the City in full compliance with TOC policy with district-wide caps on parking and partial compliance without district-wide caps.

• Increase residential maximums to 0.8 spaces per bedroom (Tier 1) and 0.9 spaces per bedroom (Tier 2) and decrease commercial maximums to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet (Tier 1) and 2.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet (Tier 2). This would result in full compliance with TOC policy if paired with district- wide caps on parking.

What are parking maximums?
Parking maximums are caps on the number of new vehicle parking spaces that can be provided by new developments. For example, a maximum of two spaces per 1,000 commercial square feet would prevent a 20,000 square foot retail and office development from supplying more than 40 parking spaces on site (although it does not prevent a development from leasing other available off -site parking). While parking minimums have routinely been used in the past, governments have increasingly recognized the need to limit parking and establish parking maximums in their regulations. 1 For example, Alameda, CA, noted their reasons for establishing maximums:

A maximum standard is proposed because the City seeks to avoid too much off -street parking provided on any given site due to the impacts of large parking areas on the environment, the transportation system, and the cost of development in Alameda, which has limited land resources.2 Similarly, Emeryville, CA, which has adopted parking maximums, explains in their municipal code that the purposes of off-street parking and loading requirements include:
(b) Avoid the negative impacts associated with spillover parking into adjacent neighborhoods, and minimize the negative environmental and urban design impacts that can result from parking lots, driveways, and drive aisles within parking lots; …
(f) Reduce urban stormwater runoff and heat island effect.3

Parking maximums typically apply to new developments only and do not result in the removal of existing vehicle parking spaces.

Where have parking maximums been applied?
Table 2 summarizes local Bay Area examples of cities that have adopted parking maximums. The maximum parking ratios for common land use types are provided. Most of the parking maximums were implemented recently (i.e. within the last five to ten years), so research on their long-term impacts in the context of the Bay Area has not yet been completed.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 244

3 What are the tradeoffs associated with parking maximums? Benefit – Housing Affordability
When housing developments do not provide excess
vehicle parking, they are more affordable . For
residential uses, each additional off -street vehicle
parking space translates to a cost of about $800 to
$1,200 per year for the developer in a typical urban
environment.4 Reducing the amount of surface
parking allows more housing units to fit onto a single
parcel, which can also lower housing costs by
increasing the housing supply. Figure 1 visualizes
how parking contributes to the cost of housing.

Even when parking costs are “unbundled,” or
separated from the rental or purchase price of
housing, residents without private vehicles can still
take on the costs of parking when they elect not to
pay for a parking space . An analysis of 23 newer
multifamily housing developments in the Seattle
area showed that none of the developments
recovered enough parking fees to cover the
comprehensive costs of providing on -site parking. 5
Landlords make up losses through increased
apartment rents, which results in car -free renters
paying a substantial hidden fee for parking as part of
their rents.5 Parking maximums limit excess vehicle
parking, which would reduce the hidden “parking fee”
added to rent and result in lower rents for residents
with or without vehicles.

Figure 1 Example of Parking’s Contribution to
Apartment Costs (Source: Reinventing Parking,
Parking Reform Network)

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 245

4 Benefit – Stormwater Runoff
Impervious off-street parking lots prevent groundwater infiltration and increase the amount of stormwater runoff.1 The stormwater runoff from parking lots tends to be toxic, which can harm aquatic life when it is released into urban creeks and rivers.6 According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), sprawling low -density development with more impervious surfaces intensifies demand on stormwater infrastructure, which can cause flooding when a stormwater management system is overwhelmed.7 Parking maximums reduce the size of paved off-street parking facilities and, in turn, results in a lower risk of flooding and less polluted runoff . This helps support Strategy 45 of the City’s Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP) to “reduce flooding and ponded water in the city by collaborating with local and regional flood-protection agencies.”8
Benefit – Urban Heat Island
Strategy 37 of the CMAP is to “minimize the urban heat island effect.” 8 Heat islands are defined in the CMAP as urban areas that experience higher temperatures due to more impervious surfaces that absorb and re-emit the sun’s heat . Parking maximums can prevent developers from creating excessively large surface parking lots, which limits the amount of new paved surfaces that contribute to the urban heat island effect.

Figure 2 Visualization of Urban Heat Island (Source: Earth.org)

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 246

5 Benefit – Traffic and Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Goal 4 of the City’s CMAP is to “promote sustainable development that reduces vehicle miles traveled,” and the CMAP notes that “private vehicle travel releases substantial volumes of GHGs [greenhouse gases], taxes roads, and poses health and safety concerns for the community.”8 The CMAP sets forth Strategy 17 to “reduce community-wide transportation-related emissions per resident and employee, with an emphasis on reductions from existing and new development in the city’s core commercial, office, and industrial areas, including development on the east side.”
In 2008, California Senate Bill (SB) 375 directed the California Air Resources Board to set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).9 The resulting targets include reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by 25 percent by 2030 and 30 percent by 2045 to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. 10 To meet these targets, the California Air Resources Board recommends the following relevant priority local actions to reduce VMT:10
• Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards or implement parking maximums in areas that are well-served by other mobility options.

• Require that new residential developments unbundle the cost of parking from the cost of renting or purchasing housing.

• Implement parking pricing or transportation demand management pricing strategies.

Parking maximums are an effective way to reduce VMT and GHG since less parking can result in less driving. In this sense, parking maximums can serve as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy and help reinforce the effectiveness of other TDM measures by reducing hidden and/or subsidized parking costs . For example, a study of residential lotteries in San Francisco showed that residents of buildings with at least one parking space per unit had more than twice the car ownership rate of residents of buildings with no parking. 11 Another study, published in Transportation Research Part A, found that parking availability at a workplace or at home significantly affects the probability of choosing car travel. 12 The authors note the benefits of parking maximums:

The policy -relevant implication of this is that maximum parking standards, at least in the long run, significantly reduce car use on journeys to work. By imposing (strict) maximum standards, cities can reduce congestion and pollution and also reduce the need for large investments in roadway capacity.12 To illustrate the effect of parking maximums on vehicle travel it was assumed that a one percent reduction in parking spaces translates to a one percent reduction in vehicle trips for residential uses. Based on vehicle parking data from residential developments in San Carlos between 2019 and 2024, the proposed “Tier 1” parking maximum of 0.7 spaces per bedroom would have resulted in 15 percent fewer new parking spaces, and the proposed “Tier 2” maximum of 0.8 spaces per bedroom would have resulted in 7 perc ent fewer spaces. By this logic, vehicle-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new residential development would be reduced by 15 percent with Tier 2 maximums and 7 percent by Tier 1 maximums.

GHG emissions in transportation are a large fraction of the emissions with new development, as Table 4 of the CMAP shows that 47 percent of annual GHG emissions in San Carlos are due to the transportation sector. It follows that cutting emissions from the transportation sector is one of the biggest tools that cities have available to meet GHG reduction targets, and parking maximums are an effective means to reduce transportation emissions. With a significant amount of new development expected in San Carlos, parking maximums could also help limit traffic impacts of the new development on already congested roadways by discouraging vehicle travel to/from new developments.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 247

6 Benefit – Quality of Life
The City’s Climate Mitigation and Action Plan includes goals and strategies to encourage walking, bicycling, and public transportation.8
• Under Goal 4, the CMAP states that “diversifying the safe, affordable, accessible, and reliable transportation options available to the San Carlos community ensures that all residents are able to participate in public life and gives all community members the freedom to choose transportation modes that promote health, reduce gasoline costs and time lost in traffic, and help the City meet its climate action goals.”

• Goal 5 of the CMAP is to “transition to low-carbon transportation.”

• Strategy 12 of the CMAP relates to Active Transportation: “Prioritize bicycl ing and walking as safe, practical, and attractive travel options citywide, as directed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.” The San Carlos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan explains the benefits of a safe and comfortable environment for walking and bicycling:13
• Improve access to outdoor amenities and increase recreational opportunities

• Reduce the risk of bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions and injuries

• Provide affordable transportation options for low-income and disadvantaged residents

• Increase a city’s livability and quality of life

• Decrease visual and noise pollution caused by automobiles

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere
As described in the City’s planning documents , active forms of transportation like walking and bicycling benefit a person’s health and quality of life, while increased vehicle travel can negatively impact quality of life through time lost in traffic, pollution (air, noise, and visual), and increased costs from owning and operating a vehicle. Worldwide studies have shown that the health benefits from walking and bicycling far outweigh the health risks from exposure to traffic incidents and air pollution. 14 Per the previous section, parking maximums lead to reduced vehicle travel, which in turn is associated with an increase in travel by public transportation and active forms of transportation.

As an example of how parking maximums can impact travel behavior , developers in transit-rich areas of San Carlos would be discouraged from providing two vehicle spaces for each two -bedroom unit with a parking maximum of 0.8 spaces per bedroom. With one parking space available for a unit, households are incentivized to keep one vehicle rather than two, especially if they cannot store their vehicle on the street.

Members of the household are encouraged to walk, bicycle, and take transit to make trips when the vehicle is in use. Even when a vehicle is available, many trips in transit -rich areas are made without driving. For example, a neighborhood like Downtown San Carlos would provide the highest opportunities to walk from a residential unit to a downtown business (e.g., grocery store, post office, restaurant, etc.) to meet every day needs or to Caltrain for commute trips. These areas near transit are the ideal geography for parking maximums, as people who live in Downtown may not need a vehicle for regular trip-making.

Benefit – Equity
Data from the 2022 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) for the Pacific region shows that lower - income households own fewer vehicles. Figure 3 shows that the average number of vehicles per household increases with income, and the percentage of zero-vehicle households decreases with income. Households with incomes less than $25,000 per year own less than one vehicle on average, and over 30 percent are

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 248

7 zero-vehicle households. In contrast, households with incomes greater than $150,000 per year tend to own more than two vehicles, and only one percent of these households have zero vehicles.

Figure 3 Average Number of Vehicles and % Zero Vehicle per Household by Income Group for Pacific Region (Source: 2022 NHTS)
Since lower -income households tend to own fewer vehicles, parking maximums tend to benefit lower - income households by making housing more affordable for those without cars. Due to lower parking ratios, there is a lower cost to construct housing units as discussed in the “ Housing Affordability” section .

Maximums also encourage a denser, less vehicle -dependent environment which benefits lower -income households with less vehicle ownership, frees up street space for other modes of transportation, and helps build an equitable urban environment that caters to all users . With less vehicle travel due to maximums, vehicle pollution and the risk of fatal traffic crashes are reduced; traffic fatalities and pollution from vehicles disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color. 15 Drawback – Effects on Developers and Lenders
Do Parking Maximums Deter Housing Development?16 explores the idea that maximum parking standards may lead to a decline in housing development, as developers and lenders divert their investments into markets with more flexible parking standards. Using London , United Kingdom, as an example–which has had parking maximums since 2004 and has some of the most restrictive parking maximums among worldwide cities–the researchers found that more restrictive parking maximums in the inner neighborhoods increased housing supply , while more restrictive maximums in the peripheral neighborhoods reduced housing development. They also caution that applying maximums to only the city centers could cause lower- density areas to become more attractive to residents that value private parking, leading to a decline in development in city centers and increase in travel demand.

In the context of San Carlos, 11 of the 14 residential projects approved between 2019 and 2024 included

0.8 spaces per bedroom or less, which would be allowed under the proposed “Tier 2” parking maximum .

The highest ratio of spaces provided was 0.9 spaces per bedroom, which is only slightly greater than the proposed maximum. Only one of 12 non -residential projects approved between 2019 and 2024 included more parking than the proposed non-residential “Tier 2” maximum of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet; this project provided 2.51 spaces per 1,000 square feet. This indicates that developers in San Carlos are already providing parking close to or under the proposed maximums, and the maximums would be less likely to drive away development. The Alexandria project applicant recently agreed to a parking maximum of 2.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet which further supports that the market demand for parking 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
<$25K $25 - $50K $50 - $100K $100 - $150K >$150K
% Zero Vehicle Households
# Vehicles per Household
Income
Average HH Vehicle Ownership % Zero Vehicle HHs

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 249

8 is generally within the parking maximums. Table 2 shows a summary of the development data between 2019 and 2024 from San Carlos.

Table 2 – San Carlos 2019-2024 Development Data
Type of Project Multifamily Residential Non-Residential Number of sites 14 12
Total size 432 units 2,225 ksf
Minimum spaces supplied 0.35 spaces/bedroom 1.14 spaces/ksf Average spaces supplied 0.73 spaces/bedroom 1.92 spaces/ksf Proposed “Tier 2” maximum 0.80 spaces/bedroom 2.50 spaces/ksf Number of sites exceeding the “Tier 2”
maximum 3 1
Maximum spaces supplied 0.90 spaces/bedroom 2.51 spaces/ksf Notes: ksf = 1,000 square feet

Drawback – On-Street Spillover Without Proper Management With limited or priced off -street parking, many residents of new developments will choose to park on the street if parking is free and unrestricted. For example Portland, OR, experienced significant parking spillover when they removed minimum parking requirements without managing street parking .17 However, proper management of on-street parking can prevent spillover as an alternative to requiring off -street parking, especially since keeping off-street parking requirements leads to negative effects like increasing housing costs and subsidizing vehicle travel.18 A residential parking permit program allows established residents to park on street for a low price, while residents of new developments with limited parking would not have access to the permit program. These residents would have to pay for an off -street parking space or omit owning a vehicle, rather than parking on the street where there are permit restrictions.

Regional Policy
To achieve Plan Bay Area 2050 sustainability goals and improve livability throughout the region, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has developed a set of land use, transportation, and affordable housing policies it would like to see implemented in areas adjacent to transit. The Transit- Oriented Communities (TOC) approach would emphasize greater density, reduced automobile - dependency, and increased walkability in areas within a half mile of transit stations (BART, Caltrain, and SMART) and ferry terminals. MTC has classified the half -mile radius surrounding the San Carlos Caltrain station as a TOC area, as shown in Figure 4.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 250

9 Figure 4 MTC TOC Area Boundaries
To encourage adoption of TOC policies, MTC has indicated TOC -compliant jurisdictions will be prioritized for funding through the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program. OBAG is a means of distributing federal transportation funds to local jurisdictions. As such , OBAG funds must be used for specific transportation improvements. Since OBAG was first introduced in the early 2010s, San Carlos has been awarded approximately $3.5 million for such projects as pavement rehabilitation on Crestview Drive and pedestrian enhancements at the intersections of Arroyo and Cedar and Hemlock and Orange. More recently, San Carlos received $300,000 via OBAG to support the planning for the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan and $500,000 for electric vehicle charging stations in and around Downtown.

At the time this document was compiled, MTC was still determining how local jurisdictions would be evaluated for compliance with TOC policy as well as the extent to which OBAG funding requests would be prioritized. In spring 2025, MTC issued a draft scorin g matrix for determining TOC compliance which assigns 25 points to parking policies, 25 points to density policies, 25 points to affordable housing policies, and the final 25 points to station access and circulation policies. Jurisdictions with 85 points a nd above would be deemed in “substantial compliance” with TOC policy and would have access to a special set - aside of OBAG funds. Jurisdictions with 40-84 points would be deemed “partially compliant” with TOC policy and would receive a preference for OBAG f unding. Jurisdictions with 39 points or fewer would not be compliant and would receive no OBAG preference.

MTC’s draft scoring matrix propose d 6 points for meeting the commercial parking maximum requirement and 6 points for meeting the residential parking maximum requirement, for a total of 12 points. Partial points may be awarded for maximum requirements that are higher, but within a certain range (e.g., 33 percent) of the policy target. Maximums represent 12 percent of the total number of points possible for TOC compliance. While there are areas where San Carlos can be expected to score well against the TOC criteria, there may be other proposed affordable housing and density policies that may be difficult to achieve in the local context. Given that San Carlos can only forego 15 points if it wishes to be competitive for the special

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 251

10 OBAG set-aside, it will be important to weigh the pros and cons of each strategy that could tip the scale between “substantial” and “partial” compliance.

District-Wide Caps on Parking
For San Carlos, within a half mile of the San Carlos Caltrain station, MTC’s policy requires that no minimum vehicle parking requirements apply to new developments (already accomplished through AB2097) , a parking maximum of 1.0 space per unit or lower is set for residential developments, and a parking maximum of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet or lower is set for commercial developments. MTC offers flexibility in complying with its policy. For example, the City can set district-wide maximums such that parking is limited for the entire district but has a higher cap on a site -by-site basis . The City can also set a residential maximum by bedroom rather than by unit, given that the “per bedroom” maximum is approximately equivalent to the “per unit” maximum.

With district-wide maximums based on the anticipated development from the 2045 General Plan buildout, including Downtown Specific Plan buildout , there would be up to 2,568 new private vehicle parking spaces allowed to be constructed in the Downtown. The number of allowed spaces would change if the General Plan were adjusted to increase or decrease the projected growth. These district-wide maximums would be compliant with the TOC policy and earn the City all 12 available points for parking maximums.

Since some developments can provide less parking than the maximum ratio, those projects with less parking free up available spaces within the district-wide limit for developments with more parking.

Developers may be able to use concessions from the State’s Density Bonus Law to be exempt from parking maximums; in this case, discussions with MTC have indicated that the additional parking would not contribute to the district -wide cap. With parking maximums, there is less potential for developers to divert their investments from San Carlos into surrounding communities with more flexible standards. Under the TOC Policy, other communities along Caltrain will also be incentivized to implem ent parking maximums to remain eligible for grant funding.19
Conclusions
• Parking maximums are becoming more commonly used in a variety of Bay Area jurisdictions. Those in TOC areas range from being lower and higher than those required by MTC, and other maximums are in place outside of TOC areas.
• Parking maximums can provide a variety of benefits including increasing housing affordability, reducing stormwater runoff and the urban heat island effect, increasing active transportation use, providing greater equity to lower income households, and reducing traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the currently proposed tiered parking maximums, vehicle trips and emissions would be reduced by seven to 15 percent for new developments.
• Parking maximums may produce certain disadvantages. They may discourage some housing developers who wish to provide more parking than the allowed maximums; historic development data in San Carlos shows that 21 percent of housing developments supplied more parking than the proposed maximums, although none provided significantly more than the proposed maximums and non - residential developments generally did not exceed the proposed maximums. Maximums may increase on-street parking spillover into surrounding areas if not addressed through parking management strategies such as parking permit programs.
• The MTC TOC policy draft scoring matrix places 25 percent of its scoring on parking policy, almost half of which (12 percent) is based on the adoption of parking maximums ; partial points may be awarded for partial compliance . F lexibility within the policy (e.g., district caps) may help facilitate housing development for those desiring to supply more parking.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 252

11 1 Parking Maximums, Sustainable Development Code, https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/parking- maximums-10/
2 Alameda Staff Report on Ordinance,
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5191847&GUID=19CF3745 -BD98-4848- 8DFC-FE3AC2DE7713&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
3 Emeryville Municipal Code, https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Emeryville/ 4 Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability, 2019, Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2019-09/apo-nid259126.pdf 5 Who Pays for Parking?, 2013, Jesse London & Clark Williams-Derry, Sightline Institute, https://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Who-Pays-for-Parking-Sightline-Dec- 2013.pdf
6 Toxicity of Parking Lot Runoff After Application of Simulated Rainfall, 2004, D. Greenstein, L. Tiefenthaler & S. Bay, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00244-004-3018-0 7 Understanding Stormwater Inundation, 2025, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), https://coast.noaa.gov/stormwater-floods/understand/
8 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP), 2021, City of San Carlos 9 The Basics of SB 375, Institute for Local Government, https://www.ca-ilg.org/post/basics-sb-375 10 Priority Areas for Local Climate Action, 2022, California Air Resources Board, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/local-actions-climate-change/priority-areas-local-climate-action 11 What Do Residential Lotteries Show Us About Transportation Choices?, 2021, A. Millard-Ball, J. West, N.

Rezaei & G. Desai, Transfers, https://transfersmagazine.org/magazine-article/issue-8/what-do- residential-lotteries-show-us-about-transportation-choices/ 12 Parking facilities and the build environment: Impacts on travel behavior, 2016, P. Christiansen, O.

Engebretsen, N. Fearnley & J. Hanssen, Transportation Research Part A, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.10.025
13 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2020, City of San Carlos 14 Health impact assessment of active transportation: A systematic review, 2015, N. Mueller, D. Rojas-Rueda, T. Cole-Hunter, A. Nazelle, E. Dons, R. Gerike, R. Götshi, L. Panis, S. Kahlmeier & M.

Nieuwenhuijsen, Preventative Medicine, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.04.010 15 Transportation Equity, 2021, Rafael Pereira & Alex Karner, International Encyclopedia of Transportation, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102671-7.10053-3
16 Do Parking Maximums Deter Housing Development? 2017, Fei Li & Zhan Guo, Journal of Planning Education and Research, https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16688768 17 Portland mandates a parking U-turn, 2022, Catie Gould, Congress for the New Urbanism, https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2022/12/27/portland-mandates-parking-u-turn 18 On-Street Parking Management v. Off-Street Parking Requirements, 2013, Donald Shoup, Access Almanac 19 MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy, 2025, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), https://mtc.ca.gov/digital-library/5023804-mtc-administrative-guidance- transit-oriented-communities-policy

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 253

1 MTC TOC Policy

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is one of the agencies responsible for implementing the Plan Bay Area 2050 vision for a more livable and sustainable region.

Toward that end, MTC is aiming to increase density, reduce vehicle dependency, and encourage active and mass transportation in areas adjacent to transit stations. MTC has designated areas within a half -mile radius of ferry terminals and BART, Caltrain, and SMART stations as “transit-oriented communities” (or TOCs).

The area within a half-mile radius of the San Carlos Caltrain station is considered a TOC and will be subject to TOC land use, transportation, and affordable housing policies if the City of San Carlos (City) wishes to secure a competitive advantage when applying for One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) transportation funding.

OBAG is a means of distributing federal transportation funds to eligible projects across the Bay Area. Since MTC launched the program in the 2010s, there have been three rounds of grant disbursement: OBAG, OBAG 2, and OBAG 3 , the latter of which distributed a total of $750 million between transit agencies and local jurisdictions.

San Carlos has been awarded approximately $3.5 million in OBAG funding.

This includes approximately $2.7 million for such transportation -related projects as pavement rehabilitation on Crestview Drive and pedestrian enhancements at the intersections of Arroyo and Cedar and Hemlock and Orange. More recently, San Carlos received $300,000 via OBAG 3 to support the plann ing for the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan and $500,000 to fund installation of electric vehicle chargers.

To encourage adoption of TOC policies, MTC has indicated TOC -compliant jurisdictions will be prioritized for funding through OBAG 4, expected to commence in 2026. Due to uncertainties at the federal level, it is not yet clear how much funding will be available through OBAG 4. It is also not yet exactly clear how MTC will define compliance with TOC policy or prioritization for OBAG 4 funding. MTC has circulated a draft scoring matrix that would assign a total of 100 points to its set of TOC policies, with 25 points for shared, unbundled, and capped parking policies, 25 points for commercial and residential density policies, 25 points for affordable housing production, preservation, and protection policies, and the final 25 points for station access and circulation policies.

Jurisdictions with 85 points and above would be deemed in “substantial compliance” with TOC policy and would have access to a “special set-aside” of OBAG 4 funds. Jurisdictions with 40 -84 points would be deemed “partially compliant” with TO C policy and would receive a “preference” for OBAG 4 funding. Jurisdictions with 39 points or fewer would

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 254

2 not be compliant and would receive no OBAG 4 funding preference. MTC has solicited feedback on the proposed matrix and San Carlos c ity staff provided comments recommending a lower threshold for compliance. MTC is still evaluating feedback provided by the TOC jurisdictions and has yet to finalize its scoring and prioritization approach.

Nevertheless, San Carlos is currently well-positioned in terms of TOC “partial compliance” as many of the standards correlate with existing zoning, land use, affordable housing, and transportation policies.

Staff estimate the City is currently eligible for 60 points—a figure which has been shared with MTC so agency staff can understand how TOC policies relate with existing policies and programs in a forward -thinking community like San Carlos. It is possible the City could achieve 4 additional points by implementing an action from the Housing Element and up to 15 additional points (for a total of 79) if bicycle parking ratios and maximum parking standards are adopted v ia the Citywide TDM and Parking Reform proj ect. City staff remain in contact and collaboration with MTC and have been submitting existing policies to MTC’s online review portal for evaluation.

As of August 14, MTC has confirmed San Carlos’ compliance with eight TOC policies. A further four policies are still in the queue for MTC to review. Staff are hopeful MTC will ultimately relax some program elements and that the City will be eligible for some type of OBAG 4 preference.

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 255

Attachment 6

City Council Study Session of June 23, 2025 –
Staff Report and Attachments

Refer to Item 9a from link below:
https://cityofsancarlos.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16214

10.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 256

3 4
5 1

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 25, 2025
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Approving the Preferred Alternative 1 for the Mid-term Improvements for the U.S. 101/Holly Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Project.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the preferred alternative 1 for the mid-term improvements for U.S. 101/Holly Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Project.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact and no additional appropriation is needed at this time.

Funding of $5 million in fiscal year (FY) 2025-26 and $5 million in FY 2026-27 was adopted for the Holly Street/US 101 Interchange Modifications (Project C9459) (“Project”) as matching funds for three grants the City is currently pursuing: two through the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) and one directly with the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) Safe Streets for All (“SS4A”) grant. All grants require local matching, which is currently estimated to be $10 million.

Staff plan to apply for grant funding through the SMCTA Measure W Highway Program by September 12, 2025.

The cost opinion for the preferred design option (Alternative 1) is included in Attachment 3.

BACKGROUND:

In 2019, the City of San Carlos solicited bids for two projects that were combined as a single project: the US 101/Holly Street Interchange Improvements and a Pedestrian/Bicyclist Overcrossing. The Pedestrian/Bicyclist Overcrossing project was intended to be constructed south of the interchange. The combined project was subsequently put on hold to accommodate the California Department of Transportation’s (“Caltrans”) US 101 Express Lane Project.

Since 2019, City staff has applied for project grants and funding in June 2020, September 2021, June 2022, and May 2024.

Due to changed project conditions and the amount of time that has passed, the City will need to update design and engineering construction documents and secure project and financial support from other agencies including Caltrans, SMCTA, neighboring cities, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), as well as sponsorship from regional elected officials.

11.a
August 25, 2025 Packet Pg. 257
3 4
5 1
On November 25, 2024, in light of the tragic death of Andrea Vallebueno who was killed after colliding with a vehicle while riding her bike across the interchange on November 16, 2024, members of the public urged the City Council at its regular meeting to implement short-term improvements to immediately address bike and pedestrian safety on the interchange (which is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans). The key message was that a ped/bike overcrossing could take several years to implement, and something urgently needed to be done in the interim to protect cyclists and pedestrians.

Figure 1. Map of project limits
The City hosted a Community Listening Session on January 8, 2025, to hear from the public and identify possible near-term safety solutions. Presentations from the attendees are available online at www.cityofsancarlos.org/101holly. Ideas and comments gathered from this meeting are listed below:
Move quickly to implement immediate short-term solutions Decouple the U.S. 101/Holly Interchange Improvements and the Pedestrian/Bicyclist Overcrossing projects and focus on the Pedestrian/Bicyclist Overcrossing A separate overcrossing is still the preferred solution in the long term Construct a protected center lane on the interchange for bikes and pedestrians similar to the one on 3rd Avenue in San Mateo

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 258

3 4
5 1
For a protected center lane, consider K-rails as an easy and low-cost solution for separating bikes/peds from cars
Any protected center lane or overcrossing must also consider ways to eliminate conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists
A protected center lane on the interchange doesn’t do anything to address the intersections at either end of a protected center lane. San Carlos must address the Holly/Industrial intersection and Redwood City must address the intersection near Holly/Shoreway/Airport
Add bike lanes near In-N-Out Burger
Transition to single right turn lanes at the intersections on either end of the interchange Create protected intersections for bikes/peds to safely get on and off the protected center lane through the interchange
Consider creating mini-bridges or underpasses to safely get to the protected center lane on the interchange
Improve intersections at both ends of the protected center lane immediately with the use of striping/re-restriping, bike boxes, sidewalk repairs, crosswalks, bollards, signages, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs)
No right turns on red
Speed must be addressed. Slow cars down. One idea is to make car lanes narrower and widen the protected center lane.
Enlist support of all elected city and regional leaders Ensure existing bike lanes are free of debris so bikes/peds do not need to travel in the car lanes
Consider using $4.2 million in developer fees collected from the 405 Industrial Road development to fund some of these improvements
Connect the improvements to Shoreway Road
Invite the Bay Club in Redwood Shores to collaborate on the project. Request their involvement and possibly a financial commitment
On February 5, 2025, City staff met with Caltrans to discuss possible short-term improvements to the interchange. Caltrans staff offered to refresh existing paint, paint the existing bike lanes green, and post new traffic signs for cars and cyclists. Caltrans believed the improvements could be implemented before the end of the summer. Per Caltrans’ request, the City submitted a letter to Caltrans dated March 4, 2025, formally requesting the three short-term safety improvements that were discussed.

At a meeting with Caltrans on April 7, 2025, Caltrans confirmed they had started working on updates to signage and installation of high visibility ladder style crosswalks at four locations on the ramps. This work was completed in July 2025. Due to budget constraints, Caltrans was unable to paint the existing bike lanes green.

In June 2025, the City requested technical and financial assistance from the SMCTA to support development of mid-term alternatives. WSP/Toole Design Group were contracted to work with City staff to develop three project options (including a protected median concept) for this interim timeframe.

As a long-term solution, a separate bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing is still viewed as the optimal safety solution for crossing U.S. 101, because it eliminates potential conflicts with cars.

City staff is working with the Consultant to assess which elements of the 2019 U.S. 101/Holly

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 259

3 4
5 1
Street Interchange and Bike/Ped Overcrossing Project plans and specifications remain valid and what updates are needed to meet current Caltrans standards to obtain approval.

ANALYSIS:

Three mid-term solution alternatives were developed for Holly Street from Industrial Road to Twin Dolphin Drive. See Attachments 2 through 4 for concept plans, cost opinions, and implementation timelines for each alternative.

Improvements in Alternative 1 include:
Flashing beacons at U.S. 101 on- and off-ramps
A combination of separated bikeways with bike lanes in constrained conditions To get Caltrans’ approval quickly through the Encroachment Permit process, there are no bike or traffic signals, and the bike lanes north of Shoreway Road do not have protection.

Improvements in Alternative 2 include:
Flashing beacons at U.S. 101 on-ramps
Traffic signals at U.S. 101 off-ramps
Separated bikeways
Bike signals at Shoreway Road and Industrial Road
To provide separated bikeways for the entire length of the project, Alternative 2 includes a lane reduction north of Shoreway Road. Per Caltrans requirements, the change in vehicle lanes along with the implementation of bike and traffic signals must be analyzed to determine the operational impacts. The process to gain Caltrans’ approval could take anywhere from two to three years.

The lane reduction, bike signals, and traffic signals increase the overall cost of the project.

Improvements in Alternative 3 include:
Flashing beacons and raised crossings at U.S. 101 on-ramps Traffic signals at U.S. 101 off-ramps
A center running, separated bikeway between Industrial Road and Shoreway Road and a separated bikeway against the curb in both sides of the street north of Shoreway Road Bike signals at Shoreway Road and Industrial Road
The bike signals will allow bicyclists to transition to and from the center running, separated bikeway. To provide separated bikeways for the entire length of the project, Alternative 3 includes a lane reduction north of Shoreway Road. Per Caltrans requirements, the change in vehicle lanes along with the implementation of bike and traffic signals must be analyzed to determine the operational impacts. Additionally, the structural impacts of the concrete barriers proposed along the center running separated bikeway also require analysis. These processes could take up to four years to gain Caltrans' approval. The lane reduction, bike signals, and traffic signals increase the overall cost of the project.

The consultant team met with Caltrans staff on Thursday, June 12, 2025, and Tuesday, July 8, 2025, to brief them on the three alternatives and determine which Caltrans processes would be necessary to gain their approval and their estimated duration. The consultant team concluded that Alternative 1 could be approved in one to three months while approval for the other two

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 260

3 4
5 1
alternatives could take anywhere from three to five years. The consultant team updated the project costs and implementation timelines shown in Attachments 3 and 4 to reflect this.

In addition to developing three concepts, the consultant team is assisting the City with public outreach. A community meeting was held on July 17, 2025, to collect input from the community and stakeholders. See Attachment 5.

The community strongly supported Alternative 1 for its lower cost and ability to deliver meaningful safety improvements quickly. They appreciated that Alternative 2 improved upon Alternative 1 by adding traffic signals at off-ramps, but found it less favorable because of the remaining conflict zones, higher cost, and time it would take to implement. Alternative 3 was recognized as the safest and most transformative option, but there were concerns over its complexity, cost, and the potential for implementation delays.

Other notable feedback about Alternative 1 included:
Concern that drivers will not yield to proposed crossings/RRFBs at freeway on- and off- ramps, especially where vehicles tend to accelerate quickly when merging or exiting Interest in making proposed RRFBs more effective by adding advance warning beacons or automated detection systems
Suggestions for immediate improvements like better signage and traffic enforcement Interest in painting the bike lane fully green from Industrial to Twin Dolphin to improve visibility
Desire to layer in improvements (like traffic signals) from Alternatives 2 and 3 over time Concern that Alternative 1 is not sufficient for vulnerable users (e.g., children, people with disabilities, casual rider) The project team attended the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on August 4, 2025, to brief them on the project and the preferred design option (Alternative 1). The Commission expressed its appreciation for the project team’s efforts and the thorough, in-depth analysis conducted throughout the project. They agreed that Alternative 1 is the preferred option due to its overall benefits, lower cost compared to the other two alternatives, and a more expedited implementation timeline. The Commission adopted a resolution recommending that City Council approve the preferred alternative for Mid-term Improvements for U.S. 101/Holly Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Project.

Other notable feedback from the commission included:
Incorporate additional elements into Alternative 1 to improve safety and comfort for vulnerable users if possible
Establish success metrics to measure the effectiveness of the project in achieving its goals Explore phasing improvements from the other alternatives into Alternative 1 after it is implemented
The project will improve visibility, sightlines, and overall user awareness City staff should organize educational and enforcement campaigns to accompany the improvements
Public outreach also includes attending the August 25, 2025 City Council meeting. The project team intends to submit a formal project funding request for a mid-term solution to the SMCTA’s Highway Program by September 12, 2025. If selected, up to 90% of the selected project’s funding could be awarded in December 2025. The City is required to fund at least 10% of the total project for this mid-term solution.

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 261

3 4
5 1
While Alternatives 2 and 3 offer more robust improvements, due to constraints caused by the approval processes required by Caltrans, the implementation timeline may delay construction until the long-term solution is only a few years from being built. Alternative 1 allows the community to experience safety and mobility benefits both sooner and for a longer duration than the other options.

Following the input of the community and the recommendation from the Planning and Transportation Commission, the project team is recommending Alternative 1 as the preferred design option.

ALTERNATIVES:

The alternatives available to the City Council include:

1. Adopt a Resolution approving the preferred alternative 1 for mid-term improvements for U.S. 101/Holly Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Project; or

2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or

3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

Respectfully submitted by:

Steven Machida, Public Works Director
Approved for submission by:
____________________________
Nil Blackburn, Acting City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. Concept plans for the three alternatives

3. Cost opinions for the three alternatives

4. Cost/Implementation Matrix

5. Public comments as of 7/31/25

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 262

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 – ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS APPROVING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR THE MID-TERM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE U.S. 101/HOLLY STREET BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECT.

WHEREAS, City of San Carlos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan promotes walking and bicycling through the creation of safe, comfortable and connected networks, and to encourage alternatives to single occupancy motor vehicle trips; and WHEREAS, a separate bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing is still viewed as the optimal safety solution for crossing U.S. 101, because it eliminates potential conflicts with cars. City staff is working with Caltrans to assess which elements of the 2019 U.S. 101/Holly Street Interchange and Bike/Ped Overcrossing Project plans and specifications remain valid and what updates are needed to meet current Caltrans standards to obtain approval; and WHEREAS, in the interim, the community desires to implement bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements along the U.S. 101/Holly Street corridor; and WHEREAS, in June 2025, the City requested technical and financial assistance from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) to support development of mid-term alternatives for U.S. 101/Holly Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project. WSP/Toole Design Group were contracted to work with City staff in developing three project options (including a protected median concept); and
WHEREAS, in addition to developing three concepts, the consultant team is assisting the City with public outreach. A community meeting was held on July 17, 2025, to collect input from the community and stakeholders. The community strongly supported Alternative 1 for its lower cost and ability to deliver meaningful safety improvements quickly. Alternative 1 includes: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons at US 101 on- and off- ramps and a combination of separated bikeways with bike lanes in constrained conditions. Following the input of the community, the project team is recommending Alternative 1 as the preferred design option; and WHEREAS, the project team attended the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on August 4, 2025, to brief them on the project and the preferred design option (Alternative 1). The commission expressed its appreciation for the project team’s efforts and the thorough, in-depth analysis conducted throughout the project. They agreed that Alternative 1 is the preferred option due to its overall benefits, lower cost compared to the other two alternatives, and a more expedited implementation timeline. The commission adopted a resolution recommending that City Council approve the preferred alternative for Mid-term Improvements for U.S. 101/Holly Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Project.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Carlos City Council hereby approves the preferred Alternative 1 for the mid-term improvements for the U.S. 101/Holly Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Project.
* * * * *

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 263

I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 25th day of August 2025, by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________________ ________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos

11.a
August 25, 2025 Packet Pg. 264

Detailed Project Estimate and Total Project Costs - Cycle 7 Important: Read the Instructions in the first sheet (tab) before entering data. Do not enter data in shaded fields (with formulas).

Project Information:

Agency: Date:

Project Description:

Project Location:

Licensed Engineer in responsible charge of preparing or reviewing this PSR-Equivalent Cost Estimate: Li cense #:

Project Estimate and Cost Breakdown:

Cost Breakdown
Project Estimate (for Construction Items Only ) ATP Eligible ATP Ineligible Corps/CCC Costs/Items Costs/Items to construct
Item No. Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
Item Cost % $ % $ % $
General Overhead-Related Construction Items
1 1 LS $234,000.00 $234,000 100% $234,000 0% $0 $0
2 1 LS $234,000.00 $234,000 100% $234,000 0% $0 $0
3 1 LS $117,000.00 $117,000 100% $117,000 0% $0 $0
4 1 LS $350,000.00 $350,000 100% $350,000 0% $0 $0
5 1 LS $117,000.00 $117,000 100% $117,000 0% $0 $0
6 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
7 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
8 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
9 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
10 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
General Construction Items
11 2,094.00 SQFT 13.00 $ $27,222 100% $27,222 0% $0 $0 12 274.00 LF 5.00 $ $1,370 100% $1,370 0% $0 $0 13 25,180.00 LF 4.00 $ $100,720 100% $100,720 0% $0 $0 14 2,050.00 LF 2.00 $ $4,100 100% $4,100 0% $0 $0 15 - LF 22.00 $ $0 100% $0 0% $0 $0 16 86.00 CY 683.00 $ $58,738 100% $58,738 0% $0 $0 17 8,279.00 TON 156.00 $ $1,291,524 100% $1,291,524 0% $0 $0 18 34,178.00 SY 14.00 $ $478,492 100% $478,492 0% $0 $0 19 8,512.00 SQFT 9.00 $ $76,608 100% $76,608 0% $0 $0 20 35.00 CY 926.00 $ $32,410 100% $32,410 0% $0 $0 21 214.00 SQFT 51.00 $ $10,914 100% $10,914 0% $0 $0 22 168.00 EA 61.00 $ $10,248 100% $10,248 0% $0 $0 23 - LS - $ $0 100% $0 0% $0 $0 24 1.00 LS 97.30 $ $97 100% $97 0% $0 $0 25 308.00 LF 65.00 $ $20,020 100% $20,020 0% $0 $0 26 7.00 EA 30,000.00 $ $210,000 100% $210,000 0% $0 $0 27 93.83 CY 105.00 $ $9,852 100% $9,852 0% $0 $0 28 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
29 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
30 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
31 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
32 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
33 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
34 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
35 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
36 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
37 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
38 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
39 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
40 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
41 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
42 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
43 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
44 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
45 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
46 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
47 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
48 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
49 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
50 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
51 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
52 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
Subtotal of Construction Items: $3,384,316 $3,384,316 $0 $0 Construction Item Contingencies (% of Construction Items) : 25.00% $846,079 $846,079 $0 Total (Construction Items & Contingencies) cost: $4,230,395 $4,230,395 $0 Project Delivery Costs:

Type of Project Cost Cost $
Preliminary Engineering (PE) ATP Eligible Costs ATP Ineligible Costs Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED): $0 $0 Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E): $0 $0 "PE" costs / "CON" costs Total PE: - $ $0 $0 0% 25% Max
Right of Way (RW)
Right of Way Engineering: $0 $0
Acquisitions and Utilities: $0 $0
Total RW: - $ $0 $0
Total Pre-Construction Costs (PE+RW): $0 $0 $0
Construction Engineering (CE) "CE" costs / "CON" costs
Construction Engineering (CE): $0 $0 0% 15% Max
Total Construction Costs: $4,230,395 $4,230,395 $0
ATP Eligible Costs ATP Ineligible Costs
Total Project Cost: $4,230,395 $0
Documentation of Eligible (Participating) and/or Ineligible (Non-Participating) Costs:

Item #: Description of Engineer's Justification: (See example shown in the Instructions) City of San Carlos 5/23/2025
Holly Street - Alternative 1
City of San Carlos
Mobilization (10%)
Traffic Control (10%)
Clearing and Grubbing (5%)
Construction Management (15%)
Erosion Control (5%)

GREEN THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT

THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING
12" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE
6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE
8" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE

TEMPORARY RAILING (TYPE K)

AGGREGATE BASE

HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A)

GRIND EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT

MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK)

DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE

INSTALL FLEXIBLE POST DELINEATOR CLASS I

SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS
SIGNS

REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS

ROADWAY EXCAVATION
$4,230,395
The Engineer's justification for including typical ATP-Ineligible items in the ATP-Eligible column and logic and/or calculations for splitting costs between ATP-Eligible and Ineligible costs must be documented in this section of the Estimate form.

Separate justification is required for each item which is partly ineligible for ATP funding or is required for the construction of an ineligible item/element of the project. 6/24/2025 1 of 1

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 268

Detailed Project Estimate and Total Project Costs - Cycle 7 Important: Read the Instructions in the first sheet (tab) before entering data. Do not enter data in shaded fields (with formulas).

Project Information:

Agency: Date:

Project Description:

Project Location:

Licensed Engineer in responsible charge of preparing or reviewing this PSR-Equivalent Cost Estimate: Li cense #:

Project Estimate and Cost Breakdown:

Cost Breakdown
Project Estimate (for Construction Items Only ) ATP Eligible ATP Ineligible Corps/CCC Costs/Items Costs/Items to construct
Item No. Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
Item Cost % $ % $ % $
General Overhead-Related Construction Items
1 1 LS $356,000.00 $356,000 100% $356,000 0% $0 $0
2 1 LS $356,000.00 $356,000 100% $356,000 0% $0 $0
3 1 LS $178,000.00 $178,000 100% $178,000 0% $0 $0
4 1 LS $534,000.00 $534,000 100% $534,000 0% $0 $0
5 1 LS $178,000.00 $178,000 100% $178,000 0% $0 $0
6 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
7 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
8 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
9 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
10 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
General Construction Items
11 2,590.00 SQFT 13.00 $ $33,670 100% $33,670 0% $0 $0 12 552.00 LF 5.00 $ $2,760 100% $2,760 0% $0 $0 13 27,398.00 LF 4.00 $ $109,592 100% $109,592 0% $0 $0 14 1,977.00 LF 2.00 $ $3,954 100% $3,954 0% $0 $0 15 - LF 22.00 $ $0 100% $0 0% $0 $0 16 127.00 CY 683.00 $ $86,741 100% $86,741 0% $0 $0 17 8,486.00 TON 156.00 $ $1,323,816 100% $1,323,816 0% $0 $0 18 34,178.00 SY 14.00 $ $478,492 100% $478,492 0% $0 $0 19 8,657.00 SQFT 9.00 $ $77,913 100% $77,913 0% $0 $0 20 54.00 CY 926.00 $ $50,004 100% $50,004 0% $0 $0 21 244.00 SQFT 51.00 $ $12,444 100% $12,444 0% $0 $0 22 229.00 EA 61.00 $ $13,969 100% $13,969 0% $0 $0 23 1.00 LS 1,135,100.00 $ $1,135,100 100% $1,135,100 0% $0 $0 24 1.00 LS 56,852.30 $ $56,852 100% $56,852 0% $0 $0 25 478.00 LF 65.00 $ $31,070 100% $31,070 0% $0 $0 26 4.00 EA 30,000.00 $ $120,000 $0 100% $120,000 $0 27 173.89 CY 105.00 $ $18,258 $0 100% $18,258 $0 28 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
29 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
30 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
31 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
32 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
33 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
34 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
35 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
36 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
37 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
38 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
39 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
40 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
41 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
42 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
43 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
44 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
45 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
46 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
47 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
48 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
49 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
50 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
51 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
52 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
Subtotal of Construction Items: $5,156,636 $5,018,377 $138,258 $0 Construction Item Contingencies (% of Construction Items) : 25.00% $1,289,159 $1,254,594 $34,565 Total (Construction Items & Contingencies) cost: $6,445,795 $6,272,972 $172,823 Project Delivery Costs:

Type of Project Cost Cost $
Preliminary Engineering (PE) ATP Eligible Costs ATP Ineligible Costs Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED): $0 $0 Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E): $0 $0 "PE" costs / "CON" costs Total PE: - $ $0 $0 0% 25% Max
Right of Way (RW)
Right of Way Engineering: $0 $0
Acquisitions and Utilities: $0 $0
Total RW: - $ $0 $0
Total Pre-Construction Costs (PE+RW): $0 $0 $0
Construction Engineering (CE) "CE" costs / "CON" costs
Construction Engineering (CE): $0 $0 0% 15% Max
Total Construction Costs: $6,445,795 $6,272,972 $172,823 ATP Eligible Costs ATP Ineligible Costs
Total Project Cost: $6,272,972 $172,823
Documentation of Eligible (Participating) and/or Ineligible (Non-Participating) Costs:

Item #: Description of Engineer's Justification: (See example shown in the Instructions) $6,445,795
The Engineer's justification for including typical ATP-Ineligible items in the ATP-Eligible column and logic and/or calculations for splitting costs between ATP-Eligible and Ineligible costs must be documented in this section of the Estimate form.

Separate justification is required for each item which is partly ineligible for ATP funding or is required for the construction of an ineligible item/element of the project.

MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK)

DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE

INSTALL FLEXIBLE POST DELINEATOR CLASS I
SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS (@ INDUSTRIAL RD & AIRPORT WY AND 3 RAMP SIGNALS) SIGNS

REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS

ROADWAY EXCAVATION

GREEN THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT

THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING
12" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE
6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE
8" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE

TEMPORARY RAILING (TYPE K)

AGGREGATE BASE

HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A)

GRIND EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT
City of San Carlos 5/23/2025
Holly Street - Alternative 2
City of San Carlos
Mobilization (10%)
Traffic Control (10%)
Clearing and Grubbing (5%)
Construction Management (15%)
Erosion Control (5%)
6/24/2025 1 of 1

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 269

Detailed Project Estimate and Total Project Costs - Cycle 7 Important: Read the Instructions in the first sheet (tab) before entering data. Do not enter data in shaded fields (with formulas).

Project Information:

Agency: Date:

Project Description:

Project Location:

Licensed Engineer in responsible charge of preparing or reviewing this PSR-Equivalent Cost Estimate: Li cense #:

Project Estimate and Cost Breakdown:

Cost Breakdown
Project Estimate (for Construction Items Only ) ATP Eligible ATP Ineligible Corps/CCC Costs/Items Costs/Items to construct
Item No. Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
Item Cost % $ % $ % $
General Overhead-Related Construction Items
1 1 LS $340,000.00 $340,000 100% $340,000 0% $0 $0
2 1 LS $340,000.00 $340,000 100% $340,000 0% $0 $0
3 1 LS $170,000.00 $170,000 100% $170,000 0% $0 $0
4 1 LS $510,000.00 $510,000 100% $510,000 0% $0 $0
5 1 LS $170,000.00 $170,000 100% $170,000 0% $0 $0
6 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
7 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
8 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
9 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
10 LS $0 $0 100% $0 $0
General Construction Items
11 3,196.00 SQFT 13.00 $ $41,548 100% $41,548 0% $0 $0 12 906.00 LF 5.00 $ $4,530 100% $4,530 0% $0 $0 13 17,044.00 LF 4.00 $ $68,176 100% $68,176 0% $0 $0 14 2,015.00 LF 2.00 $ $4,030 100% $4,030 0% $0 $0 15 4,112.00 LF 22.00 $ $90,464 100% $90,464 0% $0 $0 16 224.00 CY 683.00 $ $152,992 100% $152,992 0% $0 $0 17 8,071.00 TON 156.00 $ $1,259,076 100% $1,259,076 0% $0 $0 18 34,178.00 SY 14.00 $ $478,492 100% $478,492 0% $0 $0 19 5,871.00 SQFT 9.00 $ $52,839 100% $52,839 0% $0 $0 20 51.00 CY 926.00 $ $47,226 100% $47,226 0% $0 $0 21 141.00 SQFT 51.00 $ $7,191 100% $7,191 0% $0 $0 22 54.00 EA 61.00 $ $3,294 100% $3,294 0% $0 $0 23 1.00 LS 1,002,550.00 $ $1,002,550 100% $1,002,550 0% $0 $0 24 1.00 LS 50,224.80 $ $50,225 100% $50,225 0% $0 $0 25 1,948.00 LF 1.00 $ $1,948 100% $1,948 0% $0 $0 26 136.00 CY 105.00 $ $14,280 100% $14,280 0% $0 $0 27 4.00 EA 30,000.00 $ $120,000 100% $120,000 0% $0 $0 28 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
29 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
30 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
31 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
32 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
33 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
34 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
35 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
36 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
37 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
38 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
39 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
40 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
41 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
42 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
43 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
44 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
45 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
46 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
47 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
48 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
49 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
50 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
51 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
52 $0 $0 100% $0 $0
Subtotal of Construction Items: $4,928,861 $4,928,861 $0 $0 Construction Item Contingencies (% of Construction Items) : 25.00% $1,232,215 $1,232,215 $0 Total (Construction Items & Contingencies) cost: $6,161,076 $6,161,076 $0 Project Delivery Costs:

Type of Project Cost Cost $
Preliminary Engineering (PE) ATP Eligible Costs ATP Ineligible Costs Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED): $0 $0 Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E): $0 $0 "PE" costs / "CON" costs Total PE: - $ $0 $0 0% 25% Max
Right of Way (RW)
Right of Way Engineering: $0 $0
Acquisitions and Utilities: $0 $0
Total RW: - $ $0 $0
Total Pre-Construction Costs (PE+RW): $0 $0 $0
Construction Engineering (CE) "CE" costs / "CON" costs
Construction Engineering (CE): $0 $0 0% 15% Max
Total Construction Costs: $6,161,076 $6,161,076 $0
ATP Eligible Costs ATP Ineligible Costs
Total Project Cost: $6,161,076 $0
Documentation of Eligible (Participating) and/or Ineligible (Non-Participating) Costs:

Item #: Description of Engineer's Justification: (See example shown in the Instructions) City of San Carlos 5/23/2025
Holly Street - Alternative 3
City of San Carlos
Mobilization (10%)
Traffic Control (10%)
Clearing and Grubbing (5%)
Construction Management (15%)
Erosion Control (5%)

GREEN THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT

THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING
12" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE
6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE
8" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE

TEMPORARY RAILING (TYPE K)

AGGREGATE BASE

HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A)

GRIND EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT

MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK)

DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE

INSTALL FLEXIBLE POST DELINEATOR CLASS I
SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS (@ INDUSTRIAL RD & AIRPORT WY/SHOREWAY RD) SIGNS

REMOVE THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE

ROADWAY EXCAVATION

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS
$6,161,076
The Engineer's justification for including typical ATP-Ineligible items in the ATP-Eligible column and logic and/or calculations for splitting costs between ATP-Eligible and Ineligible costs must be documented in this section of the Estimate form.

Separate justification is required for each item which is partly ineligible for ATP funding or is requ ired for the construction of an ineligible item/element of the project. 6/24/2025 1 of 1

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 270

ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON OVERVIEW
1 2
3 11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 271

July 17, 2025 Community Meeting Comment Cards
Comment Card #San Carlos Resident Prefer Alternative 1 Prefer Alternative 2 Prefer Alternative 3 Feedback Other comments 1 Yes 1 1
If timeline was shorter, would prefer Alternative 3. If long-term solution is 6-7 years away, Alternative 1 is preferred
2 Yes 1
Based on timeline, Alternative 1 is preferred due to the biggest improvement quickest at the least cost while keeping focus on the longterm POC project
3 Yes Paint bike lane fully green from Industrial to Twin Dolphin 4 Not Provided 1 1
Prefers Alternative 1 due to implementation timeline, as well as Alternative 2 over 3 due to the creation of conflict by mixing pedestrians with cyclists
5 Yes 1
Dislikes all proposals due to lack of usability for children, casual riders, individuals with disabilities, etc
Heavy use of lights (specifically flashing yield lights) are more helpful for cars than pedestrians, adding long-term cost. The source of the issue is the butterfly on ramps.
6 No 1
Alternative 3 is the safest due to car speed and unwillingness to stop.

Hasn't seen any new signs on Industrial.

For an instant remedy likes flashing beacons. Wants the roads on Industrial going toward 101N and 101S with painted signs.

Drivers are going too fast and making right turn in the 101S lane, then after jump in front of cars going to 101N, almost causing accidents.
7 No 1
Alternative 1 and 2 are quick and dirt solutions. Alternative 3 is the best as it takes the same time as building the bike crossing. Build barriers between car and bike lanes.
8 Not Provided
What happens if we get median and also get POC? Some think POC ramp is too far off. Would center be bike only?
9 Yes 1
Prefers because it's fast, adds traffic signaling, the time and cost are similar to Alternative 2 and beats it due to $1M savings and increasing safety for pedestrians and vehicles. The change to North Shoreline isn't that important, real problem is the overpass. Doesn't like waiting for traffic on the 4 as a cyclist due to needing to slow down or stop to ensure cars have stopped or there's a gap in traffic.
10 Yes 1
Alternative 3 should put pedestrians and bikes in the median, removing all on/off ramp signals and sidewalks entirely. The width could support a mixed use path and would increase safety by removing conflicts with vehicle traffic.

Use sidewalk land to shift lanes and widen, ending need for Caltrans study. Deleting median could increase space for mixed use path, removing dead load from overpass and
offsetting load from K-Rail. Evaluate how the above changes pull in the Caltrans approval timeline.
11 No 1
Likes this option the best as it increases biker protection on 3rd Ave and San Mateo
12 Yes 1
Start with Alternative 1 then add in traffic signals from 2. Concerned with the bike traffic in Alternative 3 transition past Industrial and Shoreway.

Getting feedback from the public after summer due to people being out of town. Speaking with service clubs, PTAs, AYSO, and other team sports to get a broader group's responses. 13 Yes 1 Quicker build, lower cost. Six foot one-way lanes are sufficient. 14 No 1 1 1
Option 1 should be put in place while working on a longer-term solution.

Something between Options 2 and 3, gradually implementing more improvements and elements. Implement the fastest interim solution while implementing other elements from 2 and 3. Was recently hit by a vehicle on a bike.

Hawk beacons solo - drivers may not stop. Can we change driver behavior by giving more education about when to yield? Can we make "baby step" improvements as soon as funding is improved?
15 Yes 1
Need quick, maybe temporary solutions. Industrial signs are easy to miss and very high, they should be visible to everyone. Paint the road like the freeway "101 North or South", mark the road. Right turn lane is confusing for people new to the area for 101 North. 101 South Lane is short. Almost got hit on 101 North and it feels like people don't want to wait in line for 101 North. People get into 101 South lane and try to jump into the lane for 101 North. People might not know it's right turn only, need better signs or to write this on the road.

Veterans in Redwood City is dangerous and scary to bike. Got off bike in the Industrial Center bike lane because it was so unsafe where Andrea V. passed. High school traffic in the bike lane, so many pedestrians from the Redwood shores, and
Caltrain riders. Cars are going too fast on the freeway.

Industrial on ramp used to have a police man. Need to bring that back to give speeding tickets for bad behavior because people don't slow down. Cyclists need to use helmets.
16 Not Provided
Make bike lane all green now, place RRFB before crossing, cars are going fastest going off of Holly not liking the position of crossing, the lane is not 9 feet, awful across ramps, worst part is SB from Ind.

Alt 1 agree, consider phasing elements from 2 and 3 after 1 goes in. Do we have to pay Caltrain for processes?
Public comments as of July 31, 2025

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 272

Online Survey Responses
as of July 31, 2025
U.S. 101/Holly Street Interchange

Title/Question: Holly Street Improvements: Survey
Report Date Range:18 Jul 2025 - 1 Aug 2025
Date Exported: 1 Aug 2025 03:09 pm
Date Submitted Your comment
Aug 01, 2025, 01:36 AM
Let’s add green paint on the existing Holly/101 bike lane NOW.

Make the bike lane more visible to drivers. Going east on Holly, the San Carlos portion of the bike lane isn’t painted green. Cross over the freeway and enter Redwood Shores/Redwood City and the bike lane is more visible with green paint. Same bike lane, but only made more visible with the green paint in 1 of 2 cities. (Reverse visibility going west - green in Redwood Shores/RWC and then no green in San Carlos.)
Bike lanes throughout San Carlos should all have green paint.

There is a sign in front of City Hall celebrating San Carlos as a “bike friendly city”. The road conditions of our San Carlos streets need to demonstrate that friendliness.

Thank you
Jul 30, 2025, 05:03 PM
This is a very hazardous spot - vehicles exiting from the freeway come at high rates of speed and do not yield to the traffic coming across Holly St. Some vehicles cut across all lanes of traffic to get to the traffic signal to turn left onto Shoreway Rd.

Jul 20, 2025, 04:24 PM
Driver's exiting 101N, eastbound to Redwood Shores, and those merging to enter 101N, are still crossing the bike lane. It is not safe and can only be resolved by building a separate Pedestrian/Bike bridge over 101. The bridge should be the goal, Alternatives 2 & 3 will be costly and time-consuming to study and not likely to be approved by Cal-Trans. Alternative 1 is the quickest, most cost-effective way to improve safety with continued efforts to find funding for the Pedestrian/Bike bridge. If prioritized, the bridge can be approved in nearly the same amount of time as Alternatives 2 &3. In the short-term, I would like to see sensors installed vs. the user-activated crossing in Alternative 1 as bikers are already in motion on that upgrade and are not likely to stop to push the button.

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 273

Online Survey Responses
as of July 31, 2025
U.S. 101/Holly Street Interchange

Title/Question: Holly Street Improvements: Survey
Report Date Range:18 Jul 2025 - 1 Aug 2025
Date Exported: 1 Aug 2025 03:09 pm
Date Submitted Your comment
Jul 18, 2025, 05:15 AM
Coming from the Redwood Shores side, I often actually want to go from the bike lane to the left turn lanes here because that's the fastest way to get to E. San Carlos St which is the best street to cycle down to the Caltrain Station. However, it is obviously very unsafe to do so for a cyclist.

It would be nice if there was some safer way to go from the bike lane to the left turn lane, but I understand there probably just isn't one.

At the moment I will take the bike lane to Holly, then I will use the crosswalks to reach the south west corner of the Holly/Industrial intersection.

Google Streetview link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/J8q7NYRczkgaF8mv5
Jul 18, 2025, 04:53 AM
In alternatives 1 and 2, Pushing the bike lane here to the curb side forces cyclists to cross when traffic is accelerating the most onto the onramp.

As someone who actually does ride this. For this particular conflict zone, The center bike lane allows traffic to flow without too much crossing over each other. For this particular conflict zone, I find the existing cycling infrastructure better, but would like to see the entire lane painted with green conflict striping.

Streetview Link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/4ngpq2TVLoYYkZL9A

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 274

Online Survey Responses
as of July 31, 2025
U.S. 101/Holly Street Interchange

Title/Question: Holly Street Improvements: Survey
Report Date Range:18 Jul 2025 - 1 Aug 2025
Date Exported: 1 Aug 2025 03:09 pm
Date Submitted Your comment
Jul 18, 2025, 04:27 AM
E. San Carlos is a nice street to cycle down as there is almost no traffic and it shoots directly into the Caltrain station.

Riders coming over the overpass should be encouraged to ride here instead of down Holly toward El Camino via signage or something.

Jul 18, 2025, 04:25 AM
The proposed short bike lane for this small section of the road on Holly after industrial before Holly narrows does not seem useful. It invites cyclists to bike down Holly, which is an absolutely awful street to cycle down.

The intersection should instead encourage riders riding over the overpass to turn left and ride down industrial to E. San Carlos street which feeds directly into the Caltrain station.

Google Streetview Link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/sE9tqGuNzPaBvgAP6
Jul 18, 2025, 04:17 AM
Electrical Boxes here block visibility for pedestrians or bikes who are waiting at the cross walk.

Google Streetview Link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2FVRpH9J2kUruzb97

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 275

Online Survey Responses
as of July 31, 2025
Date Submitted What do you like about the Alternatives?What would you change? Other comments:

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Yes No
Jul 31, 2025, 02:53 PM 1
In order of preference, I would go with 1 > 3 >

2. 1 will get a job done in a time frame that is
reasonable. 3 and 2 will take too long.

However, I would accept 3 if the pedestrian
bridge isn't built at all. I think it's an acceptable
compromise on its own and will be much
cheaper than the bridge + any of the other
alternatives.

As an experienced cyclist, I prefer alternative 0.5. I just want a painted green bike lane with the existing
centerlane the entire way across the bridge. Having the bike lane pushed to the curb in my opinion creates
conflict points.

Except at the holly/industrial intersection headed
eastbound. I agree that that bike lane should be pushed to the curb. That area has too many cars going every
which way.

The center bike lanes everywhere else allows for natural uninterrupted cycling across the bridge so long as the
cyclist is aware. Green paint on the ground will indicate to drivers more clearly that they are crossing a bike lane.

Right now there is almost no paint in most of the conflict zones.

1. I am a regular user of
the holly bridge.

2. Bike traffic headed
west bound down holly
should be encouraged
with signage to instead
divert to E. San Carlos
street, which is a MUCH
safer street to bike
down than Holly and
heads directly into the
train station. 1
Jul 29, 2025, 07:28 PM 1 Makes the most sense to me . . . No suggestions . . . 1 Jul 29, 2025, 02:57 AM 1
Alternative 1 does not impede traffic flow
while providing some protection for bikers in
the form of separated bikeways and flashing
beacons. Since the urgency is time and getting
a long-term solution in place more quickly, 1.5-
2 years and at a lower cost is a sound tradeoff
for accelerating funding/proposal for an
entirely separate bike/pedestrian bridge south
of Holly Street. It's essentially the least of all
evils.

Adding cameras (and warning signage) to flag violations of cars cutting off bikers / track accidents and serve as deterrents to aggressive driving.

The real solution is
building a separate
bike/pedestrian bridge.

Why isn't 100% of the
focus being spent on
fast-tracking that
effort? This band-aid
approach just kicks the
can further down the
(literal) road. It's been
a decade since this was
first looked at and 5
years since the
pandemic, why is action
only happening now?
Can't AI speed up the
severely bloated
bureaucratic process?
In Asian countries like
China, these projects
would seriously be
completed in a couple
of weeks or months
(without the help of AI)! 1
Which Alternative do you prefer? Are you a resident of San Carlos?

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 276

Online Survey Responses
as of July 31, 2025
Date Submitted What do you like about the Alternatives?What would you change? Other comments:Which Alternative do you prefer? Are you a resident of San Carlos? Jul 29, 2025, 12:33 AM 1
I would like to primarily advocate we use Alternative 3 as the primary long term path instead of going for a separate overbridge. It's working very well in San Mateo 3rd Ave.

The primary change is that media is used by both bikers and pedestrian to remove need to still install flash or traffic lights at on-ramp or off-ramps.
a) enhancement of traffic lights at 2 ends I.e.

Holly/Industrial and Shoreway Rd/Holly to enable
pedestrians and bikers to cross over to/from the median b) reclaim existing bike lanes and pavements on the
current bridge to make room for the median
c) reinforce existing bridge to ensure it can with stand weight of new concrete dividers but overall should be
possible as existing concrete structures from the media and side walks will be removed
d) doesn't require lane reductions on either side
e) much less costlier and faster than over bridge
I am also curious to
understand if there is a
possibility where in
case of Alternative 3,
pedestrian and bike
lanes on both sides can
be combined on one
side of the road, instead
of median, and thus
requires flash lights
and/or traffic lights only
on one side of on/off
ramps. In fact there is
already a traffic light for
the 101 south bound off-
ramp. 1
Jul 28, 2025, 06:47 PM 1
My choice is for the alternative that can be
completed fastest, assuming the city is still
actively working on getting the promised
bike/pedestrian crossing completed as soon as
possible. The timelines for 2 and 3 are so long
that by that time the separate crossing should
be nearing completion.

Whichever alternative
is chosen I will still only
ride my bike over to the
other side of the
freeway if I have the
time to go to the
crossing near Ralston as
I am not brave enough
to mix with distracted
drivers speeding to get
on and off the freeway 1
Jul 28, 2025, 09:54 AM 1 Safest in my opinion Time to complete, shorten by a month or two I use this road regularly
during the week, and
some weekends,
though not a resident of
San Carlos 1
Jul 27, 2025, 02:31 PM 1
I think they both seem to make some effort to
ameliorate the current setup. Alternative 1 is
pretty low protection and I don’t think the
immediacy payoff is worth it for the
potentially long term solution even if it’s built
sooner. Alternative 2 is only slightly better but
I feel a fully barrier protected middle running
lane is the best solution with the least bit of
stress from my perspective. I feel this reduces
conflict points and - as long as there is a
genuine protective barrier - much safer feeling
than the other options which involves crossing
over highway off and on ramps
Signal timings to be more friendly to cyclists. Additionally they should get priority for getting a green (at least not waiting an excessive amount of time - e.g. far longer than a car would) to move.

The fact that it’ll take 4
years (time difference
between design
alternatives) to get 2
studies and sets of
approvals done by
Caltrans is a little
pathetic. This was such
a large issue in the San
Carlos and neighboring
town communities that
residents rapidly
mobilized on it. We
should do everything
possible to get this
implemented soon,
especially with
accelerating Caltrans
timelines. 1

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 277

Online Survey Responses
as of July 31, 2025
Date Submitted What do you like about the Alternatives?What would you change? Other comments:Which Alternative do you prefer? Are you a resident of San Carlos? Jul 27, 2025, 01:39 PM 1
I appreciate the effort here to get
improvements as soon as possible, and do feel
that Alternative 1 would offer some
improvement over the current situation.

I would make sure that the beacons are automatically
triggered by cyclists in some way that cyclists can see that they have been triggerred. I think push buttons are OK for pedestrians, but not OK for cyclists. Watch out with the curb extensions that you don't accidentally break the path of cyclists and force them to go over some hump or
around some obstacle. You want to make it so that the
cyclists can go through the extension.

I feel there's an other
option here. What if we
employ full-time
motorcycle police
officers to escort
cyclists and pedestrians
over the overpass. Say
one one each side, and
they swap places when
one crosses. Or they
just cross over and over
all day and escort
anyone they see. That
allows us to use all the
existing infrastructure
with zero changes,
allows us to actually
enforce driver yielding,
allows us to actually
enforce on and off ramp
speed limits, and
actually makes the
situation safe for a
cyclists or pedestrian
(police motorcycle with
flashing lights tagging
along side a cyclist or
pedestrian would be
pretty much as high 1
Jul 25, 2025, 10:08 PM 1
Maintains common standard of bikes and cars
traveling in the same direction. These
interchanges are already confusing to many
drivers.

I would recommend a
completely separate
overpass for bikes and
pedestrians, as in
Belmont (Ralston
Avenue). 1
Jul 25, 2025, 08:53 PM 1
Alternative 2 is is similar to the current
configuration with more safety features for
bikers, unlike Alternative 1. The problem I
have with Alternative 3 is that when going off
Holly street, bikers will need to go across
driving lanes to go back to the bike lanes,
which is unsafe for them.

Alternative 1 with more safety features for bikers would be optimal in terms of cost and timeline(i.e. having traffic and bike signals.) 1
Jul 25, 2025, 08:47 PM 1
If you start out with level one you really need
to implement level 2 so that the bicyclist are
safe getting across the overpass as well as the
pedestrians. Although the bicyclist are going to
have to be trained an made aware of the rules
and laws maybe even make licenses for the
younger kids who don't know how to follow
laws or rules of the road. And of course the
driver's will.need to be trained on what the
flashing lights mean as well.

I would make sure that these final changes that are going to.make are sent out to everyone. An even given to
workers here so they learn how to exit an enter when
coming to San Carlos an going over the overpass.

Sometimes I exit at Holly stop at the stop sign an cross over to take the frontage road where I think it's called Shoreway what are you doing for people who want to get
in the left lane that have come from Redwood City
Jul 23, 2025, 04:10 PM 1 1
Jul 23, 2025, 12:04 AM 1
Speed of delivery, especially considering the
long term possibility of a more significant
overhaul. Moreover, cost savings can be
reallocated to other public benefits. 1

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 278

Online Survey Responses
as of July 31, 2025
Date Submitted What do you like about the Alternatives?What would you change? Other comments:Which Alternative do you prefer? Are you a resident of San Carlos? Jul 21, 2025, 12:14 PM
None.

What happened to the 101/Holly Street
Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing project
from 2014/2015? Seems much safer and may
have avoided the accident in 2024.

Build the 01/Holly Street Pedestrian and Bicycle
Overcrossing. The city should have pushed for it back in ~ 2015.

From 2014:

31. 101/Holly Street
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Overcrossing Agency:

San Carlos Allocated
Funding: $1,000,000
Construction of a
pedestrian and bicycle
overcrossing on the
south side of the US
101/Holly Street
Interchange.

From 2015:

Holly St. and Highway
101 update
Nov 11, 2015
Freeway crossings are
one of the biggest
barriers to biking and
walking. Because of
their high speeds,
shifting traffic
directions, and car-
focused design, they
discourage people from
biking for 1
Jul 21, 2025, 11:45 AM 1
I like that Alternative 1 can be implemented
much more quickly. When people are dying, an
efficient solution should be the priority. Longer-
term, we need a bike/pedestrian overpass.

I'm not an expert, so no specific comments. Anything is an improvement at this point.

I'm deeply disappointed
the original, funded
bike overpass was
stymied by CalTrans. On
my commute, I drive
under the Palo Alto
overpass construction
on a daily basis and
wonder why Palo Alto
had the
funds/sway/political
capital to get their
overpass project done
but San Carlos did not.

It makes me sad and,
frankly, it reeks of
inequity. 1

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 279

Online Survey Responses
as of July 31, 2025
Date Submitted What do you like about the Alternatives?What would you change? Other comments:Which Alternative do you prefer? Are you a resident of San Carlos? Jul 20, 2025, 10:42 PM 1
seems like a genuine effort to address the
issue.

Consider adding lights that can make bikers more visible to drivers as they exit/enter the freeway. Something to highlight them. I can buys solar powered LED lights to light up a path across the bridge for $1000.

As you may be aware, a
lot of folks over the last
6 months have talked
about the book,
Abundance. That book
talks about how difficult
it is to solve issues and
build. The fact that
putting a lane in the
center of the overpass,
which appears to be the
safest approach, would
take 5 YEARS is nuts.

Look at your processes
and figure out how to
do this more efficiently
and effectively.

There is minimal
information here about
how long it will take to
do the long-term fix, an
independent overpass
for pedestrians. If that
should take ~5 years,
then folks would
compare that to the
alternatives being
discussed here. Alt 3 1
Jul 20, 2025, 04:41 PM
Alternatives 2 & 3 provide more safety for
bikers but seem extremely unlikely to be
approved by Cal-Trans. Therefore, move
forward with Alternative 1 as quickly as
possible and focus your time to find funding
for the Pedestrian/Bike bridge over 101.

Please look into sensors to detect bikers vs. a user-
activated light.

Build the bridge, it is
the only safe means for
pedestrians and bikers
to cross over the
freeway. 1
Jul 19, 2025, 08:08 PM
Alternative 1 is the only one I like. It makes
bicyclists AND pedestrians safer without taking
away (lanes) from motorists and it can be
completed faster and for much less money
than the other alternatives.

I don't like anything that takes away car lanes and
increases congestion. There are far more motorists than bicyclists/pedestrians and motorists should be prioritized.

Alternative 3 is the worse -- adding extra lights and wait times for everyone in order to get bicyclists into the
center of the road yet leaving the pedestrians on the
curb.

The sidewalk
completely disappears
at one point.

Pedestrians can go
through what looks like
a dirt path with a grade
change (no good for
wheelchairs!) and
continue through
someone's parking lot.

The parking lot exit
doesn't have a
crosswalk across the
street but there's a nice
sidewalk on the other
side if the pedestrian
can get there. You
should do something to
get a continuous
sidewalk for
pedestrians. 1
Jul 19, 2025, 07:57 PM Quick and easy, and it is sufficient.

I would require the property owner on Holly St between
Airport Way and Twin Dolphin Dr to provide a continuous sidewalk.

I would like to know
how many bicycles and
pedestrians currently
use this route and have
there ever been any
accidents here? 1

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 280

Online Survey Responses
as of July 31, 2025
Date Submitted What do you like about the Alternatives?What would you change? Other comments:Which Alternative do you prefer? Are you a resident of San Carlos? Jul 19, 2025, 01:55 PM 1
It provides sufficient protection for bicyclists
and pedestrians without interrupting the flow
of bike and car traffic. Having cars and bikes
cross each other at the 101 entrances/exits
the way it is now is very dangerous.

Install the flashing lights earlier while the rest of the project is waiting for approvals.

Could the pedestrian
walkway be put in the
center with the bikes on
the 101 overpass? That
would be safer, take up
less space (bc only 1
pedestrian walkway
would be needed
instead of 2), and
wouldn't interrupt the
flow of cars on and off
the freeway (eliminate
need for traffic lights on
freeway exits). 1
Jul 19, 2025, 10:22 AM
I prefer alternative 2 because it seems to me
to be the best combination of safety vs. traffic
disruption, although I'm not a fan of lane
reductions east of 101. However, I like the
shorter timeline for alternative 1. I think we
should implement alternative 1 and then also
work towards adding the user-activated traffic
signals on the 101 offramps shown in
alternative 2.

You should also ask if
respondents are
residents of Redwood
Shores. Many Redwood
Shores residents cross
over 101 into San
Carlos. 1
Jul 18, 2025, 05:06 PM
I was at the meeting last night and provided
my feedback that my preference would be
Alternative 3 if it could be done as quickly as
Alternative 1. However, if the long term
solution will be a 6-7 year project, it does not
make sense to do a 5 year midrange project.

Therefore, I would vote for Alternative 1.

What I liked about #3 is the center bike lane
that provides the most protection and seems
to use the existing space most effectively. I
also like that there would be only 1 right turn
lane from Industrial onto Holly with a safe way
to get onto the bike lane.

The reason I am
contacting you online is
to follow up on a
conversation I had with
one of the
representatives. During
the Jan 8th listening
meeting, Andrea's
husband said that we all
knew to avoid Holly St
but Andrea was visiting
a friend in Redwood
Shores and did not
know the stretch from
San Carlos to Redwood
Shores across Holly was
a dangerous route. This
needs to be better
communicated! Do not
consider the Holly St
crossing a designated
bike lane until
improvements are
made. Have a sign at
the intersections
stating "Bicycles Not
Advised- Use Caution".

Work with Google and
Apple Maps and with 1
Jul 18, 2025, 02:47 AM
Alternative 1 is realistic and can be an
immediate safety improvement.

Alt 3 would be nice, but it’s unrealistic - maybe
possible with future interchange
improvements.

Alt 2 is not worthwhile - can’t be approved and
isn’t significantly better than 1.

Do Alt 1 but don’t use the RRFBs. They will provide a false sense of security.

Alt 1 without RRFBs is
great. I would feel
comfortable riding that. 1

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 281

Online Survey Responses
as of July 31, 2025
Date Submitted What do you like about the Alternatives?What would you change? Other comments:Which Alternative do you prefer? Are you a resident of San Carlos? Jul 18, 2025, 01:10 AM 1
I like option 1 because I think need some protection
ASAP. I am voting for that option now.

Ultimately I think a pedestrian bridge or fully protected lane would help parents and young kids crossing feel
safer. 1
Jul 18, 2025, 12:18 AM None of the alternatives are acceptable.

Why isn't there a completely separate bike and
pedestrian crossing as was promised years ago? None of these alternatives are acceptable and they completely
disregard all of the work the community put into a
separate bike and pedestrian crossing. People have been killed on this overpass and these alternative plans are all sub-standard and unsafe. Bring back a dedicated bike and pedestrian crossing like Belmont created. Anything less than this is not acceptable.

Why did the city drop
the ball when we had a
grant to move forward
years ago? This new
plan is a giant step
backwards. 1
Jul 17, 2025, 06:38 PM 1 The separated barriers 1
Jul 17, 2025, 06:28 PM 1 has bike lanes 1

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 282

8/7/25, 1:16 PM RE: US 101/Holly St. Interchange: Weekly Team meeting - Alison Mills - Outlook about:blank 1/1

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 283

July 17, 2025 Community Meeting Roll Plot Comments

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 284

Electrical Boxes Block car visibility. They cannot see pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Protect this intersection
Low visibility for pedestrians at this intersection.

Remove signage and vegetation
Corner of industrial and Holly- The street on Industrial needs to indicate 1010 N + 101S - there is signage but too high tosee.

Lighting?
Speeds too high, advance beacons?
Cars in the 101S turn in to the 101N lane because they don't want to wait.

Remove "meter on" sign, it's distracting
Signage on industrial to better direct cars that could be overhead Concerned about visibility for pedestrians at this intersection Make this road section as visually narrow as possible. That will safely slow cars down.

This is important! This will slow turning cars and shorten walk distance.

Bad visibility for drivers
July 17, 2025 Community Meeting Roll Plot Comments

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 285

July 17, 2025 Community Meeting Roll Plot Comments

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 286

July 17, 2025 Community Meeting Roll Plot Comments

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 287

July 17, 2025 Community Meeting Roll Plot Comments

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 288

Signal turn lane
Prefer this option
Remove S/W and have multi use pathway in center w/ bikes and peds.

Protect intersection
Bikes don't follow laws and go through red lights
Protect bike left turn opening in a median nose for bike queue Concerned about reduced lane width and safety with cars.

Don't care about this as much
Moving WB Holly to NB 101 on-ramp lane start beyond shoreway is a good idea.

Remove the median and use the new pedestrian and bike lane as median If the median has to be kept, use it for pedestrians and remove the sidewalk. This removed 4 crosswalks better for pedestrians and better for drivers.

Can pedestrians be on the 6' median strip
Single turn lane
As a pedestrian, I am concerned with the safety at crossings.

Do you really need lane reduction here. Instead we should follow the same as alternative 1 here.

Reducing to 1 turn lane would buy space for bike and pedestrian facilities.

July 17, 2025 Community Meeting Roll Plot Comments

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 289

July 17, 2025 Community Meeting Roll Plot Comments

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 290

Electrical Boxes Block car visibility. They cannot see pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Protect this intersection
Low visibility for pedestrians at this intersection.

Remove signage and vegetation
Corner of industrial and Holly- The street on Industrial needs to indicate 1010 N + 101S - there is signage but too high tosee.

Lighting?
Speeds too high, advance beacons?
Cars in the 101S turn in to the 101N lane because they don't want to wait.

Remove "meter on" sign, it's distracting
Signage on industrial to better direct cars that could be overhead Concerned about visibility for pedestrians at this intersection Make this road section as visually narrow as possible. That will safely slow cars down.

This is important! This will slow turning cars and shorten walk distance.

Bad visibility for drivers
July 17, 2025 Community Meeting Roll Plot Comments

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 291

July 17, 2025 Community Meeting Roll Plot Comments

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 292

July 17, 2025 Community Meeting Roll Plot Comments

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 293

July 17, 2025 Community Meeting Roll Plot Comments

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 294

Signal turn lane
Prefer this option
Remove S/W and have multi use pathway in center w/ bikes and peds.

Protect intersection
Bikes don't follow laws and go through red lights
Protect bike left turn opening in a median nose for bike queue Concerned about reduced lane width and safety with cars.

Don't care about this as much
Moving WB Holly to NB 101 on-ramp lane start beyond shoreway is a good idea.

Remove the median and use the new pedestrian and bike lane as median If the median has to be kept, use it for pedestrians and remove the sidewalk. This removed 4 crosswalks better for pedestrians and better for drivers.

Can pedestrians be on the 6' median strip
Single turn lane
As a pedestrian, I am concerned with the safety at crossings.

Do you really need lane reduction here. Instead we should follow the same as alternative 1 here.

Reducing to 1 turn lane would buy space for bike and pedestrian facilities.

July 17, 2025 Community Meeting Roll Plot Comments

11.a
August 25, 2025

Packet Pg. 295