CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Regular Meeting
April 18, 2022
7:00 PM
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rick Bonilla, Mayor
Diane Papan, Deputy Mayor
Joe Goethals
Amourence Lee
Eric Rodriguez
REVISED AGENDA
DUE TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY – THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO AUTHORIZATION FROM GOVERNMENT CODE 54943(b)(3) / AB361 (2021) – CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION MEETINGS ARE NO LONGER OPEN TO IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE.
ANYONE CAN WATCH AND PROVIDE COMMENTS REMOTELY IN THE WAYS DESCRIBED AT THE END OF THE AGENDA.
To join via Zoom – click here: Monday, April 18, 2022 Zoom Meeting To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Conference ID: 856 8600 8274 Passcode: 566861
CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
CEREMONIAL
1. Ramadan Observance
2. Andrew A. Cresci – Commendatory Resolution
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion. If discussion is desired, that item may be removed and considered separately.
3. City Council Meeting Minutes - Approval
Approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular meeting of April 4, 2022.
4. Ordinance Adoption – Sign Code Amendments
Adopt an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Title 25, “Signs” by updating definitions, revising regulations for signs in the public right of way, clarifying the permissible number and dimensions of signs, and making other miscellaneous changes.
5. Remote Teleconferenced City Council and Commission Meetings – Reauthorization Adopt a Resolution to reauthorize remote teleconferenced City Council and Board and Commission meetings for 30 days, through May 18, 2022, as allowed by Assembly Bill 361 amending the Brown Act, based upon the Governor’s emergency proclamation and findings that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
1 of 509
6. US 101/State Route 92 Area Improvement and Multimodal Project – Letter of Support Authorize Mayor Bonilla to send a letter of support on behalf of the City of San Mateo to Congresswoman Speier for the San Mateo County Transportation Authority's request for Community Project Funding.
7. On-Call Traffic Engineering Data Collection Services – Amendment Approve Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Innovative Data Acquisitions, LLC dba IDAX Data Solutions for on-call traffic engineering data collection services in the amount of $110,000 for a new agreement total of an amount not to exceed $200,000, extend the term of the agreement, authorize the Public Works Director to execute term extension amendments within the agreement amount, and authorize the Public Works Director to execute Amendment No. 1 in substantially the form approved.
8. Wastewater Treatment Plant Immediate Action Projects, Package II – Amendment Approve Amendment No. 5 to the agreement with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., to provide professional design services and engineering services during construction for Immediate Action Projects Package II in the amount of $88,673.46, revising the total agreement amount not to exceed $1,562,403.46, extend the term through September 15, 2022, and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.
9. Rodder Truck and Vac-Con Truck – Purchase Contracts
Adopt a Resolution to approve an alternative purchasing procedure and approve a contract with National Auto Fleet Group for the purchase of one Rodder Truck from Nixon-Egli Equipment Company for $271,665.51 and one Vac-Con Combination Sewer and Storm Drain Cleaner from Vac-Con Inc. for $588,981.10, for a total purchase amount of $860,646.61, and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the purchase contracts in substantially the form presented.
10. Program for Arterial System Synchronization Fiscal Year 2021-22 Cycle – Funding Agreement Approve a Joint Funding Agreement with Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Program for Arterial System Synchronization Fiscal Year 2021-22 Cycle, approve matching funds from the City in the amount of $7,747, and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the Agreement in substantially the form approved.
11. Central Park Seasonal Ice Rink – Agreement
Approve a five-year zero cost / zero revenue license agreement with On Ice LLC to operate a seasonal ice rink in Central Park and authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.
12. San Mateo Public Library Foundation Operating Lease – Amendment Approve an amendment to the Property Lease and Operating Agreement with the San Mateo Public Library Foundation to extend the lease for an additional year commencing retroactively to April 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023, and authorize the City Librarian to execute the amendment.
13. San Mateo City Employees' Association Memorandum of Understanding – Amendment Adopt a Resolution to amend the Memorandum of Understanding with the San Mateo City Employees' Association for salary increases and a term through June 22, 2024.
14. General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance – Commitment Approval Adopt a Resolution to authorize the commitment of $5,500,000 of General Fund unassigned fund balance for negotiated increases to employee compensation and $4,500,000 for capital improvement projects. 2 of 509
15. Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool – Resolution in Support Adopt a Resolution to call upon Sutter Health to reopen the Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool located at the Mills Health Center in San Mateo for community use.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to comment on any item not appearing on the agenda may address the City Council at this time. State law prevents Council from taking action on any matter not on the agenda; your comments may be referred to staff for follow up.
Public comment is limited to a total of 15 minutes; however, an opportunity for additional public comment may be provided later in the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS
16. General Plan Update – Selection of the Preferred Land Use and Circulation Scenario Approve a preferred land use and circulation scenario and direct staff to finalize the land use and circulation maps that will go into the draft General Plan Update.
PUBLIC HEARING
City Council action on the following public hearing(s) represents a final decision concluding all administrative proceedings. Judicial review may be had only if a petition is filed with the Court not later than the 90th day following the date the decision is made. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a time period for litigation as short as 30 days following the date the decision is made.
17. Fiscal Year 2022-23 Comprehensive Fee Schedule – Approval Adopt a Resolution to approve the revisions to the proposed fiscal year 2022-23 Comprehensive Fee Schedule.
NEW BUSINESS
18. Ordinance Introduction – Military Equipment Policy
Introduce an Ordinance to establish a Military Equipment Policy in accordance with state law.
REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members report on their various assignments and liaison roles and Council requests for scheduling future items.
ADJOURNMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AGENDAS : Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at www.cityofsanmateo.org . Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.
WATCHING A MEETING ON TV: City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.
For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099.
For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER: There are three ways to stream. 1) Public Meeting Portal www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings 2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube: http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo 3) Watch TV live stream: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream PUBLIC COMMENTS – Can be received in the following ways (Time limits will apply) :
Prior to the meeting in writing: Send comments to: [email protected] until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
During the meeting by computer: Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default.
When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.
3 of 509
During the meeting by telephone: Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.
(continued)
4 of 509
ACCESSIBILITY: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected]. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 5 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
6 8
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 3 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-5759-04 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Clerk's Office
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
City Council Meeting Minutes - Approval
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular meetings of April 4, 2022.
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Minutes 2022-04-04 Special
Att 2 – Minutes 2022-04-04 Regular
STAFF CONTACT
Patrice Olds, City Clerk
[email protected]
(650) 522-7042
6 of 509
City Council Special Meeting Minutes – 04/04/2022 Page 1 6 1
6 4
6 1
6 5
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rick Bonilla, Mayor
Diane Papan, Deputy Mayor
Amourence Lee
Joe Goethals
Eric Rodriguez
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Special Meeting Minutes
City Council
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
April 4, 2022
Remote 5:30 PM
Special Meeting
CALL TO ORDER - This meeting was held pursuant to authorization from Government Code 54943(b)(3) / AB361 (2021) in which Brown Act regulations are relaxed to allow members to participate virtually due to the Covid-19 health emergency.
Roll Call
Remote: Mayor Bonilla, Deputy Mayor Papan, Council Members: Lee, Goethals and Rodriguez
STUDY SESSION
1. Sewer Rate Study – Initial Findings
Matt Fabry, Deputy Public Works Director, provided a brief explanation of the sewer rates fund, operating programs, and capital improvements; an overview of the Clean Water Program; and the status of capacity improvements. A list of future needs was shared regarding operations, maintenance, and capital improvements.
He then introduced Alex Handlers, Principal and Vice President of Bartle Wells to make the presentation. Mr.
Handlers explained the background on the rates and preliminary funding and displayed a survey of single family residential monthly sewer charges which showed sewer charges to be in the middle range. He pointed out the City has been successful in getting a large amount of the Clean Water Program financed with low interest rate loans creating savings for the City and rate payers. He stated the past rate increases have put the City in a good position.
Council Members asked questions of the presenters.
Public Comment – there were no speakers.
Council agreed that the Wastewater Treatment Plant requires increased maintenance staff to operate the new plant; inflationary level rate increases for 2023 would be necessary through the Prop 218 noticing process; and Council supports a multi-year rate setting. Council thanked staff for the excellent presentation and expressed great appreciation for the hard work put in to ensure that the City and rate payers will reap the benefit of great savings.
2. Diversity Equity and Inclusion Task Force – Updates
Kathy Kleinbaum, Assistant City Manager, made the presentation which included the background on the formation of the Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Task Force that was part of the 2021-22 City Council Strategic Plan. Staff reached out to 20 various organizations in the community. Three meetings have been held thus far with 14 community organizations currently participating on the task force. Members of the task force expressed the need for more direction from the City in order to become a viable entity that can develop actionable recommendations and bring about change. Staff is suggesting a consultant be hired with an anticipated cost of $50K to help facilitate the development of a DEI Strategic Plan framework which would provide direction to the task force. If this concept is approved, the task force will return to Council for final review and approval of this newly developed strategic plan. Council Members asked questions.
Public Comment – Lisa Taner commented she was glad to hear we can still add members and voiced concerns about more geographic representation citywide on the task force. 7 of 509
City Council Special Meeting Minutes – 04/04/2022 Page 2 6 1
6 4
6 1
6 5
Council comments included pursuing outreach to San Mateo Homeowners United Association which may be helpful in getting participation from the underrepresented neighborhoods that do not have well developed neighborhood associations; City Services graduates and CERT program participants could be a good source for additional participants; the size of the task force can be problematic if it gets too large but there was interest in considering adding individuals rather than organizations; and the Boys and Girls Club could be an organization to reach out to as it is located on the east side of San Mateo.
CLOSED SESSION
Following the opportunity for public comment, there were no speakers, the City Council convened into Closed Session at 6:38 p.m. to consider:
3. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: One case Reconvened into open session at 7:00 p.m. City Attorney Prasanna Rasiah reported that City Council unanimously approved the initiation of litigation and particulars will be disclosed upon inquiry after the action has been formerly commenced pursuant to State law.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 7:01 p.m.
APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:
Rick Bonilla, Mayor Joan Diskin, Deputy City Clerk 8 of 509
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 04/04/2022 Page 1 6 1
6 5
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rick Bonilla, Mayor
Diane Papan, Deputy Mayor
Amourence Lee
Joe Goethals
Eric Rodriguez
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Regular Meeting Minutes
City Council
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
April 4, 2022
Remote 7:00 PM
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER - This meeting was held pursuant to authorization from Government Code 54943(b)(3) / AB361 (2021) in which Brown Act regulations are relaxed to allow members to participate virtually due to the Covid-19 health emergency.
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Remote: Mayor Bonilla, Deputy Mayor Papan, Council Members: Lee, Goethals and Rodriguez
CEREMONIAL
1. National Poetry Month – Aileen Cassinetto accepted the proclamation
2. National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week – Police Chief Barberini; Marie Silva, Police Technical Services Administrator
3. Fair Housing Month
- Carole Conn, Executive Director of Project Sentinel
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items, 4 through 7 and 9 through 21 were considered to be routine by the City Council. Items 8 and 22 were removed to be considered separately. After the titles of the items were read by the City Clerk, the public was invited to comment and there were no speakers. Motion passed 5-0.
Moved: Goethals, Seconded: Rodriguez
Ayes: Bonilla, Papan, Lee, Goethals and Rodriguez
Noes: None
4. City Council Meeting Minutes - Approval
Approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular meeting of March 21, 2022.
5. Ordinance Adoption – Disposable Food Service Ware Code Amendment Adopt an Ordinance to amend the San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 5.89 "Disposable Food Service Ware" to align with the new State laws.
Enactment: Ordinance No. 2022-03
6. Remote Teleconferenced City Council and Commission Meetings – Reauthorization Adopt a Resolution to reauthorize remote teleconferenced City Council and Board and Commission meetings for 30 days, through May 4, 2022, as allowed by Assembly Bill 361 amending the Brown Act, based upon the Governor’s emergency proclamation and findings that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
9 of 509
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 04/04/2022 Page 2 6 1
6 5
Enactment: Resolution No. 36 (2022)
7. Delaware Street Relief Sewer and Underground Flow Equalization System – Interagency Amendment Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Service Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for the Delaware Street Relief Sewer and Underground Flow Equalization System projects in the estimated amount of $11,210, for a total agreement estimate of $144,258.96; and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.
9. Wastewater Treatment Plant SCADA Monitoring and Upgrade – Agreement Adopt a Resolution to approve an alternative purchasing procedure for an agreement with Technology Management Professionals dba TMPros to monitor, upgrade, and maintain the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system at the Wastewater Treatment Plant in the amount of $27,400 and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.
Enactment: Resolution No. 37 (2022)
10. Downtown San Mateo Grade Separations Project – Grant Funding Adopt a Resolution to authorize an application for the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity Grant Program to fund the development of a project study report, preliminary engineering plans, and environmental planning documents to assess the Downtown San Mateo Grade Separations Project.
Enactment: Resolution No. 38 (2022)
11. City-wide Operations Management System – Purchase Agreement Adopt a Resolution to approve an alternative purchasing procedure for a three-year renewal of a purchasing agreement with Cartegraph Systems, LLC for software subscription, cloud hosting, and technical support in the amount of $354,760, and authorize the Director of Information Technology to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.
Enactment: Resolution No. 39 (2022)
12. Service Employees International Union Local 521 Maintenance Unit – Memorandum of Understanding Amendment
Adopt a Resolution to amend the Memorandum of Understanding with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 521 Maintenance Unit for salary increases and a term through June 22, 2024.
Enactment: Resolution No. 40 (2022)
13. San Mateo Police Sergeants’ Association – Memorandum of Understanding Amendment Adopt a Resolution to amend the Memorandum of Understanding with the San Mateo Police Sergeants’ Association for a term through June 22, 2024.
Enactment: Resolution No. 41 (2022)
14. Local Agency Investment Fund – Investment Authorization Adopt a Resolution to authorize investment of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund. 10 of 509
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 04/04/2022 Page 3 6 1
6 5
Enactment: Resolution No. 42 (2022)
15. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Single Audit – Acceptance
Formally accept the single audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021.
16. School Crossing Guards 2022-23 – Agreement
Approve an agreement with the San Mateo-Foster City School District for school crossing guards in the amount of $78,000 and authorize the Chief of Police to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.
17. 330 Villa Terrace – Property Owner Appeal of Relocation Benefits Adopt a Statement of Decision denying the appeal and upholding the notice to pay relocation benefits to a tenant who resides at 330 Villa Terrace.
18. Congressionally Directed Spending Project Request – Letters of Support Authorize letters of support signed by Mayor Bonilla to be submitted to Senator Feinstein, Senator Padilla, and Congresswoman Speier for Congressionally Directed Spending projects in San Mateo.
19. US 101/State Route 92 Area Improvement and Multimodal Project – Letters of Support Authorize Mayor Bonilla to send letters of support on behalf of the City of San Mateo to Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Padilla for the San Mateo County Transportation Authority's requests for grant funding and Congressionally Directed Spending.
20. Board and Commission Appointment Subcommittee – Senior Citizens Commission Appoint Mayor Rick Bonilla and Council Member Joe Goethals to the Senior Citizens Commission Appointment Subcommittee.
21. City Council Strategic Plan – Adoption
Adopt the City Council Strategic Plan for fiscal year 2022-23.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
8. Dale Avenue Pumping Station Upgrade – Contingency Increase Item 8 was pulled by staff, no action was taken, and the item will return to Council at a future meeting.
22. Water Conservation Month and “Wyland Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation” – Resolution Council Member Papan pulled Item 22 to highlight the importance of water conservation due to the ongoing drought issues. She pointed out the City has lots of tools and programs to guide citizens on how to improve efforts on conserving water. Mayor Bonilla read the resolution.
Motion to Adopt a Resolution to proclaim the month of April as “Water Conservation Month” and to support citywide participation of the “Wyland Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation”. Motion passed 5-0.
Moved: Papan, Seconded: Rodriguez
Ayes: Bonilla, Papan, Lee, Goethals and Rodriguez
Noes: None
11 of 509
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 04/04/2022 Page 4 6 1
6 5
Enactment: Resolution No. 43 (2022)
PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Comment – Laurie Watanuki – concerned about the traffic impacts to the neighborhood during construction of the Downtown Grade Separations Project; Carol Steinfeld – happy to see the “Wyland Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation be adopted since all residents need to do more to support water conservation; Lindsay Raike – requested Council pass a resolution to support the reopening of the Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool; Raayan Mohteshemi – voiced concern about the therapy pool closure and suggested the City review innovative grade separation design options found in places like Montreal; Nicole Goehring – representing a construction grade association - cautioned the City to look into the Federal Code of Regulations if a project labor agreement is put into place as it could affect federal funding as it did in Berkeley.
NEW BUSINESS
23. Ordinance Introduction – Sign Code Amendments
Gabrielle Whelan, Assistant City Attorney, gave an overview of the amendments which included updating definitions regarding signs leaning against vehicles in the public right-of-way, signage for multi-tenant buildings and chapter revisions addressing prohibited signs to include signs in the public right-of-way. Council had no questions.
Public Comment – there were no speakers.
Motion to Introduce an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Title 25, “Signs” by updating definitions, revising regulations for signs in the public right of way, clarifying the permissible number and dimensions of signs, and making other miscellaneous changes. Motion passed 5-0.
Moved: Papan, Seconded: Rodriguez
Ayes: Bonilla, Papan, Lee, Goethals and Rodriguez
Noes: None
24. Clean Water Program Costs – State Revolving Loan Approval Rick Lee, Finance Director, gave the presentation and shared a timeline of the Clean Water Program; went over the estimated sources and uses of the funds as well as the debt service and coverage; and explained the agreement structure of the State Revolving Fund Loan. Council had no questions.
Public Comment – there were no speakers.
Motion to Adopt a Resolution to approve documents and actions relating to a San Mateo-Foster City Public Financing Authority State Revolving Fund Loan. Motion passed 5-0.
Moved: Goethals, Seconded: Rodriguez
Ayes: Bonilla, Papan, Lee, Goethals and Rodriguez
Noes: None
Enactment: Resolution No. 44 (2022)
REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members reported on their various assignments and liaison roles. Council Member Goethals asked the council to explore passing a resolution to support the reopening of the Mickelson pool. All council members are interested in bringing this forward. Council Member Lee would like to have a ceremonial item 12 of 509
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 04/04/2022 Page 5 6 1
6 5
acknowledging the holy month of Ramadan. Mayor Rick Bonilla requested support for a One Shoreline presentation.
Council members agreed. Council Member Diane Papan said she will inform the Council when the presentation is available. Council Members expressed their condolences on the passing of Andy Cresci, husband to past Council Member Maureen Freschet.
ADJOURNMENT –The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. following a moment of silence in honor of Andy Cresci who passed away peacefully on March 28th, his 82nd birthday.
APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:
Rick Bonilla, Mayor Joan Diskin, Deputy City Clerk 13 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
6 6
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 4 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-5932-01 TO: City Council
FROM: Prasanna W. Rasiah, City Attorney
PREPARED BY: City Attorney's Office
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
Ordinance Adoption – Sign Code Amendments
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Title 25, “Signs” by updating definitions, revising regulations for signs in the public right of way, clarifying the permissible number and dimensions of signs, and making other miscellaneous changes.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance Introduction date: April 4, 2022
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Ordinance
STAFF CONTACT
Prasanna W. Rasiah, City Attorney
[email protected]
(650) 522-7020
Gabrielle Whelan, Assistant City Attorney
[email protected]
(650) 522-7023
14 of 509
6 1
7 9
CITY OF SAN MATEO
DRAFT ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25, “SIGNS,” OF THE SAN MATEO MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, The City’s sign ordinance is codified in Title 25 of the San Mateo Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, The City wishes to clarify several definitions; and WHEREAS, The City wishes to clarify the activities that can occur in the public right-of-way.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 25.02.030 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
25.02.030 DEFINITIONS.
(a) Awning Sign. A sign attached to, painted upon, appearing upon, incorporated in, or supported by an awning or hood.
(b) Banner. A sign, including pennants and flags, which uses cloth, paper, plastic or other non-rigid material as the sign surface.
(c) Business. Professions, trades, occupations, and all and every kind of calling (including nonprofit organizations) carried on for profit, livelihood, or fund-raising. (d) Construction Sign. A sign displayed on the site of a construction development project, during the time of actual construction.
(e) Electric Face Sign. A sign containing an electrical system, but not including signs illuminated by an exterior light source.
(f) Exterior Light Source. A light source which illuminates a sign but is not a component of the sign itself. (g) Face Sign. A sign painted on a wall or structure, or constructed as an integral unit or as individual words, letters, or figures, and located approximately parallel with (not more than 18 inches away from) the face of a building or structure.
(h) Flashing Sign. An illuminated sign on which the electrical light is not maintained stationary or constant in intensity and color at all times.
(i) Freestanding Sign. A sign which is self-supporting in a fixed location and not attached to or projecting over any building.
(j) High Rise Building. Any building which is more than fifty feet in height as measured from average grade.
15 of 509
6 1
7 9
(k) Illuminated Sign. A sign which has characters, letters, figures, designs, or outline illuminated by electric lights or luminous tubes on, within, or attached to the sign, or by an unattached light source. (l) Internally Illuminated Sign. The illumination of a sign by a light source that is fully incorporated into the sign itself.
(m) Internal Reverse Illumination. The illumination of individual letters, numbers or graphics by the use of internal, reverse illumination, where the light source is not directly visible. (n) Logo. A graphic representation or symbol of a company name, trademark, or abbreviation of the name of the business occupying the building or property. (o) Marquee Sign. A sign attached to or supported by a marquee. A marquee means a permanent roofed structure attached to and supported by a building. (p) Mural. A large picture painted or affixed directly on a wall or ceiling. A mural is not considered a sign as defined by this Title.
(q) Non-Conforming Sign. A sign which does not conform to each and every applicable provision of this Title but was:
(1) Lawfully in existence and complied with all Municipal Code and other laws at the time of its erection and in use in the City prior to and at the time the provisions of this Title with which it does not conform became effective; or
(2) Lawfully in existence and in use on property outside the City at the time of annexation of such property to the City.
(r) Nonresidential Use. A church; community service building, including but not limited to, libraries, parks, playgrounds and community centers; public and private educational facilities; day care centers when located in a public or quasi-public structure such as a school, recreation center, church, temple or similar facility; philanthropic uses; and public utility facilities. Except as to uses specifically included in this section, nonresidential use does not include commercial uses.
(s) Off-Site Advertising Sign. A sign which directs attention to activity including a business, commodity, real property, service, or attraction or entertainment conducted, sold, or offered elsewhere than upon the premises where the sign is located.
(t) Permanent Sign. A sign located on a structure for more than 90 days. (u) Portable Sign. A portable sign capable of standing without support or attachment. (v) Private Property. Property other than Public Property or Public Right-of-Way. 16 of 509
6 1
7 9
(w) Projecting Sign. A sign which projects more than eighteen inches from the building face, and is supported by a wall, so that the sign face is perpendicular to the building face or wall, but does not exceed the height of the roof or parapet.
(x) Public Property. Property owned by the City, but excluding Public Right of Way. (y) Public Right-of-Way. That area or those areas dedicated to public use for public street purposes including, but not limited to, roadways, parkways, alleys, and sidewalks. (z) Roof Sign. A sign which exceeds the height of the top of the building parapet, plate line of a pitched roof or top of a mansard roof, or projects more than 18 inches from a mansard roof. (aa) Shopping Center. A cluster of retail and general commercial uses which share common parking facilities.
(1) Community shopping center. "Community shopping center" means a shopping center between 20,000 and 100,000 square feet of gross floor area, capable of supporting two or more retail or commercial businesses.
(2) Regional shopping center. "Regional shopping center" means a shopping center generally totaling more than 100,000 square feet of gross floor area, including one or more anchor department stores.
(bb) Sign. Any structure, display, device, balloon or graphic placed on any land, building or structure, which is used to communicate any message, or which advertises or promotes any business, product, activity, person or interest. Signs include, but are not limited to, any writing, pictorial representation, logo, symbol, banner, or any other figure of similar character of whatever material which is used to identify, announce, direct attention to, advertise or communicate, which is not inside a building. The term "placed" shall include constructing, erecting, posting, painting, printing, tacking, nailing, gluing, sticking, carving, stringing, or otherwise fastening, affixing, or making visible in any manner whatsoever. Notwithstanding the general scope of the foregoing, the following shall not be deemed to be signs for the purposes of this Title:
(1) Automatic Teller Machines;
(2) Architectural features that do not perform a communicative function; (3) Foundation and cornerstones;
(4) Grave markers;
(5) Inflatable gymnasium devices;
(6) Newsracks;
(7) License plates, license plate frames, and messages painted on street legal and operable vehicles; or
17 of 509
6 1
7 9
(8) Vending machines and product dispensing devices which do not display commercial messages unrelated to the goods or services provided by the machine or device. (cc) Sign Area. The area in square feet within the smallest rectangle enclosing the total exterior surface of a sign or one face of a "double faced sign". Sign area for a multi-faced sign that has an angle between sides of the sign that exceeds 30 degrees shall be counted for all sides. Where the lettered or illustrated material of a sign consists of individual letters or if the message surface consists of noncontiguous segments or has an irregularly shaped perimeter, then the area of the sign shall be all of the area encompassed within a single continuous rectilinear-perimeter of not more than six straight lines, including any color, material or graphic which is integrated therein which differentiates the message from the background. (dd) Street Frontage. The side of a building abutting a street or parking lot on the same zoning plot, and that is measured by calculating either the width of the building or the width of the parcel, whichever is greater. (1) Primary Street Frontage. The street upon which a business's main entrance is located or upon which its address is located. In the case of multiple businesses on a zoning plot, there can only be one primary street frontage.
(2) Secondary Street Frontage. A street frontage other than the primary street frontage. 18 of 509
6 1
7 9
(ee) Temporary Sign. A sign to be displayed only for a limited time as specified by this Chapter. A temporary sign includes a temporary banner.
(ff) Window Sign. A sign on the window or in the interior of a building within no less than 1 foot of a window.
(gg) Zoning Plot. A plot of land consisting of one or more lots or parcels on which an improvement has been, or can be, authorized by this Title. A division of airspace for condominiums or stock for a cooperative shall not establish individual zoning plots for each divided space.
Section 2. The title of Chapter 25.04 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
Chapter 25.04
SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Section 3. Section 25.04.010 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
25.04.010 FINDINGS.
In enacting this Chapter, the City Council finds:
(a) If carefully regulated, the placement of signs on city sidewalks by private individuals can provide a useful outlet for the expression of ideas and the communication of information related to beneficial commercial activity, including, but not limited to, the advertisement of real estate open house events. (b) It is the desire of the City Council to enact standards that would allow for the regulated use of city sidewalks for these communication purposes.
(c) In enacting these regulations it is not the intention of the City Council to regulate the content of messages on signs to be placed on city sidewalks, but, instead, it is the City Council's intention to enact reasonable time, place and manner restrictions aimed at insuring the safety of those using the public sidewalks and those driving on adjacent streets, and to achieve the City's aesthetic interests by reducing visual clutter that would result from the unregulated posting of signs on sidewalks.
Section 4. Section 25.04.020 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
25.04.020 RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, it is unlawful for any person other than a City representative to place a sign on public property or in the public right-of-way where such sign fails to comply with any of the restrictions stated in this section.
(b) Restrictions Applicable to Signs.
(1) No sign shall exceed thirty-six inches in height.
19 of 509
6 1
7 9
(2) No sign shall exceed six square feet in area.
(3) All signs shall be constructed or anchored to prevent movement of the sign by the wind, except that an anchoring shall not be permanent and shall not damage the property on which the sign is placed.
(c) Restrictions Applicable to the Placement of Signs.
(1) No sign shall be placed during hours of darkness.
(2) No sign shall be placed within the median of any public street. (3) No sign shall be attached to, or leaned against, any street furniture, utility facility (including poles and boxes), street light, building, fence, or any other sign. (4) No sign shall be placed within 50 feet of any other sign placed under the provisions of this chapter, except that as many as 4 signs may be placed on sidewalks within 50 feet of the intersection of public streets on each corner of such intersections.
(5) No sign shall be placed in such a manner as to reduce the unobstructed path of travel on any sidewalk to less than 36 inches, and if the existing unobstructed path of travel of a sidewalk is 36 inches or less, no sign shall be placed on that sidewalk.
(6) No sign shall be placed within a curb cut or ramp installed to provide improved access to a sidewalk to the disabled.
(7) No sign shall be placed upon any public right-of-way other than a public sidewalk, except that signs may be placed in unimproved right-of-way with the consent of the owner of the adjoining property.
(8) No sign shall be placed upon public right-of-way within the areas bounded by Baldwin Avenue to the north, Railroad Avenue to the east, Fifth Avenue to the south, and El Camino Real to the west.
(d) No person shall display a sign that would otherwise be in violation of any of the standards provided in subsections (b) and (c) by placing the sign upon, or leaning the sign against, a vehicle parked within the public right-of-way. This prohibition shall not apply to signs placed within the interior of a vehicle, signs that are painted on a vehicle, or to signs that are affixed to a vehicle in such a manner that the vehicle may be driven with the sign attached.
Section 5. Section 25.04.030 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
25.04.030 EXEMPTIONS.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter, the following signs are permitted:
20 of 509
6 1
7 9
(a) Signs being held by one or more persons on public property. (b) Traffic safety signs placed on public property by private persons as directed by a public official as part of the authorization to perform work on public property or in the public right-of-way, or in connection with an event taking place on public or private property.
(c) Signs placed by a public officer or employee acting in their official capacity, including such signs as traffic signs, public transit signs, public restroom signs, public parking signs, warning signs, or signs identifying the location of emergency centers, public facilities or places of public interest. (d) Banners placed on street light poles subject to the following limitations and requirements:
(1) Banners may only be placed on street light poles within commercial areas designated by City Council resolution;
(2) Only banners that announce an activity or event of community-wide interest, or commemorate a community institution located in the City of San Mateo may be placed on street light poles;
(3) No banner shall be placed on a street light pole for more than 90 days within a calendar year, except that banners announcing an event or activity, or commemorating a community institution that are placed by a public agency (such as a local, state or federal agency or special district) and at least partially sponsored by the City may be placed on a street light pole for up to 180 days within a calendar year;
(4) No banner placed on a street light pole shall exceed 25 square feet in area; (5) At least 75% of the display area of banners placed on street light poles shall contain artwork or text describing the community activity or event, or the institution being commemorated, and no more than 25% of the display area may be used to depict the name or logo of the sponsoring entity, or entities;
(6) Banners and attachments placed on street light poles must obtain approval from the Director of Public Works to ensure the banners will remain safely affixed to the street light poles and will not present a threat to the safety of those making use of nearby streets and sidewalks; (7) No banner or attachment shall be placed on a street light pole before an encroachment permit is issued under San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 17.08; and (8) Banners must be removed no later than the last date of the authorized display period.
Section 6. Section 25.06.010 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
21 of 509
6 1
7 9
25.06.010 PERMIT REQUIRED.
Unless exempt, all signs require a sign permit issued by the City. Unless otherwise provided in this Title, no person shall install, erect, display, alter, move or replace any nonexempt sign without first obtaining a sign permit issued by the City in accordance with this Title. Signs requiring permits such as a building or electrical permit under the uniform construction codes shall obtain those permits prior to being erected; application for a building or other uniform construction code permit shall be filed concurrently with the sign application.
Section 7. Section 25.06.050 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
25.06.050 SIGNS ALLOWED.
Except as otherwise provided in this Title, only the following signs are allowed on private property. (a) Temporary Banners. Temporary banners may be maintained for a period of 30 consecutive days. The use of banners shall not exceed a total of 90 days per calendar year per business. One banner per street frontage, per zoning plot, shall be permitted with a maximum size of 50 square feet each. No banner shall exceed the height of the business's building parapet, plate line of a pitched roof, or top of a mansard roof.
Temporary banners are allowed in addition to the number and size of permanent signs allowed for the zoning plot.
(b) Permanent Signs. The following types of permanent signs are permitted:
(1) Signs Approved as Part of Planned Signing District. A Planned Signing District shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator under Chapter 27.08 and shall be subject to appeal to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 27.08.090. The Planned Signing District must conform to the following standards:
(A) Be consistent with the applicable restrictions for the zoning district, type of use and zoning plot size.
(B) Each sign shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style of the main building on the zoning plot and with the predominant visual elements of the building, such as construction materials, color, or other design detail. Each sign located on a zoning plot with more than one building shall be designed to be compatible with the predominant visual elements common or similar to such buildings or the buildings occupied by the anchor tenants or principal uses such as construction materials, color, or other design detail. Signs located on commercial sites but in a predominantly residential area shall take into consideration the architectural style in the residential area.
(2) Freestanding Signs Over Eight Feet in Height. Freestanding signs over eight feet in height shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator under Chapter 27.08 and shall be subject to appeal to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 27.08.090. The freestanding sign shall be subject to the following standards:
22 of 509
6 1
7 9
(A) The applicable restrictions are based upon the zoning district, type of use and zoning plot size. Any freestanding sign over eight feet in height shall be consistent with these regulations.
(B) Each sign shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style of the main building on the zoning plot and with the predominant visual elements of the building, such as construction materials, color, or other design detail. Each sign located on a zoning plot with more than one building shall be designed to be compatible with the predominant visual elements common or similar to such buildings or the buildings occupied by the anchor tenants or principal uses such as construction materials, color, or other design detail. Signs located on commercial sites but in a predominantly residential area shall take into consideration the architectural style in the residential area.
(C) The height must be in scale with the surrounding neighborhood. (3) Signs on High Rise Buildings. High rise buildings within Commercial (C), Executive Office (E) and Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) zoning districts may have face signs located 40 feet above ground level. These signs are subject to the following restrictions:
(A) Only open block letter signs shall be permitted. Such signs shall be an integral part of the design of the building; and
(B) No method of illumination shall be permitted that either exposes the lighting tubes or bulbs. Signs must use internal reverse illumination, with low intensity lighting with tubing or bulbs concealed behind or within translucent or opaque letters, logos or similar signage.
However, 20 percent of the sign area may be internally illuminated with a direct light source; and
(C) The total area and number of all signs, including any signs above 40 feet, shall not exceed the maximum area and number permitted in the zoning district in which the building is located; however, they can be located on any side of the building and are not limited to the primary, secondary street frontage or parking frontage. (4) Freeway Oriented Signs. On zoning plots which are immediately adjacent to the freeway right-of-way, signs may be erected facing towards the freeway. A freeway sign is allowed in addition to signs authorized for the zoning district of the zoning plot. The additional sign area allowed for a freeway sign may not be combined with the sign area square footage otherwise allowed for the zoning plot in order to exceed the allowed square feet per sign on street frontages or to create larger signs. In addition, the sign area authorized for the zoning district of the zoning plot may not be used to create additional or larger freeway signs. Such signage shall be subject to the following restrictions:
(A) Maximum letter height of four feet and a maximum length of 50 feet. (B) Maximum size of 150 square feet total.
(C) Maximum number of three signs is permitted.
23 of 509
6 1
7 9
(D) Face signs if placed on the building wall.
(5) Motor Vehicle Fuel Service Stations. Motor vehicle fuel service stations shall be permitted to exceed the number of signs otherwise authorized by this Chapter in order to erect those signs designated in Business and Professions Code Section 13400 et seq., for motor vehicle fuel prices and services.
(6) Signs permitted in the applicable zoning district in accordance with Section 25.06.070.
Section 8. Section 25.06.060 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
25.06.060 SIGNS ALLOWED WITHOUT PERMIT (EXEMPT SIGNS).
(a) Exempt Signs. The following signs are exempt from the permit and fee requirements of this Title, but are subject to the other restrictions set forth in this Title. Signs allowed by this Section shall not be counted against the signage allowed in Section 25.06.070, but may not be added to that signage to create a larger sign. (1) Sign Size per Zoning District. Signs up to 10 square feet in R1 and R2 districts and 16 square feet in all other districts. No sign may be larger than six square feet, except as allowed under flags and pennants below.
(2) Window Signs. In addition to signs authorized by Section 25.06.070, each residential unit, nonresidential use or individual business may have the window signs listed below. The square footage may not be combined with that allowed for other residential units, nonresidential use or businesses to exceed the allowed square feet per residential unit, nonresidential use or per business or to create larger signs. Window signs shall not cover more than 25% of the window area of any window within a building.
(A) Signs up to four square feet in size.
(B) Ground floor retail businesses may have 50 square feet of window signs per street frontage.
(3) Address Signs. In addition to signs authorized by Section 25.06.070, each building, unit, or property with an address may place a sign not to exceed one square foot limited to the street address for the building, unit, or property.
(4) Parking Lots and Garages. Signs in parking lots and garages that direct vehicle traffic or state parking limitations.
(5) Flags and Pennants. Two flags or any number of pennants totaling 30 square feet in addition to the square footage allowed by Section 25.06.070.
(6) Law. Signs required by law. The sign area of signs permitted under this subsection shall not be counted against any sign area limit provided for in this Title. 24 of 509
6 1
7 9
(7) Construction Signs.
(A) The following construction signs are allowed on a zoning plot:
(i) For zoning plots less than one acre in size, one sign is allowed per street frontage with a total maximum area of 32 square feet.
(ii) For zoning plots one acre in size or more, one sign is allowed per lot frontage with a total maximum area of 64 square feet.
(B) Limitations. Construction signs on each zoning plot are subject to the following limitations:
(i) Maximum Height. Eight feet in height, measured at grade, sidewalk or street, whichever is lower.
(ii) Permissible Display Time. Beginning with the grant of a building permit and ending with the earlier of notice of completion or certificate of occupancy for the subject development, or their functional equivalent.
(iii) Private Property. If attached to a fence surrounding the zoning plot, the sign should be located on private property and not encroach into the public right-of-way. (iv) Abandoned Construction Signs. Construction signs that remain following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be deemed abandoned and may be abated by the City as a public nuisance.
(8) Change in Sign Copy. Changes in sign copy to an existing permitted and legally erected sign without any accompanying change in square footage, height, and sign structure are exempt from the permit and fee requirements of this title, provided that the change in sign copy complies with this Title. (9) Legal Nonconforming Signs. Any on-premises advertising display, as that term is defined in Business and Professions Code Section 5490 et seq., which lawfully exists on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Title, but which is not authorized by this Title, is a legal nonconforming sign, and may continue as an exception to this Title, and to any zoning provisions of this Code. However, a legal nonconforming sign shall be removed or brought into conformance with the provisions of this Title if such sign meets any of the criteria set forth in Business and Professions Code Section 5497. For the purposes of applying Business and Professions Code Section 5497, an advertising display shall be considered "abandoned" if it has not displayed any message (either commercial or noncommercial) for a period of 90 consecutive days.
(b) Limitations. Exempt signs on each zoning plot are subject to the following limitations:
(1) Freestanding signs shall not exceed the maximum height of six feet above grade or the adjacent street or sidewalk whichever is lower.
25 of 509
6 1
7 9
(2) Individual signs shall not exceed six square feet, except as allowed for flags and pennants. (3) In a Residential Zoning District, signs shall be limited to face, pennants, flags, window and freestanding signs.
(4) Signs may not be internally illuminated.
Section 9. Section 25.06.070 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
25.06.070 ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. (a) Residential Districts (R1-A, R1-B, R1-C, R2, R3, R4, R5, R4-D, R5-D and R6-D). (1) For single-family residential uses and multiple-family residential uses on zoning plots of less than 10,000 square feet, no signs other than those designated in this Title are authorized. (2) For nonresidential uses, as defined in Section 25.02.030, and multiple family residential uses on zoning plots of 10,000 square feet or larger, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-2, Sign Restrictions in Residential (R) Districts for Multiple-Family Residential Uses and Nonresidential Uses (Special Uses and Mixed Uses) on Zoning Plots 10,000 Square Feet or Larger, shall apply. (3) For commercial uses, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-3, Sign Restrictions in Commercial Districts, shall apply.
Table 25.06-1: Sign Restrictions in Residential (R) Districts for Residential Uses on Zoning Plots less than 10,000 Square Feet (R1-A, R1-B, R1-C, R2, R3, R4, R5, R4-D, R5-D, R6-D) Total Sign Area Permitted Signs up to 10 sq. ft. in R1 and R2 districts and 16 sq. ft. in all other districts. No sign may be larger than 6 sq. ft., except as allowed as flags and pennants.
Number of Signs Permitted No restrictions other than those set forth in this Chapter.
Types of Signs Permitted
Face No neon
Freestanding No neon; plus maximum height limit of 8 ft Projecting No internal neon
No sign, regardless of type, shall be located above 40 feet above grade, except as provided for high-rise buildings in Section 25.06.050.
26 of 509
6 1
7 9
Table 25.06-2: Sign Restrictions in Residential (R) Districts for Multiple-Family Residential Uses and Nonresidential Uses (Special Uses and Mixed Uses) on Zoning Plots 10,000 Square Feet or Larger (R1-A, R1-B, R1-C, R2, R3, R4, R5, R4-D, R5-D, R6-D)
Zoning Plot Size 10K-15K sq. ft. 15K-30K sq. ft. 30K-50K sq. ft. 50K sq. ft. and Above
Total Sign Area
Permitted (10 sq.
ft. minimum for all
plot sizes)
0.5 sq. ft. per lineal
ft. of street
frontage; maximum
20 sq. ft.
0.5 sq. ft. per lineal
ft. of street
frontage; maximum
25 sq. ft.
0.5 sq. ft. per lineal
ft. of street
frontage; maximum
50 sq. ft.
0.5 sq. ft. per lineal
ft. of street
frontage; maximum
100 sq. ft.
Number of Signs Three signs, none
exceeding 10 sq. ft.;
one may be
freestanding.
Three signs, none
exceeding 15 sq. ft.;
one may be
freestanding.
Four signs, none
exceeding 25 sq. ft.;
one may be
freestanding.
Four signs, none
exceeding 40 sq. ft.;
two may be
freestanding.
Types of Signs
Permitted
Face No neon
Freestanding No neon; plus maximum height limit of 8 ft.
Projecting No neon
No sign, regardless of type, shall be located above 40 feet above grade, except as provided for high-rise buildings in Section 25.06.050.
(b) Regulations in all Commercial (C) Districts (C1, C2, C3, C4 and CBD Support). (Except CBD-Required Retail Frontage Area). The following restrictions shall apply in all commercial districts, except Central Business District (CBD)-Required Retail Frontage Area. Community or Regional shopping centers have other restrictions even though they are located in a commercial district:
(1) For commercial uses, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-3, Sign Restrictions in Commercial Districts, shall apply.
(2) For single-family residential uses and multiple-family residential uses on zoning plots of less than 10,000 square feet, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-1, Residential (R) Districts for Residential Uses on Zoning Plots less than 10,000 Square Feet, shall apply. (3) For nonresidential uses, as defined in Section 25.02.030, and multiple-family residential uses on zoning plots of 10,000 square feet or larger, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-2, Sign Restrictions in Residential (R) Districts for Multiple-Family Residential Uses and Nonresidential Uses (Special Uses and Mixed Uses) on Zoning Plots 10,000 Square Feet or Larger, shall apply. (4) Existing Community and Regional Shopping Centers. All businesses or other allowed uses within existing community shopping centers that do not have an approved planned sign district shall be limited to a maximum of 25 square feet of individual sign area. 27 of 509
6 1
7 9
(5) New Community and Regional Shopping Centers. All new community and regional shopping centers, and existing community and regional shopping centers undergoing substantial exterior remodeling pursuant to a Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) under Title 27, shall require review and approval of a Planned Signing District concurrent with SPAR review. All signs shall conform to the provisions of the Planned Signing District.
(6) Multiple Tenants. Where a building contains more than one tenant, the following regulations shall apply:
(A) Sign Area. Shall be calculated per the restrictions set forth in Tables 25.06-3, 25.06-4 and 25.06-5, whichever is applicable. The total area of signs shall not exceed that required for the zoning plot. When a building contains more than one tenant and has more than one street frontage, for the purposes of calculating maximum square footage, the primary street frontage for all the tenants shall be the street upon which the building's main entrance is located, irrespective of the location or address of each individual tenant's main address. (B) Number of Signs. Shall be based on the number of ground floor tenants within the building (that have a street frontage). One sign per each ground floor tenant with street frontage shall be allowed. These signs may be used to advertise any tenant in the building. In addition, one freestanding sign for the entire building may be permitted. (C) Location of Signs. Except as provided in subdivision (E), signs for all tenants must be located on the ground level.
(D) Multiple Tenant Buildings. Multiple tenant buildings can opt to conform to the restrictions for single tenant buildings set forth in Tables 25.06-3, 25.06-4 and 25.06-5, whichever is applicable.
(E) High Rise Buildings with Multiple Tenants. High rise buildings with multiple tenants may have one face sign not to exceed 150 square feet in sign area in addition to the sign area and number of signs allowed in subsections (b)(6)(A) and (b)(6)(B). High rise building face signs are subject to the requirements set forth in Section 25.06.050(b)(3).
Table 25.06-3: Sign Restrictions in Commercial (C) Districts (C1, C2, C3, C4 and CBD Support) (Except CBD- Required Retail Frontage Area)
Total Sign Area
Permitted
Primary Street Frontage: 1.5 sq. ft./1 lineal foot of
street frontage (allowable minimum of 50 sq. ft.
regardless of primary street frontage size, and up to
maximum of 300 sq. ft)
Secondary Street
Frontage: 1.0 sq. ft./1
lineal foot of street
frontage; maximum 100
sq. ft., minimum 25 sq. ft.
Number of Signs
Permitted
2 signs per street frontage per business. Only 1 sign per street frontage may be either a freestanding or projecting sign. For multi-tenant buildings see Section
25.06.070(b)(6).
28 of 509
6 1
7 9
Types of Permitted Signs Maximum Size Minimum and/or
Maximum Height
Additional Requirements
Awning No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
None other than the total
sign area and number of
permitted signs as
specified above.
Face No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
Shall be at least 10 ft.
above the ground or
sidewalk if sign projects
more than 6 inches from
building.
Shall not extend above
the building roof line or
parapet line.
None other than the total
sign area and number of
permitted signs as
specified above.
Freestanding For lots up to 50 ft. in
width, maximum size of
40 sq. ft.
For lots over 50 ft. in
width, an additional 0.35
sq. ft./1 ft. of frontage
permitted up to a
maximum size of 75 sq.
ft.
For lots up to 50 ft. in
width, maximum height
to top of sign of 15 ft.
For lots over 50 ft. in
width, an additional 0.1
ft. of height/1 ft. of
frontage permitted up to
a maximum height to top
of sign of 25 ft.
Signs over 8 ft. in height
require approval by the
Planning Commission.
The area below the sign
shall be landscaped and
enclosed by a 4-inch high
curb.
Where area below the
sign copy is not generally
solid from the ground to
the lower edge of the
display area, a minimum
height of 10 ft. to bottom
of sign shall be provided.
Marquee No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
Shall be at least 10 ft.
above the ground or
sidewalk.
Shall not extend above
the building roof line or
parapet line.
Shall not be more than 4
ft. in vertical dimension.
Shall be approximately
parallel with face of
marquee.
Shall not project more
than 6 inches beyond
face of marquee nor be
within 2 ft. of
29 of 509
6 1
7 9
perpendicular projection
of curb line.
Projecting No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
Shall be at least 10 ft.
above the ground or
sidewalk.
Shall not extend above
the building roof line or
parapet line.
Shall not project more
than 4 ft. from the face
of building.
Shall not project within 2
ft. of curb line.
No sign, regardless of type, shall be located above 40 ft. above grade, except as provided for high-rise buildings in Section 25.06.050.
(c) Sign Regulations in the Central Business District (CBD)-Required Retail Frontage Area. (1) For commercial uses, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-4, Sign Restrictions in the Central Business District (CBD)-Required Retail Frontage Area, shall apply. (2) For single-family residential uses and multiple-family residential uses on zoning plots of less than 10,000 square feet, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-1, Residential (R) Districts for Residential Uses on Zoning Plots less than 10,000 Square Feet, shall apply. (3) For nonresidential uses, as defined in Section 25.02.030, and multiple-family residential uses on zoning plots of 10,000 square feet or larger, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-2, Sign Restrictions in Residential (R) Districts for Multiple-Family Residential Uses and Nonresidential Uses (Special Uses and Mixed Uses) on Zoning Plots 10,000 Square Feet or Larger, shall apply. (4) Multiple Tenants. Where a building contains more than one tenant and individual signs are desired, the provisions of Section 25.06.070(b)(6) shall apply.
Table 25.06-4: Sign Restrictions in the Central Business District (CBD)-Required Retail Frontage Area Total Sign Area
Permitted
Primary Street Frontage: 1 sq. ft./1 lineal foot of
street frontage (allowable minimum of 35 sq. ft.
regardless of primary street frontage size, and up to a maximum of 100 sq. ft.)
Secondary Street
Frontage: 0.5 sq. ft./1
lineal foot of street
frontage; maximum 50
sq. ft., minimum 25 sq. ft.
Number of Signs
Permitted
2 signs per street frontage for a single tenant building. Only 1 sign per street frontage may be a projecting sign. For multi-tenant buildings see Section
25.06.070(b)(6).
Types of Permitted Signs Maximum Size Minimum and/or
Maximum Height
Additional Requirements
Awning No specified limit other
than the total sign area
No specified limit other
than the total sign area
No specified limit other
than the total sign area
30 of 509
6 1
7 9
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
Face No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
Maximum height of 20 ft.
Shall not extend above
the building roof line or
parapet line.
Illuminated or electric
face signs shall be at
least 8 ft. above the
sidewalk or ground.
Illuminated face signs
shall not project more
than 12 inches from
building face.
Un-illuminated face signs
shall not project more
than 6 inches from
building face.
Marquee No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
Shall be at least 10 ft.
above the ground or
sidewalk.
Shall not extend above
the building roof line or
parapet line.
Shall not be more than 4
ft. in vertical dimension.
Shall be approximately
parallel with face of
marquee.
Shall not project more
than 6 inches beyond
face of marquee nor
within 2 ft. of curb line.
Projecting No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
Shall be at least 10 ft.
above the ground or
sidewalk.
Shall not extend above
the building roof line or
parapet line.
Shall not project more
than 4 ft. from the face
of building.
Shall not be more than 2-
ft. thick.
No sign, regardless of type, shall be located above 40 ft. above grade, except as provided for high-rise buildings in Section 25.06.050.
(d) Sign Regulations in Executive Office Districts (E1, E2). (1) For commercial uses, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-5, Sign Restrictions in Executive Office Districts, shall apply.
(2) For single-family residential uses and multiple-family residential uses on zoning plots of less than 10,000 square feet, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-1, Residential (R) Districts for Residential Uses on Zoning Plots less than 10,000 Square Feet, shall apply. 31 of 509
6 1
7 9
(3) For nonresidential uses, as defined in Section 25.02.030, and multiple-family residential uses on zoning plots of 10,000 square feet or larger, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-2, Sign Restrictions in Residential (R) Districts for Multiple-Family Residential Uses and Nonresidential Uses (Special Uses and Mixed Uses) on Zoning Plots 10,000 Square Feet or Larger, shall apply. (4) Multiple Tenants. Where a building contains more than one tenant and individual signs are desired, the provisions of Section 25.06.070(b)(6) shall apply.
Table 25.06-5: Sign Restrictions in Executive Office Districts (E1, E2) All E Districts, except San Mateo Drive Between
Baldwin & Villa Terrace
E Districts on San Mateo
Drive Between Baldwin
& Villa Terrace
Total Sign Area
Permitted
1.5 sq. ft./1 lineal foot of street frontage (allowable minimum of 50 sq. ft. regardless of street frontage
size, and up to a maximum of 300 sq. ft.)
Maximum of 35 sq. ft.
Number of Signs
Permitted
2 signs per street frontage per business. Only 1
freestanding sign per zoning plot. For multi-tenant
buildings, see Section 25.06.070(b)(6).
One sign per building.
Types of Permitted Signs Maximum Size Minimum and/or
Maximum Height
Additional Requirements
Awning No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
Face No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
Shall be at least 10 ft.
above the ground if sign
projects more than 6
inches from the building.
Shall not extend above
the building roof line or
parapet line.
No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
Freestanding For lots up to 50 ft. in
width, maximum size of
40 sq. ft.
For lots over 50 ft. in
width, an additional 0.35
sq. ft./1 ft. of frontage
permitted up to a
Maximum of 8 ft. in
height.
The area below
freestanding signs shall
be landscaped and
enclosed by a 6-inch high
curb.
32 of 509
6 1
7 9
All E Districts, except San Mateo Drive Between
Baldwin & Villa Terrace
E Districts on San Mateo
Drive Between Baldwin
& Villa Terrace
maximum size of 75 sq.
ft.
Marquee No specified limit other
than the total sign area
and number of permitted
signs as specified above.
Shall be at least 10 ft.
above the ground or
sidewalk.
Shall not extend above
the building roof line or
parapet line.
Shall not be more than 4
ft. in vertical dimension.
Shall be approximately
parallel with face of
marquee.
Shall not project more
than 6 inches beyond
face of marquee nor be
within 2 ft. of curb line.
No sign, regardless of type, shall be located above 40 ft. above grade, except as provided for high-rise buildings in Section 25.06.050.
(e) Manufacturing District (M1).
(1) For commercial uses, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-3, Sign Restrictions in Commercial Districts, shall apply.
(2) Multiple Tenants. Where a building contains more than one ground floor tenant and individual signs are desired, the provisions of Section 25.06.070(b)(6) shall apply. (f) Sign Regulations in Transportation Oriented Development (TOD), Agricultural (A), Shoreline (S), Open Space (OS) and Other Districts and Overlay Districts.
The following restrictions shall apply to all agricultural, shoreline, and other zoning districts not specifically designated in this chapter, as well as for any land or zoning plot with no zoning designation:
(1) For commercial uses, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-3, Sign Restrictions in Commercial Districts, shall apply.
(2) For single-family residential uses and multiple-family residential uses on zoning plots of less than 10,000 square feet, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-1, Residential (R) Districts for Residential Uses on Zoning Plots less than 10,000 Square Feet, shall apply. (3) For nonresidential uses, as defined in Section 25.02.030, and multiple-family residential uses on zoning plots of 10,000 square feet or larger, the restrictions set forth in Table 25.06-2, Sign 33 of 509
6 1
7 9
Restrictions in Residential (R) Districts for Multiple-Family Residential Uses and Nonresidential Uses (Special Uses and Mixed Uses) on Zoning Plots 10,000 Square Feet or Larger, shall apply. (4) Multiple Tenants. Where a building contains more than one tenant and individual signs are desired, the provisions of Section 25.06.070(b)(6) shall apply.
Section 10. Section 25.08.010 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
25.08.010 PROHIBITED SIGNS ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. (a) Prohibited Signs. No person shall install or maintain any of the signs described below. Upon notice by the City, any prohibited sign shall be immediately removed by the property owner or person responsible for the installation or maintenance of the sign. The following signs are expressly prohibited:
(1) Without Consent of Property Owner. Signs erected or maintained without the written consent of the owner of the real property or the person or entity in legal possession of the real property;
(2) Banners, except as permitted by Sections 25.04.030 and 25.06.050(a) and there may be permanently displayed on each zoning plot 1 flag that is no larger than 6 feet by 4 feet in dimension, and there is no limit on the number of flags that may be displayed by public agencies on public property; (3) Rotating, animated, moving or flashing signs;
(4) Roof Signs;
(5) Off-Site Advertising Signs; except that one six (6) square foot sign containing off-site advertising shall be permitted on each zoning plot;
(6) Inflating Devices, including balloons and other lighter than air objects; (7) Signs not permitted by this Title.
(b) Signs At Prohibited Locations: No person shall install or maintain any of the signs identified below.
Upon notice by the City, any sign at a prohibited location shall be immediately abated by the property owner or person responsible for the installation and/or maintenance of the sign. The following locations are expressly prohibited:
(1) Signs at Intersections. No sign shall be erected at or near the intersection of any street or at any location where, by reason of the position, shape or color, it may interfere with, obstruct the view of, or be confused with any authorized traffic sign or signal device; or which makes use of the words "Stop," "Go," "Caution," "Look," "Danger," or any other word, phrase, symbol or character in such a manner as to interfere with, mislead or confuse traffic.
(2) Intersection Visibility. No sign shall be erected at or near the intersection of any street so as to obstruct free and clear vision, or obstruct visibility within the triangular area of private property 34 of 509
6 1
7 9
formed by the extension of intersection curb lines, or pavement edge where no curb exists, and the diagonal line connecting the point on each of the two streets at a distance 45 feet back from the intersection.
(3) Ingress/Egress. No sign shall be erected, relocated or maintained so as to prevent free ingress to or egress from any door, window, fire escape or fire equipment. (c) Illegal Signs—Nuisance. All illegal signs are expressly declared a nuisance. For purposes of this section, an illegal sign shall mean:
(1) A sign erected and/or maintained without first complying with all ordinances and regulations.
(2) A sign which is a danger to the public or is unsafe. (3) A prohibited sign as defined by this title.
(d) Enforcement.
(1) The placement of a sign on public or private property or in the public right-of-way in violation of any provision of this Title may be enforced by any method provided by this Code. Each day that the violation continues shall be deemed to be a new violation. All violations are declared to be public nuisances.
(2) Any sign placed on public property or in the public right-of-way in violation of any provision of this Title may be removed and impounded without notice. Impounded signs will be held for at least 30 days. If possible, the City will make reasonable attempts to notify the owner of an impounded sign that the sign has been impounded. If after 10 days’ notice to reclaim the sign, the owner of the sign fails to retrieve the sign and pay the City's reasonable costs to impound and store the sign, the sign may be disposed of in any manner whatsoever at the City's discretion. The amount of the sign retrieval fee shall be established by City Council resolution.
Section 11. Environmental Determination. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), adoption of these sign ordinance amendments is covered by the “common sense exemption” that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Here, it can be seen with certainty that the sign ordinance amendments, which consist of updates to definitions and clarification of what activities can occur in the public right-of-way, will not have a significant effect on the environment per Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
Section 12. Severability. In the event any section, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section, clause or provision shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 13. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published in summary in a newspaper of general circulation, posted in the City Clerk's Office, and posted on the City's website, all in accord with Section 2.15 of the City Charter.
35 of 509
6 1
7 9
Section 14. Legislative History and Effective Date. This ordinance was introduced on Clerk to complete., and adopted on Clerk to complete., and shall be effective 30 days after its adoption. 36 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 8
4 9
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 5 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 21-5410-10 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Clerk's Office
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
Remote Teleconferenced City Council and Commission Meetings – Reauthorization RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution to reauthorize remote teleconferenced City Council and Board and Commission meetings for 30 days, through May 18, 2022, as allowed by Assembly Bill 361 amending the Brown Act, based upon the Governor’s emergency proclamation and findings that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
BACKGROUND:
At its October 18, 2021, City Council meeting, the Council adopted Resolution No. 100 (2021) authorizing continued remote meetings of the Council and its subordinate legislative bodies due to the imminent risk to the health and safety of attendees due to possible transmission of COVID-19 and the recent spread of variants. The resolution became effective October 18, 2021 through November 17, 2021, or until the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution. AB 361 requires confirming the emergency circumstances 30 days after the first teleconference meeting and every 30 days thereafter. At the October 18 meeting, the Council accepted staff’s recommendation to pass a resolution at every meeting to ensure there is no gap in the effectiveness of authorizing resolutions. The action being requested at this April 18th meeting is to adopt a resolution reauthorizing remote teleconferenced Council and Commission meetings per the requirements of Assembly Bill 361.
It was noted in the original resolution that current health orders require masking in all indoor facilities due to health and safety concerns. While San Mateo County Health Order No. c19-12 (which required masking in workplaces and public settings) was rescinded on February 16, 2022, the Delta and Omicron variants are highly transmissible in indoor settings and requires multi-component prevention strategies to reduce their spread. Thus, as of February 16, 2022, the California Department of Public Health still requires masking for unvaccinated people (and recommends the practice for all) in indoor public settings as well as in state and local government offices that serve the public. Returning to meeting in the Council Chambers or smaller conference rooms means being in an enclosed space for meetings that commonly last for one to five hours and would seem to create additional exposure for participants to a possible transmission of the virus. This health advice is still in place.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact for taking this action as all software and hardware needs to meet remotely have already been purchased and are in use.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Adoption of this resolution authorizing remote teleconferenced meetings of the City Council and City Boards and Commission is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).) 37 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 8
4 9
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
STAFF CONTACT
Patrice Olds, City Clerk
[email protected]
(650) 522-7042
38 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. __ (2022)
REAUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF CITY OF SAN MATEO EFFECTIVE APRIL 18, 2022 UNTIL THE EARLIER OF MAY 18, 2022 OR SUCH TIME THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS A
SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTION, PURSUANT TO THE BROWN ACT
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo is committed to preserving and nurturing public access and participation in meetings of the City Council and its Boards and Commissions; and
WHEREAS, all meetings of City of San Mateo’s legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code 54950 – 54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the District’s legislative bodies conduct their business; and
WHEREAS, the Brown Act, Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of a legislative body, without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, a required condition is that a state of emergency is declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and
WHEREAS, a proclamation is made when there is an actual incident, threat of disaster, or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the jurisdictions that are within the City’s boundaries, caused by natural, technological, or human-caused disasters; and
WHEREAS, it is further required that state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or, the legislative body meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and
WHEREAS, such conditions now exist in the City, specifically, the Governor has proclaimed a state of emergency exists for the state of California due to the conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact on the health and safety of its residents; and
WHEREAS, the Delta and Omicron variants are highly transmissible in indoor spaces, the California Department of Public Health is currently investigating how long vaccine protection lasts, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommends avoiding indoor spaces that do not offer fresh air from the outdoors; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Assembly Bill 361, the City Council does hereby find that as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees and the Council desires to authorize continued remote teleconferenced meetings of its legislative bodies; and WHEREAS, as a consequence of the local emergency, the City Council does hereby find that the legislative bodies of City of San Mateo shall conduct their meetings without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54953, as authorized by subdivision (e) of section 54953, and that such legislative bodies 39 of 509
Resolution No. __ (2022) Page 2 of 2
Reauthorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings
5 9
4 2
shall comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of section 54953; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo has taken measures to conduct public meetings via virtual tools that allow for members of its legislative bodies and members of the public to join and participate in meetings remotely and provide public testimony in the virtual environment and via teleconference; and WHEREAS, on October 18, 2021, the City Council adopted a resolution authoring remote teleconference meetings of San Mateo legislative bodies, effective until the earlier of November 17, 2021 or when the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution; and
WHEREAS, this resolution represents a reauthorization of such remote teleconference meetings, pursuant to the Brown Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
2. AB 361 Findings.
a. On March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California issued a Proclamation of State of Emergency, which remains in effect.
b. Meeting in person would present imminent risk to the health or safety of attendees, because:
(1) The Delta and Omicron variants of the coronavirus are highly transmissible in indoor settings. (2) The California Department of Public Health is currently investigating how long vaccine protection lasts.
(3) The Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommends avoiding indoor spaces that do not offer fresh air from the outdoors as much as possible.
3. Remote Teleconference Meetings. The City Manager and legislative bodies of the City of San Mateo are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, conducting remote teleconferenced meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.
4. Effective Date and Term. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until the earlier of (i) May 18, 2022, or (ii) such time the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which the legislative bodies of the City of San Mateo may continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of section 54953.
40 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 6 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-6049 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
US 101/State Route 92 Area Improvement and Multimodal Project – Letter of Support RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Mayor Bonilla to send a letter of support on behalf of the City of San Mateo to Congresswoman Speier for the San Mateo County Transportation Authority's request for Community Project Funding.
BACKGROUND:
The San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) is requesting Community Project Funding to help fund the US Highway 101 and State Route 92 (US 101/SR 92) area improvement and multimodal project. This project will realign the US 101/SR 92 interchange, implement dedicated bicycle facilities and pedestrian access improvements, and construct a transit mobility hub. These improvements will ease congestion due to better traffic flow, reduce hazardous vehicle weaving incidents, and enhance safety conditions and local connections to and from the highway. The proposed bicycle facilities, pedestrian improvements, and transit mobility hub will support commute alternatives and improve local access for all modes of transportation. The draft letter of support for the Community Project Funding to Congresswoman Speier is included as Attachment 1.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budgetary impact for submitting this letter of support.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This action is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Letter to Congresswoman Speier
STAFF CONTACT
Drew Corbett, City Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7002
41 of 509
April 18, 2022
The Honorable Jackie Speier
U.S. House of Representatives
2465 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Subject: LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY PROJECT FU NDING REQUEST FOR US 101/SR 92 AREA
IMPROVEMENT AND MULTIMODAL PROJECT
Dear Representative Speier:
On behalf of the City of San Mateo, I write in support of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/ CAG)’s Community Project Funding Request for the United States Highway 101 and State Route 92 (US 101/SR 92) Area Improvement and Multimodal Project (as part of the Fiscal Year 2023 appropriations process). The interchange is located in the cities of Foster City and San Mateo in San Mateo County.
The US 101/SR 92 Interchange is an essential connection to the San Francisco Airport, South San Francisco biotech industries, Silicon Valley , as well as major East Bay destinations. Under normal conditions, over 3 45,000 vehicles travel through this interchange each day, which is consistently identified as the worst interchange in the County in terms of congestion and extended delays.
Throughout the Bay Area, we are seeing a return to pre -pandemic levels of traffic. Heavy traffic volumes and inadequate capacity at this interchange can cause traffic to slow to as little as seven miles per hour during both the morning and afternoon peak periods. These delays often result in miles of traffic in multiple directions as well as significant congestion on our local streets.
Your support will help fund construction related to the realignment of the 101/92 Interchange, implementation of dedicated bicycle facilities and pedestrian access improvements in the area, as well as a transit mobility hub. The project aims to ease congestion by improving traffic flow, reducing hazardous vehicle weaving incidents, and improving safety conditions and local connections to and from the highway. The proposed bicycle facilities, pedestrian improvements, and new transit mobility hub will support commute alternatives and improve local access for all modes of transportation. The expected increase in the use of sustainable modes of travel, namely walking , cycling and use of transit, also help to reduce GHG emissions and improve overall quality of life.
CITY OF SAN MATEO
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7040
42 of 509
As we all work together to improve our highway system, move more people in fewer vehicles, help reduce carbon emissions, and ease congestion, we greatly appreciate SMCTA and C/CAG’s sponsorship of this regionally significant project. We hope you will prioritize it for funding as part of the Fiscal Year 2023 Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Rick Bonilla, Mayor
43 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 1
3 5
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 7 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-5924 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
On-Call Traffic Engineering Data Collection Services – Amendment RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Innovative Data Acquisitions, LLC dba IDAX Data Solutions for on-call traffic engineering data collection services in the amount of $110,000 for a new agreement total of an amount not to exceed $200,000, extend the term of the agreement, authorize the Public Works Director to execute term extension amendments within the agreement amount, and authorize the Public Works Director to execute Amendment No. 1 in substantially the form approved.
BACKGROUND:
In October 2019, the City reviewed quotes from two vendors for on-call traffic engineering data collection services and selected Innovative Data Acquisitions, LLC dba IDAX Data Solutions (IDAX) as the most qualified to provide the needed services. Public Works entered into a three-year agreement with IDAX for services including radar speed surveys, speed surveys with pneumatic tubes, average daily traffic counts, and intersection and turning movement counts. The data collected is used for various analyses, including traffic signal modifications, pedestrian crosswalk requests, and stop sign warrants.
Since the execution of the initial agreement, staff has used IDAX’s services frequently due to high demand for data collection to fulfill numerous project needs and resident requests. The current budget for the agreement is close to being expended, and the current agreement term ends in October 2022. The term extension and additional budget are estimated to provide for the traffic data collection needs for an additional three years through June 30, 2025. Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 1 augmenting the agreement by $110,000, increasing the total not- to-exceed amount from $90,000 to $200,000, and extending the term of the agreement.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Budget for data collection services comes from various sources. There are sufficient funds in the Traffic Engineering and Citywide Parking and Transportation operating budgets to fund expected services to be provided.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This amendment to the professional services agreement is not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
44 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 1
3 5
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Amendment
STAFF CONTACT
Sue-Ellen Atkinson, Principal Transportation Planner
[email protected]
(650) 522-7288
Bethany Lopez, Senior Traffic Engineer
[email protected]
(650) 522-7313
45 of 509
Contract Amendment Page 1 of 2
Rev 7/21
6 1
8 3
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND INNOVATIVE DATA ACQUISITIONS, LLC dba
IDAX DATA SOLUTIONS FOR
ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DATA COLLECTION SERVICES
($90,000 [Original Amount], $110,000 [added amount)
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo (“City”), a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Innovative Data Acquisitions, LLC dba IDAX Data Solutions (“Consultant”), entered into a Professional Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Traffic Engineering Data Collection Services (“Agreement”) on October 21, 2019; and
WHEREAS, City and Consultant wish to amend the Agreement to extend the term and increase the not to exceed amount for this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Section 4, “Term,” of the Agreement is amended to read:
“The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence on October 14, 2019 and be completed on or about June 30, 2025. The term of this Agreement may be extended by written amendment executed by the Director of Public Works and a duly authorized representative of Consultant.”
2. Section 5, “Payment,” of the Agreement is amended as follows:
Payment shall be made by City only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request upon completion and CITY approval of the work performed. In consideration for the full performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee in an amount not to exceed $200,000, pursuant to the rates stated in Exhibit A to this Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference.
3. The remaining terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
46 of 509
Contract Amendment Page 2 of 2
Rev 7/21
6 1
8 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF SAN MATEO and Innovative Data Solutions, LLC dba IDAX Data Solutions have executed this Amendment on ___________________.
CITY OF SAN MATEO CONSULTANT
Azalea Mitch
Public Works Director
Date Joseph Ciccarelli
Its Authorized Agent
Operations Manager
If a Corporation, can be either 1)
President or 2) Vice President plus
an additional corporate officer
(i.e., Secretary, Treasurer) who
shall sign below.
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM ADDITIONAL CORPORATE
OFFICER
(if necessary per the above)
Linh P. Nguyen
Assistant City Attorney
Date Date
47 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
6 4
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 8 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-6042 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
Wastewater Treatment Plant Immediate Action Projects, Package II – Amendment RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Amendment No. 5 to the agreement with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., to provide professional design services and engineering services during construction for Immediate Action Projects Package II in the amount of $88,673.46, revising the total agreement amount not to exceed $1,562,403.46, extend the term through September 15, 2022, and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.
BACKGROUND:
The Clean Water Program (CWP) includes significant infrastructure upgrades at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
The Immediate Action Projects, Package II (IAP-II) includes scope to improve the aging solids handling systems at the WWTP. In August 2017, the City executed a professional design services agreement in the amount of $876,000 with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) for IAP-II. Amendment 2 was executed in March 2019, adding $517,930 for additional design services and engineering services during construction (ESDC). Amendment 3, executed in May 2021, added $79,800 for additional ESDC due to delays in the construction schedule and extended the agreement through December 31, 2021.
The IAP-II project has continued to experience multiple challenges leading to additional construction delays, resulting in an extended timeframe during which Stantec's ESDC are necessary. As a result, Amendment 3, executed in December 2021, extended the term of Stantec's agreement through March 31, 2022 at no additional cost. Most recently, Amendment 4 extended the term for an additional month, through April 2022, to allow enough time to bring the proposed Amendment 5 to the City Council requesting additional ESDC funds and to further extend the term of the Agreement. Amendment 5 would add $88,673.46 for a new total not-to-exceed cost of $1,562,403.46 and extend the agreement through September 15, 2022.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Approving Amendment 5 will increase Stantec's not-to-exceed agreement amount by $88,673.46. The overall IAP-II project budget includes sufficient remaining unencumbered funds to cover this expense.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The Council adopted the Final Programmatic EIR for the Clean Water Program on June 6, 2016. In addition, under section 15031 of the CEQA Guidelines, IAP-II is categorically exempt from CEQA review as repairs and maintenance of existing facilities and equipment with negligible or no expansion in use.
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
48 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
6 4
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Amendment No. 5
STAFF CONTACT
Matt Fabry, Deputy Director
[email protected]
(650) 522-7309
Azalea Mitch, Director of Public Works
[email protected]
(650) 522-7303
49 of 509
1 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. FOR
Immediate Action Projects Package II
($876,000 [Original Amount], $517,930 [Amendment 1], $79,800 [Amendment 2], $0 [Amendment 3], $0 [Amendment 4], $88,673.46 [Amendment 5]) WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo (“CITY”), a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (“CONSULTANT”), entered into an Agreement for Professional Consulting Services (“Agreement”) on August 29, 2017 for the WWTP Immediate Action Project Package II (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Agreement includes CONSULTANT’s design services for a sludge cake hopper and cake pumping system to be located at the CITY’s wastewater treatment plant; and
WHEREAS, challenges related to the design and/or construction have resulted in a non-functional sludge cake hopper and cake pumping system; and WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT are assessing potential solutions to address these challenges; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT’s services are still required for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2022, the parties executed Amendment 4 for a no-cost extension of the Agreement until April 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the CITY and CONSULTANT desire to further amend the Agreement by extending the term through September 15, 2022, and adding $88,673.46 in funding for CONSULTANT’s design engineering services required to complete the construction of the Project that are unrelated to any alleged errors or deficiencies on behalf of either party; and
WHEREAS, this Amendment is not an admission of responsibility or any waiver of claims by the CITY or the CONSULTANT, including but not limited to CONSULTANT’s claims for compensation for Task 6 Construction Phase Services related to the sludge cake hopper and cake pumping system, which CITY contends are not reimbursable because the services were required to correct alleged error or deficiencies of CONSULTANT.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Section 8, “Payment,” of the Agreement, first paragraph is amended to read:
50 of 509
2 “Payment shall be made by the CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request upon completion and CITY approval of the work performed. In consideration for the full performances of the services and any reimbursable expenses set forth in this Agreement, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee based on verified time and materials not to exceed $1,562,403.46. Requests for payments shall be itemized and correspond to the various items of work described in the Scope of Project, inclusive of the current Scope of Services as provided therein, and shall be based on the rate and cost schedule previously established.”
2. Section 7, “Term, Progress and Completion,” of the Agreement, first paragraph, is amended to read:
“The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence and be completed by no later than September 15, 2022.”
3. The remaining terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
CITY OF SAN MATEO CONSULTANT
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
______________________________ ___________________________________ Azalea Mitch, Kari D. Shively, PE
Public Works Director Vice President
Date: ____________________ Date: ____________________ Approved as to Form:
_____________________________
Linh P. Nguyen, Assistant City Attorney
51 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 0
7 1
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 9 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-5902 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
Rodder Truck and Vac-Con Truck – Purchase Contracts
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution to approve an alternative purchasing procedure and approve a contract with National Auto Fleet Group for the purchase of one Rodder Truck from Nixon-Egli Equipment Company for $271,665.51 and one Vac-Con Combination Sewer and Storm Drain Cleaner from Vac-Con Inc. for $588,981.10, for a total purchase amount of $860,646.61, and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the purchase contracts in substantially the form presented.
BACKGROUND:
The Public Works Field Maintenance Crew currently utilizes a 2008 Ford F650 Rodder Truck and a 2009 International 7400 Workstar – Vac-Con Sewer Flusher Truck. These two sewer vehicles are both between 12-14 years old and at the end of their useful life based on years in service, mileage, condition, and cost of maintenance. Staff recommends replacing these two sewer vehicles to ensure reliability.
The 877-TK Rodder truck is the recommended replacement vehicle for the existing 2008 Ford F650 Rodder Truck and the Vac-Con Model V311HE/1300LHA-P Combination Sewer and Storm Drain Cleaner is the recommended replacement for the existing 2009 International 7400 Workstar – Vac-Con Sewer Flusher truck. For specialized equipment such as these sewer vehicles, there are limited procurement sources available to government agencies and are typically limited to contracts with either Sourcewell (formerly NJPA) or State of California Department of General Services (DGS). Both Sourcewell and DGS conduct competitive, public bids to select vehicle vendors to achieve competitive pricing; however, staff has had difficulty purchasing these types of specialty vehicles through DGS due to vendors’ unwillingness to execute the City’s purchasing agreement. Accordingly, staff recommends purchase of the Rodder and Vac-Con vehicles through Sourcewell.
San Mateo Municipal Code Section 3.60.070(h)(3) authorizes the City Council to approve an alternative purchasing procedure when it finds doing so is in the best interest of the City. The purchase of one Rodder Truck from Nixon-Egli Company and one Vac-Con Combination Sewer and Storm Drain Cleaner truck from Vac-Con, Inc. is in the best interest of the City because they are recommended replacements for existing sewer trucks and the City may rely on bids obtained from Sourcewell because it is a government organization that has solicited, received, and reviewed competitive bids for the desired sewer trucks through its cooperative purchasing program. Based on the above, staff recommends the purchase of these two required sewer vehicles.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for the two replacement vehicles is available in the Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
52 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 0
7 1
These purchases are not projects subject to CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
Att 2 – Rodder Purchase Agreement
Att 3 – Vac-Con Purchase Agreement
STAFF CONTACT
Matthew Zucca, Deputy Director
[email protected]
(650) 522-7308
53 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ 2022
APPROVING AN ALTERNATIVE PURCHASING PROCEDURE FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE RODDER TRUCK AND
ONE VAC-CON TRUCK
WHEREAS, the City Council is being asked to award contracts for the purchase of one (1) Rodder truck in the amount of $271,665.51 and one (1) Vac-Con truck in the amount of $588,981.10 to replace two aging sewer vehicles; and
WHEREAS, San Mateo Municipal Code Section 3.60.030 generally requires competitive bidding for contacts of $100,000 or more; and
WHEREAS, San Mateo Municipal Code Section 3.60.070(h)(3) authorizes the City Council to approve an alternative purchasing procedure when it is in the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, Sourcewell offers services to make the government procurement process more efficient through cooperative purchasing; and
WHEREAS, the use of Sourcewell – Contract #101221-VAC offers competitive pricing for the Vac-Con Model V311HE/1300LHA-P Combination Sewer and Storm Drain Cleaner from Municipal Maintenance Equipment; and
WHEREAS, the one Vac-Con Combination Sewer and Storm Drain Cleaner truck with the specifications and capabilities meet the requirements of the City; and WHEREAS, the use of Sourcewell – Contract #122017-SCA offers competitive pricing for the Sewer Equipment 877-TK Rodder from Nixon-EGLI Equipment Co.; and WHEREAS, the one Sewer Equipment 877-TK Rodder truck with the specifications and capabilities meet the requirements of the City; and
WHEREAS, based on these circumstances, staff recommends the purchase of one Vac-Con Combination Sewer and Storm Drain Cleaner truck and one Sewer Equipment 877-TK Rodder Truck because it is in the best interest of the City without standard competitive bid practice.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY FINDS AND RESOLVES that:
1. The purchase of two sewer vehicles are not projects subject to CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
2. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 3.60.070(h)(3), the purchase of the Vac-Con Model V311HE/1300LHA-P Combination Sewer and Storm Drain Cleaner truck and Sewer Equipment 877-TK Rodder truck based on pricing from Sourcewell are in the City’s best interest for these reasons:
54 of 509
6 1
2 1
a. Nixon-EGLI Equipment Company is the company that produces the Sewer Equipment 877-TK Rodder truck that meets the City’s requirements;
b. Vac-Con is the company that manufactures the Vac-Con Model V311HE/1300LHA-P Combination Sewer and Storm Drain Cleaner truck that meets the City’s requirements; c. The City has obtained competitive prices for the Sewer Equipment 877-TK Rodder truck with Sourcewell – Contract #122017-SCA from Nixon-Egli Equipment Company; d. The City has obtained competitive prices for the Vac-Con Model V311HE/1300LHA-P with Sourcewell- Contract #101221-VAC from Municipal Maintenance Equipment; and e. Sourcewell competitively bid the contracts to provide the listed equipment and the bids were won by Nixon-EGLI and Municipal Maintenance Equipment for their respective vehicles.
3. The procedure utilized by staff of obtaining Sourcewell – Contract # 122017-SCA with Nixon-EGLI Equipment Co. pricing for one Sewer Equipment 877-TK Rodder truck and Sourcewell Contract #101221- VAC for Vac-Con Model V311HE/1300LHA-P with Municipal Maintenance Equipment for one Vac-Con truck are approved in accordance with San Mateo Municipal Code Section 3.60.070(h)(3).
4. The purchase of one Rodder Truck from Nixon-Egli Equipment Co. in the amount of $271,665.51 and one Vac-Con Combination Sewer and Storm Drain Cleaner from Vac-Con Inc. in the amount of $588,981.10 for a total purchase amount of $860,646.61 is approved.
5. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute the purchase contracts on behalf of the City. 55 of 509
PURCHASE CONTRACT
FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE Sewer Equipment Company of America Model 877-TK Truck Mounted PTO Drive Continuous Rodder Truck
FROM NIXON-EGLI EQUIPMENT CO.
This Purchase Contract (“Contract”), made and entered into this day of ___________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California (“CITY”), and NIXON-EGLI EQUIPMENT CO. a Corporation (“VENDOR”).
RECITALS:
A. CITY desires to purchase certain Sewer Equipment Company of America Model 877-TK Truck Mounted PTO Drive Continuous Rodder truck hereinafter described.
B. CITY desires to engage VENDOR to provide these Sewer Equipment Company of America Model 877- TK Truck Mounted PTO Drive Continuous Rodder truck by reason of its qualifications and experience and VENDOR has offered to provide the required goods on the terms and in the manner set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:
SECTION 1 - PURCHASE
The goods to be purchased from VENDOR under this Contract are described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2 - PRICE AND TAXES
All prices shall be as stated in this Contract and are firm and not subject to escalation. This purchase is subject to all California sales tax. Municipalities are exempt from federal excise and transportation taxes. Prices shall exclude these taxes.
SECTION 3 - PAYMENT
Unless otherwise agreed in writing, payment terms shall be net thirty (30) days from date of receipt of invoice or acceptance of goods, whichever occurs last. Invoices must cite the purchase order number to prevent delay in payment. All invoices must be mailed to City of San Mateo, Attn: Accounts Payable, 330 West 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403.
SECTION 4 - DELIVERY AND PERFORMANCE
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Contract. If delivery of goods cannot be made at the specified time, VENDOR shall promptly notify the CITY of the earliest possible date for delivery. Notwithstanding such notice, if VENDOR for any reason fails to deliver goods within the time specified or to the CITY’s satisfaction the CITY may terminate this Contract or any part thereof without liability except for goods previously provided and accepted. The CITY’s receipt or acceptance of all or part of a non-conforming delivery shall not constitute a waiver of any claim, right or remedy the CITY has under this Contract or applicable law. 56 of 509
SECTION 5 - SHIPMENT AND INSPECTION
VENDOR assumes full responsibility for all transportation, transportation scheduling, packing, handling, insurance, and other services associated with delivery of all products. No charges for transportation containers, packing, etc., will be allowed the vendor unless so specified in this Contract. All shipments shall be F.O. B 1961 Pacific Blvd, San Mateo, CA 94403. Transportation charges shall be shown as a separate item on the invoice.
The CITY may revise shipping instructions as to any goods not as yet shipped. The CITY shall have the right to inspect any or all of the goods at VENDOR’s place of business or upon receipt by the CITY. By reason of its failure to inspect the goods, the CITY shall not be deemed to have accepted any defective goods or goods which do not conform to the specifications provided or to have waived any of the CITY’s rights or remedies arising by virtue of such defects or non-conformance. VENDOR shall be responsible for payment of shipping for the return of any defective goods. Shipping documents and invoices must cite the Purchase Order number.
SECTION 6 - WARRANTIES
In addition to any other expressed or implied warranties and unless otherwise agreed in writing, VENDOR warrants that all products delivered hereunder will be new, suitable for use as described, of the grade and quality specified, free from all defects in design, material and workmanship; in conformity with all samples, drawings, descriptions and specifications furnished; in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, and free of any liens and encumbrances. These warranties shall not be deemed to exclude VENDOR’s standard warranties or other rights or warranties which the CITY may have or obtain.
SECTION 7 - INDEMNITY
VENDOR agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of VENDOR’s performance of this Contract, except for those claims arising out of CITY’s sole negligence or willful misconduct.
VENDOR agrees to defend CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims.
SECTION 8 - TERMINATION
This Contract may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties or by the CITY at its discretion. The CITY may cancel an order for goods at any time with written notice to VENDOR, stating the extent and effective date of termination. Upon receipt of this written notice, VENDOR shall stop performance under this Contract as directed by the CITY. If the Contract is terminated, VENDOR shall be paid in accordance with the terms of the Contract for goods delivered and accepted.
SECTION 9 - REMEDIES
In the event of VENDOR’s breach of this Contract, City may take any or all of the following actions, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies available to the City by law: (a) require Vendor to repair or replace such goods, and upon VENDOR’s failure or refusal to do so, repair or replace the same at VENDOR’s expense; (b) reject any shipment or delivery containing defective or nonconforming goods and return for credit or replacement at VENDOR’s option, said return to be made at VENDOR’s cost and risk; (c) cancel any outstanding deliveries and treat such breach by VENDOR as VENDOR’s repudiation of this contract. In the event of the CITY’s breach hereunder, VENDOR’s exclusive remedy shall be VENDOR’s recovery of the goods or the purchase price payable for goods shipped prior to such breach.
57 of 509
SECTION 10 - COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
VENDOR warrants that it will comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to its performance under this Contract. VENDOR shall obtain and maintain throughout the life of the Contract all permits or licenses required in connection with the manufacture, sale, and shipment of the products ordered under this Contract.
SECTION 11 - ASSIGNMENT
VENDOR shall not delegate or subcontract any duties and services or assign any rights or claims under this Contract without the CITY’s prior written consent.
SECTION 12 - ARTWORK, DESIGNS, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS VENDOR hereby agrees that the sale, use or incorporation into manufactured products of all machines, software, hardware, materials and other devices furnished under this Contract are free and clear of infringement of any valid patent, copyright, or trademark. VENDOR shall hold the CITY harmless from any and all costs and expenses, including attorney fees, liability, and loss of any kind growing out of claims, suits or actions alleging such infringement, and VENDOR agrees to defend such claims, suits or actions.
SECTION 13 - GOVERNING LAW
This Purchase Order and the contract between the parties evidenced hereby or attached thereto shall be deemed to be made in the State of California and shall in all respects be construed and governed by the laws of that state.
SECTION 14 - VENUE
In the event of litigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo.
SECTION 15 - WAIVER
The waiver of any term, condition or provision hereof shall not be construed to be a waiver of any other such term, condition or provision, nor shall such waiver be deemed a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same term, condition or provision.
SECTION 16 - COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
Attorney fees in an amount not exceeding $85 per hour per attorney, and in total amount not exceeding $5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this Contract. The above $5000 limit is the total of attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions.
It is the intent of this provision that neither party shall have to pay the other more than $5000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this Contract. 58 of 509
SECTION 17 - MEDIATION
Should any dispute arise out of this Contract, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the California State Board of Mediation and Conciliation, or other agreed- upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a "blindfolded" process.
The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation process, once commenced by a meeting with the mediator, shall last until agreement is reached by the parties but not more than 60 days, unless the maximum time is extended by the parties.
SECTION 18 - NOTICES
All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Matt Zucca, Public Works Deputy
Director
City of San Mateo
1961 Pacific Blvd.
San Mateo, CA, 94403
To VENDOR: Nixon-Egli Equipment Co.
Attn: Evan Haase
800 East Grant Line Road
Tracy, CA 95376
SECTION 19 - AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and VENDOR and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and VENDOR. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
59 of 509
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF SAN MATEO and Municipal Maintenance Equipment, Inc. have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN MATEO VENDOR
Azalea Mitch
Public Works Director Its Authorized Agent
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Linh Nguyen, Assistant City Attorney
60 of 509
Exhibit A
SO. CALIFORNIA: 2044 South Vineyard Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761 (909) 930-1822 FAX (909) 923-2356 NO. CALIFORNIA: 800 East Grant Line Road, Tracy, CA 95376 (209) 830-8600 FAX (209) 830-8884 January 14th, 2022
City of San Mateo
1961 Pacific Blvd.
San Mateo, CA 94403
San Mateo Contract# 2426
Sewer Equipment Contract# 122017-SCA
Quote# 100434
Attention: Harry Siddall
Reference: Updated Sewer Equipment 877-TK Rodder Quote, 1/14/2022 Dear Mr. Siddall,
We are pleased to quote you one (1) new Sewer Equipment Company of America Model 877-TK Truck Mounted PTO Drive Continuous Rodder unit including the following Standard and Optional (Included in Bold) features:
Chassis
2023 Freightliner M2 106 Conventional Chassis
Cummins B6.7 250 Horsepower Diesel engine
Allison 3000 RDS Automatic transmission – 6 speed
153” Wheelbase and 87” Cab to Axle
33,000 GVWR; 12,000 lb. front axle, 21,000 lb. rear axle Fuel Tank - 50 US Gallons – LH Mount – Aluminum
Air ride driver and passenger seats
Dual West Coast style side mirrors - heated
Air conditioning
Gray interior
AM/FM radio
Cab air suspension
Steel wheels-painted
Michelin tires
Rodder:
Gear Driven Rod Drive Roller System with 7000 lbs. of Pull (Automatic Hydraulic Hold Down System) 72” Rod Storage Reel with 1200’ of .393 Rod in Direct Hydraulic Motor Driven Yoke with Spring Loaded Torque Arm
Electrical System
Lighted NEMA 4 Control Panel
Hydraulic System, Single Lever Control
Friction Footage Meter
Cumulative Footage Meter
Independent Relief Valves and Gauges for Forward/Reverse Single Lever Hydraulic Control
Oiler for Rod
61 of 509
SO. CALIFORNIA: 2044 South Vineyard Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761 (909) 930-1822 FAX (909) 923-2356 NO. CALIFORNIA: 800 East Grant Line Road, Tracy, CA 95376 (209) 830-8600 FAX (209) 830-8884 Truck:
One Piece Steel Shroud
Heavy Duty Frame
Full Decking
Skirting
Handrail
Three (3) Toolboxes
Mudflaps
Bumper
Rear Back Up Camera System with 7” Color Monitor
Lighting
Compartment Lighting
LED Floodlight
Three (3) LED Strobe Lights, Front Mounted (1), Driver Side (1), & Passenger Side (1) Two (2) LED Arrow Sticks, Front Mounted (1) & Rear Mounted (1) Handheld Wireless 12v/110v Rechargeable LED Spotlight with Storage Bracket Accessories:
25’ Lightweight Hose Guide and Bell with Aluminum Couplings Single Prong Brace
Snap on Pliers with Cleaners
Two (2) Assembly Wrenches
Paper Operator Manual
USB Operator Manual
Six (6) 18” D.O.T. Safety Cones and Holder
62 of 509
Purchase Contract for Goods Page 8 of 9
Rev 9/17
SO. CALIFORNIA: 2044 South Vineyard Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761 (909) 930-1822 FAX (909) 923-2356 NO. CALIFORNIA: 800 East Grant Line Road, Tracy, CA 95376 (209) 830-8600 FAX (209) 830-8884 Sourcewell 877-TK Rodder Price: $160,298.00
Sourcewell Discount (3%): ($4,808.94)
Sub Total: $155,489.06
Freightliner Chassis: $81,300.00
PDI, Training/Start Up, DMV, Etc. : $9,200.00
Taxable Subtotal: $245,989.06
9.625% Sales Tax: $23,676.45
Delivery Freight: $2,000.00
Sales Price with Tax: $271,665.51
*The above price(s) are valid for 30 days and are plus all applicable tax.
Thank you for the opportunity to quote on your equipment needs. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
NIXON-EGLI EQUIPMENT CO.
Evan Haase
Evan Haase
Municipal
Area
Manager
(510) 301-
7715
[email protected]
63 of 509
Purchase Contract for Goods Page 9 of 9
Rev 9/17
64 of 509
Purchase Contract for Goods Page 1 of 10
Rev 9/17
PURCHASE CONTRACT
FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE VAC-CON Combination Sewer and Storm Drain Cleaner MOUNTED ON A New FREIGHTLINER 114SD 6x4 TRUCK CHASSIS
FROM VAC-CON INC.
This Purchase Contract (“Contract”), made and entered into this day of ___________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California (“CITY”), and VAC-CON, INC. a Corporation (“VENDOR”).
RECITALS:
A. CITY desires to purchase certain Vac-Con Model V311HE/1300LHA-P mounted on a new Freightliner 114SD 6x4 truck chassis hereinafter described.
B. CITY desires to engage VENDOR to provide these Vac-Con Model V311HE/1300LHA-P Combination Sewer and Storm Drain Cleaner mounted on a new Freightliner 114SD 6x4 truck chassis by reason of its qualifications and experience and VENDOR has offered to provide the required goods on the terms and in the manner set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:
SECTION 1 - PURCHASE
The goods to be purchased from VENDOR under this Contract are described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2 - PRICE AND TAXES
All prices shall be as stated in this Contract and are firm and not subject to escalation.
This purchase is subject to all California sales tax. Municipalities are exempt from federal excise and transportation taxes. Prices shall exclude these taxes.
SECTION 3 - PAYMENT
Unless otherwise agreed in writing, payment terms shall be net thirty (30) days from date of receipt of invoice or acceptance of goods, whichever occurs last. Invoices must cite the purchase order number to prevent delay in payment. All invoices must be mailed to City of San Mateo, Attn: Accounts Payable, 330 West 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403.
65 of 509
Purchase Contract for Goods Page 2 of 10
Rev 9/17
SECTION 4 - DELIVERY AND PERFORMANCE
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Contract. If delivery of goods cannot be made at the specified time, VENDOR shall promptly notify the CITY of the earliest possible date for delivery.
Notwithstanding such notice, if VENDOR for any reason fails to deliver goods within the time specified or to the CITY’s satisfaction the CITY may terminate this Contract or any part thereof without liability except for goods previously provided and accepted. The CITY’s receipt or acceptance of all or part of a non-conforming delivery shall not constitute a waiver of any claim, right or remedy the CITY has under this Contract or applicable law.
SECTION 5 - SHIPMENT AND INSPECTION
VENDOR assumes full responsibility for all transportation, transportation scheduling, packing, handling, insurance, and other services associated with delivery of all products. No charges for transportation containers, packing, etc., will be allowed the vendor unless so specified in this Contract.
All shipments shall be F.O. B 1961 Pacific Blvd, San Mateo, CA 94403. Transportation charges shall be shown as a separate item on the invoice.
The CITY may revise shipping instructions as to any goods not as yet shipped. The CITY shall have the right to inspect any or all of the goods at VENDOR’s place of business or upon receipt by the CITY. By reason of its failure to inspect the goods, the CITY shall not be deemed to have accepted any defective goods or goods which do not conform to the specifications provided or to have waived any of the CITY’s rights or remedies arising by virtue of such defects or non-conformance. VENDOR shall be responsible for payment of shipping for the return of any defective goods. Shipping documents and invoices must cite the Purchase Order number.
SECTION 6 - WARRANTIES
In addition to any other expressed or implied warranties and unless otherwise agreed in writing, VENDOR warrants that all products delivered hereunder will be new, suitable for use as described, of the grade and quality specified, free from all defects in design, material and workmanship; in conformity with all samples, drawings, descriptions and specifications furnished; in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, and free of any liens and encumbrances. These warranties shall not be deemed to exclude VENDOR’s standard warranties or other rights or warranties which the CITY may have or obtain.
SECTION 7 - INDEMNITY
VENDOR agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of VENDOR’s performance of this Contract, except for those claims arising out of CITY’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. VENDOR agrees to defend CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims.
66 of 509
Purchase Contract for Goods Page 3 of 10
Rev 9/17
SECTION 8 - TERMINATION
This Contract may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties or by the CITY at its discretion. The CITY may cancel an order for goods at any time with written notice to VENDOR, stating the extent and effective date of termination. Upon receipt of this written notice, VENDOR shall stop performance under this Contract as directed by the CITY. If the Contract is terminated, VENDOR shall be paid in accordance with the terms of the Contract for goods delivered and accepted.
SECTION 9 - REMEDIES
In the event of VENDOR’s breach of this Contract, City may take any or all of the following actions, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies available to the City by law: (a) require Vendor to repair or replace such goods, and upon VENDOR’s failure or refusal to do so, repair or replace the same at VENDOR’s expense; (b) reject any shipment or delivery containing defective or nonconforming goods and return for credit or replacement at VENDOR’s option, said return to be made at VENDOR’s cost and risk; (c) cancel any outstanding deliveries and treat such breach by VENDOR as VENDOR’s repudiation of this contract. In the event of the CITY’s breach hereunder, VENDOR’s exclusive remedy shall be VENDOR’s recovery of the goods or the purchase price payable for goods shipped prior to such breach.
SECTION 10 - COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
VENDOR warrants that it will comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to its performance under this Contract. VENDOR shall obtain and maintain throughout the life of the Contract all permits or licenses required in connection with the manufacture, sale, and shipment of the products ordered under this Contract.
SECTION 11 - ASSIGNMENT
VENDOR shall not delegate or subcontract any duties and services or assign any rights or claims under this Contract without the CITY’s prior written consent.
SECTION 12 - ARTWORK, DESIGNS, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS VENDOR hereby agrees that the sale, use or incorporation into manufactured products of all machines, software, hardware, materials and other devices furnished under this Contract are free and clear of infringement of any valid patent, copyright, or trademark. VENDOR shall hold the CITY harmless from any and all costs and expenses, including attorney fees, liability, and loss of any kind growing out of claims, suits or actions alleging such infringement, and VENDOR agrees to defend such claims, suits or actions.
67 of 509
Purchase Contract for Goods Page 4 of 10
Rev 9/17
SECTION 13 - GOVERNING LAW
This Purchase Order and the contract between the parties evidenced hereby or attached thereto shall be deemed to be made in the State of California and shall in all respects be construed and governed by the laws of that state.
SECTION 14 - VENUE
In the event of litigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo.
SECTION 15 - WAIVER
The waiver of any term, condition or provision hereof shall not be construed to be a waiver of any other such term, condition or provision, nor shall such waiver be deemed a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same term, condition or provision.
SECTION 16 - COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
Attorney fees in an amount not exceeding $85 per hour per attorney, and in total amount not exceeding $5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this Contract. The above $5000 limit is the total of attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions. It is the intent of this provision that neither party shall have to pay the other more than $5000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this Contract.
SECTION 17 - MEDIATION
Should any dispute arise out of this Contract, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the California State Board of Mediation and Conciliation, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a "blindfolded" process.
The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation process, once commenced by a meeting with the mediator, shall last until agreement is reached by the parties but not more than 60 days, unless the maximum time is extended by the parties. 68 of 509
Purchase Contract for Goods Page 5 of 10
Rev 9/17
SECTION 18 - NOTICES
All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Matt Zucca, Public Works Deputy
Director
City of San Mateo
1961 Pacific Blvd.
San Mateo, CA, 94403
To VENDOR: Vac-Con, Inc.
Attn: M.J. Dubois
969 Hall Park Rd.
Green Cove Springs, FL 32043
SECTION 19 - AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and VENDOR and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and VENDOR. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
69 of 509
Purchase Contract for Goods Page 6 of 10
Rev 9/17
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF SAN MATEO and Municipal Maintenance Equipment, Inc. have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN MATEO VENDOR
Azalea Mitch
Public Works Director Its Authorized Agent
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Linh Nguyen, Assistant City Attorney
70 of 509
Purchase Contract for Goods Page 7 of 10
Rev 9/17
EXHIBIT A
71 of 509
Purchase Contract for Goods Page 8 of 10
Rev 9/17
72 of 509
Purchase Contract for Goods Page 9 of 10
Rev 9/17
73 of 509
Purchase Contract for Goods Page 10 of 10
Rev 9/17
74 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
0 5
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 10 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-5940 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
Program for Arterial System Synchronization Fiscal Year 2021-22 Cycle – Funding Agreement RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a Joint Funding Agreement with Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Program for Arterial System Synchronization Fiscal Year 2021-22 Cycle, approve matching funds from the City in the amount of $7,747, and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the Agreement in substantially the form approved.
BACKGROUND:
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) released a Call for Projects for the Program for Arterial System Synchronization (PASS) grant in early 2021. The PASS grant will fund consultant services to develop and implement traffic signal coordination along corridors in an effort to improve traffic safety, reduce congestion and travel times, and decrease vehicle emissions and fuel consumption, thereby improving the roadways for all users. The grant will also pay for the procurement of Global Positioning System (GPS) clocks that will enable synchronization of the traffic signals. The traffic signal coordination will be implemented along 19th Avenue, Fashion Island Boulevard, Concar Drive, and Delaware Street, as shown in Attachment 2, and involves seven (7) City-owned traffic signals and three (3) Caltrans-owned traffic signals.
The grant was awarded on July 7, 2021 and, as a condition of the grant, MTC requires the City to execute a Joint Funding Agreement, which the City received in early 2022. As shown in Table 1, the PASS grant requires a 12.5% City match for consultant services and a 50% match for purchasing the GPS clocks. The total cost for consultant services and the GPS clocks will be $30,000 and $8,000, respectively. As such, the required matching funds from the City will be $7,747.
Table 1. Project Costs and Matching Fund Requirements
Staff recommends that Council approve the Joint Funding Agreement for the arterial system synchronization.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Joint Funding Agreement in the amount of $38,000 requires matching funds from the City in the amount of $7,747.
The City’s contribution will be funded out of the Citywide Traffic Signal Retiming Project, which has adequate funds for this agreement.
City MTC Total Cost
Consultant Services
(City – 12.5%; MTC – 87.5%) $3,747 $26,253 $30,000
GPS Clocks
(City – 50%; MTC – 50%) $4,000 $4,000 $8,000
Total Contributions $7,747 $30,253 $38,000
75 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
0 5
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The approval of this Joint Funding Agreement with designated matching funds by the City, and coordination of traffic signal timing is categorically exempt from CEQA review as an “existing facility” because it consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public structures and mechanical equipment involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – PASS FY2021-22 Joint Funding Agreement
Att 2 – Project Area Map
STAFF CONTACT
Mike Kato, Associate Engineer
[email protected]
(650) 522-7377
76 of 509
September XX, 2021
Azalea Mitch
Director of Public Works
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
Dear Ms. Mitch:
This letter, effective as of August 1, 2021 (“Effective Date”), is the agreement between the City of San Mateo (“AGENCY”) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”) for developing and implementing traffic signaling coordination plans for the Program for Arterial System Synchronization (PASS) FY 21/22 project, which will be jointly funded by MTC and AGENCY (“the Agreement”). AGENCY’s application for the FY 21/22 PASS cycle submitted April 16, 2021, is incorporated herein by this reference.
1. It is agreed that with funding under this Agreement, MTC shall engage its consultant, DKS Associates (“Consultant”), to perform the project work, including but not limited to those specified in Attachment A, Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
2. Consultant’s work will be performed under the direction of Robert Rich, MTC Project Manager (herein “MTC Project Manager”).
3. The effective date of Consultant’s agreement with MTC is August 1, 2021 and Consultant’s work is expected to be completed by June 30, 2022.
4. MTC shall furnish ten (10) GPS clocks that AGENCY shall install and configure at the project locations identified in Attachment A, Scope of Work.
5. MTC will pay Consultant up to thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) as full compensation for the satisfactory completion of all services contained in the attached scope, as set forth in Attachment B, Project Budget. AGENCY shall forward MTC its agreed-upon portion of PASS project cost of seven thousand seven hundred forty- seven dollars ($7,747).
77 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
6. MTC shall invoice AGENCY in the amount of seven thousand seven hundred forty-seven dollars ($7,747) billable in lump sum upon the first month after the start of work by Consultant. AGENCY shall pay MTC fully upon receipt of an invoice in the amount stated above within thirty (30) days of receipt. MTC’s invoice shall be mailed to:
Attention: Michael Kato
Associate Engineer
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
7. All notices or other communication to either party by the other shall be deemed given when made in writing and delivered, mailed, emailed or faxed to such party at their respective addresses as follows:
To MTC: Attention: Robert Rich
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
375 Beale Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Email: [email protected]
To AGENCY : Attention: Michael Kato
Associate Engineer
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Email: [email protected]
8. Performance will begin on the date this Agreement is fully executed and be completed by June 30, 2022.
If you agree, please sign both copies of this letter in the space provided below. Please return one copy to us. The other copy is for your records.
Very truly yours,
Therese W. McMillan
Executive Director
78 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
Accepted and Agreed to:
Azalea Mitch, Director of Public Works
City of San Mateo
DATE:
79 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPE OF WORK
The services to be performed by Consultant are presented in the following pages excerpted from Deliverable 1B (Final Scope, Schedule and Budget) for AGENCY’s FY 21/22 PASS project. 80 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
81 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
82 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
83 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
84 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
85 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
ATTACHMENT A1
PASS Standard Scope of Work
The services to be performed by Consultant shall consist of services requested by the MTC Project Manager or a designated representative. At the beginning of each annual project cycle, all selected Consultant shall meet with the MTC Project Manager to discuss various aspects of the PASS, such as program guidelines, logistics, services, invoices, communication preferences, etc.
Caltrans staff will also participate in this meeting to discuss their signal timing preferences, if applicable. The electronic files of all project deliverables shall be clearly named and dated. The project administration guidelines applicable to the particular Cycle of PASS projects shall be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. The standard scope of work, schedule and budget for a typical PASS project includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Project Kick-off
1.1. Consultant shall coordinate a kick-off meeting with the project sponsors, and MTC Project Manager or designated representative. This meeting will help to understand the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder; establish communication channels; discuss the deliverable review preferences for each stakeholder; discuss in detail the scope of work, schedule, and budget; understand the needs and requirements of all stakeholders; gather available data and information; and obtain a thorough understanding of the goals of the project.
1.2. Consultant shall have the opportunity to discuss with the project sponsors and other stakeholders their preferences for signal timing, cycle length preferences, status of corridor equipment, anticipated construction activities, any helpful “do’s and don’ts, and other project related information.
1.3. Consultant shall prepare the Deliverable 1A: Draft Scope of Work, Schedule and Budget report for review by the project sponsors and the MTC Project Manager. This report shall include all the details discussed in the kick-off meeting. Consultant shall address all of the comments received and submit a revised report to the MTC Project Manager for final approval. The approved version will be considered the Deliverable 1B: Final Scope of Work, Schedule, and Budget (SSB) for the project.
1.4. Consultant shall revise the SSB if any significant changes are required or requested in the approved version during any stage of the project. The revised version shall include the nature and details on all of the changes with a revised date and title. Consultant may also be asked to perform any additional services described in detail in Task 5: Additional Services at any stage of the project.
Deliverable 1A: Draft Scope of Work, Schedule, and Budget Deliverable 1B: Final Scope of Work, Schedule, and Budget (SSB) 86 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
2. Analysis of Existing Conditions
Consultant shall collect and analyze all the data necessary to thoroughly understand existing traffic conditions in the project corridors. This stage of the project includes data collection and analysis, thorough field observations, input from signal maintenance staff, contractors, vendors, etc. regarding any pertinent issues in the project corridors. The purpose of this task is to help the project sponsors and other stakeholders understand the current traffic conditions in the project corridors, such as traffic patterns, volumes, peak hours, bottlenecks, collision history, hot spots, etc.
2.1. Data Collection and field reviews – Consultant shall collect all the data as listed in Deliverable 1B: Final Scope of Work, Schedule and Budget (SSB).
2.1.1. Consultant shall collect existing timing sheets, coordination plans, traffic signal as-built drawings, aerial photos and maps, corridor and intersection collision data for three years, Synchro and other computer models and data, if available, from the project sponsors and other stakeholders.
2.1.2. Consultant shall conduct peak period turning movement counts at all study intersections, including pedestrian and bicycle counts, and seven-day 24-hour machine counts (ADT Counts) with vehicle classifications at strategic locations to determine periods of coordination. All counts shall be taken during times and days that are representative of the times and days for which coordination plans shall be developed. No counts shall be taken during the weeks with holidays or school breaks, or on the days where the typical traffic patterns are impacted by construction activity, major incidents, adverse weather conditions, etc.
2.1.3. Consultant shall collect turning movement counts along with bicycle and pedestrian counts, using video data collection technologies. MTC prefers this method, as the videos help to review any data collection errors, if needed.
Consultant shall provide access to the raw counts, videos, formatted data, via an FTP site or other web-portals approved by all of the stakeholders. Other data collection methods shall be considered based on the preference of the project sponsor or if video data collection is not feasible. Consultant shall take all the steps possible to provide the data to the project sponsors in any or all formats, such as PDF, MS Excel and/or Synchro computer models.
2.1.4. Consultant or their authorized subcontractors’ costs for collecting the turning movement counts, with bicycle and pedestrian counts at all project intersections, is included in the project budget per intersection. The ADT or the seven-day 24- hour machine counts are included in the project costs, at the rate of one ADT count for every four project signals. Any additional counts have to be approved by MTC, and billed at a negotiated rate.
87 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
2.1.5. Consultant shall provide the MTC Project Manager electronic files of all turning movement counts, bicycle and pedestrian counts, ADT counts, collision data, all developed Synchro models, controller and cabinet photos, and any other project related data when requested or at the end of the project, whichever is earliest.
2.1.6. Consultant shall conduct thorough field reviews at all study intersections and street segments to verify lane geometry, speed limits, storage lengths, signal phasing, distances between intersections, and crosswalk lengths, even if the information is available through other sources, such as aerial photos and speed surveys. Consultant shall conduct extensive field reviews at key intersections to measure queue lengths and saturation flows for heavy movements with input from project sponsors.
2.1.7. Consultant shall conduct the “before” travel time data, including the number of stops, during times and days that are representative of the times and days for which coordination plans shall be developed. Consultant shall conduct as many runs as possible within the coordination period, but at least a minimum of four runs shall be conducted for each direction for each peak period. Consultant shall conduct these studies using the floating car method or any method approved by the project sponsors.
2.1.8. Consultant shall verify signal coordination and transit priority capabilities of existing equipment and communications infrastructure. Consultant shall take digital photos of the controller cabinet and the contents of the controller cabinet, at all project locations, unless waived by the project sponsors or MTC.
2.2. Analysis of Existing Conditions – Consultant shall analyze the data obtained from Task
2.1 as follows:
2.2.1. Consultant shall review initial and actuated settings for each study intersection to identify opportunities to minimize delay during non-coordination periods and enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety. The analysis shall include, but not be limited to, review of minimum and maximum green settings; yellow and red times; pedestrian timing; and gap, extension, and reduction settings.
2.2.2. Consultant shall analyze the intersection and corridor-wide collision data for at least three years of available data. This data shall be summarized and evaluated to identify any signal timing practices that may help reduce similar potential incidents in the future.
2.2.3. Consultant shall analyze the typical traffic patterns during the peak periods for which coordination plans shall be developed. Consultant shall note factors that generally affect signal progression including, but not limited to: intersections with high pedestrian or bicyclist volumes; over-saturated intersections; uneven lane distribution; high volumes of trucks and buses; and presence and location of bus stops.
88 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
2.2.4. Consultant shall develop models for each peak period project corridors and calibrate the model based on travel time and delay studies, and field observations of queue lengths and saturation flows for heavy movements at key intersections.
Consultant shall use the modeling software as per directions from the project sponsors.
2.2.5. Consultant shall summarize the results of the existing conditions analyses in Deliverable 2A: Draft Existing Conditions Report for review by the project sponsors and MTC Project Manager. At a minimum, the report shall include the following: project description; project map showing the intersections and services; analysis from the counts; field verification results of the controllers and their communication capabilities; factors that are expected to affect progression; and model calibration results.
2.2.6. Consultant shall meet with the project sponsors to discuss the results of the existing conditions analyses and field observations. Consultant shall revise the report after addressing the comments received from the project sponsors.
Consultant shall submit a Response to Comments Report addressing all the comments/concerns received from all stakeholders, while submitting the Deliverable 2B: Final Existing Conditions Report for approval.
Deliverable 2A: Draft Existing Conditions Report
Deliverable 2B: Final Existing Conditions Report, including the Response to Comments Report
3. Development of Recommendations
This stage of the project involves the following tasks and deliverables:
3.1. Consultant shall develop the optimal time-of-day coordination plans after analyzing the signal grouping; phasing and phase sequence, including conditional service; cycle lengths, splits, offsets; collision diagrams/data and other available data. The Consultant shall meet with the project sponsors or submit an interim deliverable to discuss and agree on the preliminary signal grouping and cycle lengths.
3.2. Consultant shall develop recommendations of optimal initial and actuated settings; time- of-day coordination plans and hours of coordinated operation; and transit signal priority plans and hours of operation, if applicable.
3.3. Consultant shall summarize recommendations in the Deliverable 3A: Draft Recommendations Report. The report shall also include a comparison of existing and proposed timings, the justifications for the recommended changes, and a description of the expected improvements.
89 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
3.4. Consultant shall follow the applicable state and federal standards in making these recommendations. Any exceptions need to be discussed in detail with the project sponsors and the MTC Project Manager.
3.5. Consultant shall meet with the project sponsors to discuss the proposed recommendations, justifications and anticipated improvements. Consultant shall revise the report after addressing the comments received from the project sponsors. Consultant shall submit a Response to Comments Report addressing all the comments/concerns received from all stakeholders, while submitting the Deliverable 3B: Revised Recommendations Report for approval.
Deliverable 3A: Draft Recommendations Report
Deliverable 3B: Revised Recommendations Report, including the Response to Comments Report
4. Implementation and Evaluation
This is the final stage of the project requiring the coordination of all project sponsors and MTC.
The various tasks involved in this stage include, but are not limited to, the following:
4.1. Consultant shall prepare the appropriate timing sheets in the format requested by the project sponsors for review and approval. Consultant shall revise the timing sheets based on comments received from the project sponsors.
4.2. Consultant, with the help of project sponsors, shall implement the new timing plans remotely or in the field. Consultant shall use all the resources required to complete this task effectively, and any short-comings may impact the Consultant performance during the review process. Consultant shall employ enough staff resources to monitor the traffic for the entire duration the new plans are implemented for the first time. This requirement shall be followed any time changes are made to the timing plans during the fine-tuning process. Consultant shall have qualified staff available to immediately address any issues or agency concerns that may result from the implementation of the new timing plans.
4.3. Consultant, with the help of project sponsors, shall fine-tune the new timing plans to the satisfaction of the project sponsors. Consultant shall fine-tune timings in the field and record all changes. Fine-tuning shall be conducted during times and days that are representative of the times and days for which coordination plans were developed. This requires additional field visits to verify and assess any changes made during the fine- tuning process.
4.4. Consultant shall conduct the “after” travel time and delay studies, including the number of stops, during the new coordination periods. Consultant shall conduct as many runs as 90 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
possible within the coordination period, but at least a minimum of four runs shall be conducted for each direction for each peak period. Consultant shall conduct these studies using the floating car method or any method approved by the project sponsors.
4.5. Consultant shall calculate measures of effectiveness using the results from the “before” and “after” studies. These measures generally include the travel-time savings, emissions savings, speed increases, reduction in the number of stops, cost savings from reduced emissions and benefit-cost analysis results. The methodology used for these calculations shall be provided or approved by the MTC Project Manager.
4.6. Consultant shall submit a Deliverable 4A: Draft Project Report, which shall include the following for each PASS project: overview, goals and objectives, corridors and services, project map, results from the data collection and analyses, the preliminary recommendations, new timings implementation, fine-tuning results, comparison of the old and new timings, etc. The report will also include any unique issues that were resolved and any qualitative benefits achieved with the project. The qualitative benefits will generally include the benefits to pedestrians, benefits to bicyclists, effects on transit, traffic safety, etc.
4.7. Consultant shall revise the report after addressing the comments received from the project sponsors and the MTC Project Manager. Consultant shall submit a Response to Comments Report addressing all the comments/concerns received from all stakeholders, while submitting the Deliverable 4B: Final Project Report for approval.
4.8. Consultant shall assist MTC in producing Fact Sheets for each project by providing the required maps, tables, data or text as requested by the MTC Project Manager.
Task 4: Preliminary Implementation and Fine-tuning
Deliverable 4A: Draft Project Report with Benefit-Cost Analysis, including the computer models
Deliverable 4B: Final Project Report with Benefit-Cost Analysis, including the computer models and Response to Comments Report
5. Additional Services
In addition to the basic signal coordination plans, the Consultant may also be asked to provide additional services related to the PASS projects. These services shall be requested by the project sponsor in their application and shall be included in the SSB, contingent upon approval by MTC Project Manager. Consultant shall include a detailed description of the scope of the additional service, a staffing plan, and level of effort, additional budget, and payment schedule in the SSB.
If the scope of work and budget for these services cannot be reasonably negotiated, MTC, at its sole discretion, can withdraw the project assignment from the Consultant and assign a different Consultant to the project. Additional services may be requested at any stage of the project, as needed, and shall be included in a revised SSB, if approved by the MTC Project Manager. 91 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
5.1. Consultant may be asked to develop additional timing plans, such as incident management flush plans, transit signal priority plans, traffic responsive timing plans, weekend timing plans, school peak timing plans, etc. Such services may include additional meetings, additional data collection, field visits, technical analyses, studies, fine-tuning, conditional diagrams, etc.
5.2. Consultants, with the help of the transit agency, may be asked to review the existing capabilities or conditions of the transit signal priority of buses serving the project corridors. The PASS will also provide help in establishing communication between the signals and buses as this step is crucial to implementing new transit signal priority plans.
5.3. Consultant may be asked to work on some pilot tasks/projects to help with the expansion of PASS projects and services. These pilot tasks/projects will help MTC understand the level of effort, budget, and potential benefits to mobility and air quality that could help expand future cycles of the Program. The pilot tasks/projects may include, but not be limited to: development of advanced signal timing plans; Systems Engineering analyses; and ITS Engineering and Design.
5.4. Consultant may be asked to perform these additional services for any projects retimed in the last two years under the PASS. These tasks may also include updating coversheets, reformatting timing plans, evaluating the effects of new timing plans, etc.
5.5. Consultant may be asked to subcontract an electrical contractor or other firms with required licenses and expertise to install GPS clocks or other communications equipment for certain projects. Consultant may be asked to coordinate the installation of these equipment including assisting the local agencies in securing any permits required for the project.
5.6. Consultant may be asked to prepare presentation materials and/or make formal presentations on the PASS project to various policy boards and commissions.
5.7. Consultant may be asked to assist in organizing seminars on various topics that contribute to improved mobility and emissions reductions. The typical tasks include developing seminar outlines, securing speakers, preparing presentation materials, etc.
6. Reduced Services
Consultant may be requested to not perform some of the services listed above for certain projects. If reduced services are requested by the project sponsor or the MTC Project Manager, Consultant shall clearly document all relevant details in the SSB. The fee for reduced services shall be a percentage of the base fee per intersection, or a negotiated amount, which is commensurate with the proportion of services reduced. If these cannot be reasonably negotiated, MTC, at its sole discretion, can withdraw the project assignment from the Consultant and assign a different Consultant to the project.
92 of 509
MTC / City of San Mateo
PASS FY 21/22 Joint Funding Agreement
ATTACHMENT B
PROJECT BUDGET
The following table provides the estimated project budget, including the match to be provided by AGENCY.
# Deliverable Description MTC
Share
AGENCY
Share
Total
Cost
1A Draft Scope of Work, Schedule, and Budget (5%) $1,313 $187 $1,500 1B Final Scope of Work, Schedule, and Budget (5%) $1,313 $187 $1,500 2A Draft Existing Conditions Report (30%) $7,875 $1,125 $9,000 2B Final Existing Conditions Report (10%) $2,625 $375 $3,000 3A Draft Recommendations Report (15%) $3,938 $562 $4,500 3B Revised Recommendations Report (10%) $2,625 $375 $3,000 4 Preliminary Implementation and Fine Tuning (15%) $3,938 $562 $4,500 4A Draft Project Report with Benefit-Cost Analysis (5%) $1,313 $187 $1,500 4B Final Project Report with Benefit-Cost Analysis (5%) $1,313 $187 $1,500 Total Consultant Services $26,253 $3,747 $30,000
GPS Clocks $4,000 $4,000 $8,000
Total $30,253 $7,747 $38,000
93 of 509
City of San Mateo - 19th Avenue/Fashion Island Boulevard Corridor Improvements Study Project Study Area
LEGEND
Caltrans Intersections
City of San Mateo Intersections
Project Study Area
Figure
1 Paci/f_ic Blvd
Texas Way
Ginnever St
Bayshore Fwy
1 2 3
4 10
9 8
7 5
6 Bermuda Dr
S Delaware St
S Grant St
Concar Dr
19th ave
Norfolk St
Marines Island Blvd
S El Camino Real
J. Arthur Younger Fwy
Fiesta Dr
Saratoga Dr
S Deleware St
Kehoe Ave
Fashion Island Blvd
Metro Center Blvd
E Hillsdale Blvd
Shell Blvd
Franklin Pkwy
Kehoe Ave
S Grant St
Norfolk St
101
82 92
92 Fiesta Gardens
International School
19th Avenue-Fashion Island
Boulevard is a reliever route
94 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 9
2 6
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 11 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-5865 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Parks and Recreation Department
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
Central Park Seasonal Ice Rink – Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a five-year zero cost / zero revenue license agreement with On Ice LLC to operate a seasonal ice rink in Central Park and authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.
BACKGROUND:
For the past six years (absent 2020), On Ice LLC has operated a seasonal ice rink at Central Park. The arrangement has been zero cost / zero revenue to the City and generates 20,000-25,000 visits each season. The ice rink served as the inspiration for the Parks and Recreation Department to create Winter Wonderland, a new special event in the park that last year drew nearly 2,000 participants. The ice rink has also generated visitor revenue to the downtown business district, with families utilizing many of the restaurants and food establishments. The ice rink has helped San Mateo stand out from other cities on the Peninsula and has brought a new energy to Central Park during the winter season, which generally lacked any organized activity. On Ice LLC has been a very collaborative partner with the City and a five-year agreement will provide certainty to both the City and the operator, enabling both parties to engage in the long-term planning essential to stage this event.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact to the City other than minor staff coordination. On Ice LLC assumes full financial responsibility for the operation and is billed for the electrical consumption associated with the rink operation, as well as any other minor electrical support that may be required.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This license agreement for a seasonal outdoor ice rink at Central Park is categorically exempt from CEQA, because it is minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(e).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – License Agreement
95 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 9
2 6
STAFF CONTACT
Nicholas Tsiorvas, Business Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7408
96 of 509
1 6
0 7
2 LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR ICE RINK OPERATION IN CENTRAL PARK
CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on __________ (the “Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a California chartered municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California ("City)," and On Ice LLC, a limited liability company ("Licensee") (individually, a “Party”, and, collectively, the “Parties”).
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the City wishes to continue to license the construction and operation of a seasonal ice rink for entertainment and amusement of the public in Central Park; and WHEREAS, Licensee wishes to operate the seasonal ice rink in Central Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the receipt and adequacy of which is acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. LICENSE TO USE PREMISES. The City grants Licensee a license to operate a seasonal ice rink in Central Park on the infield of the Fitzgerald baseball field, shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, with the specific location and dimensions to be determined by the City, by and through its Landscape Resources Manager.
2. TERM OF LICENSE. Licensee shall have access to the Premises in order to set up, take down, and operate the seasonal ice rink for five rink seasons commencing October 25, 2022, and ending January 31, 2027.
3. PERSONNEL. Licensee shall be entirely responsible for the operation of the ice rink and the employment of personnel for said purpose. All compensation of such personnel will be paid by Licensee. City may review Licensee's personnel on a periodic basis to determine that such personnel are operating in a safe, efficient and courteous manner. Any complaints to the City regarding reports of unprofessional behavior will be forwarded to the Licensee for investigation and necessary corrective action.
4. ANNUAL SCHEDULE AND HOURS OF OPERATION. Licensee shall operate the ice rink for a seasonal period, generally mid-November through mid-January with the final dates determined annually in coordination with the Parks and Landscape Manager and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. The final dates shall be determined no later than August 1st of each year. Licensee may access the Premises for set up and take down starting no earlier than October 25th and ending no later than January 31st annually. Licensee shall operate such hours daily as shall best serve the convenience of the public. Licensee may adjust the hours of operation within normal park hours to accommodate periods of higher use, such as special events, inclement weather, or problems with equipment. Licensee shall keep posted hours during which the ice rink will operate.
5. OPERATION.
5.1. Operation of ice rink shall always be subject to the approval of the Parks and Recreation Director or his or her designee.
5.2. Licensee acknowledges that City's primary purpose in entering into this license is to provide for the convenience and accommodation of the public.
5.3. Licensee agrees to make reasonable efforts to accommodate the needs of persons using and 97 of 509
2 6
0 7
2 visiting the Premises. Licensee shall use reasonable diligence to conduct said business so that it shall not become a nuisance or interfere unreasonably with the rights of other persons.
5.4. Licensee will not seek any reimbursement or other payment from the City for incurring maintenance and/or repair costs and expenses related to the ice rink.
6. UTILITIES: Licensee will be responsible for all utility charges, except for water. At the end of each season, the City will, in good faith, calculate the energy consumption on a pro rata basis and invoice Licensee for consumption and any associated work performed to connect machinery.
Payment is due no later than June 30 of each year following the end of ice rink season. Licensee shall not operate in successive years unless prior year invoices have been paid in full.
7. PARKING AND ACCESS: Vehicle access into Central Park shall be through the Fifth (5th) Avenue gate and shall be limited to vehicles necessary for set up and dismantling. No vehicle may drive past the field entrance into other areas of Central Park. Licensee will be allowed the use of one (1) parking spot inside Central Park for employee parking. Delivery or work vehicles shall not be kept in Central Park for an extended period of time as determined by the Director or his or her designee. Licensee shall ensure that emergency vehicles, pedestrians and other authorized vehicles are provided a safe path of travel into Central Park.
8. AMPLIFIED MUSIC: Amplified music is allowed during the hours of ice rink operation and may not exceed the noise levels set forth in the City’s Noise Ordinance codified at Chapter 7.30 of the Municipal Code.
9. LOSS OF DAMAGE TO PROPERTY OR EQUIPMENT. City shall not be responsible for the loss of or damage to, property and/or equipment used in the operation of the ice rink, by reason of fire, theft, vandalism or otherwise. Licensee will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, arising out of loss of or damage to, property and/or equipment used in the operation of the ice rink for any reason whatsoever.
10. INSTALLATION, REMOVAL AND CLEAN UP: Upon completion of each ice rink season, the ice rink and associated structures shall be promptly dismantled by no later than 31st January of the ongoing season and the Premises shall be restored to their original state and left in a clean and presentable condition as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation or his or her designee.
11. SAFETY AND EMERGENCIES. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enter the Premises occupied by the Licensee for the purposes of safety, emergency, health, maintenance, or any other lawful purpose. The City shall not interfere in the Licensee’s activities generally but retains the rights to temporarily restrict or halt the Licensee’s activities if necessary and solely in the event of an emergency.
12. OTHER PERMITS AND LICENSES: Licensee shall obtain all permits and licenses required by the laws of any federal, state, local or other governmental agency that may be required in order for the Licensee to operate an ice rink in accordance with this License.
13. APPLICABLE LAWS. Licensee shall not use or permit the Premises, or any part thereof, to be used in whole or in part for any purpose other than as hereinabove set forth. Licensee shall at all times obey and comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, including any orders and guidelines issued by the San Mateo County Health Department and the City related to COVID-19 (collectively referred to as “Applicable Laws”), and further agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from any penalties or charges imposed on the City for any violation by Licensee or others under its control or invitees, of any and all Applicable Laws. 98 of 509
3 6
0 7
2 14. TAXES: Licensee recognizes and understands that, in the event that the County of San Mateo interprets this Agreement to create any real property possessory interests subject to the County’s possessory interest tax, Licensee is responsible for payment of those taxes.
15. DAMAGE TO PREMISES: Any damage to Premises or to adjacent areas caused by Licensee or others under its control or invitees shall be immediately reported to the Parks and Landscape Manager or his/her designee. Unless otherwise agreed to, City shall make the repair at Licensee’s expense.
16. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNITY PROVISION. Licensee agrees to hold harmless and indemnify City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of or related to the Licensee’s activities pursuant to this License, except for those claims arising out of City's sole negligence or willful misconduct. Licensee agrees to defend City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and volunteers, against any such claims.
17. INSURANCE. Licensee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract the insurance specified in Exhibit A to this Agreement.
18. DESTRUCTION OF PREMISES: In the event that during the term of this License, the Premises are damaged or destroyed by fire or other calamity that prevents the occupancy of the whole or substantial portion of the Premises, this License may be terminated at the option of either the City or the Licensee, provided that the Premises cannot be restored to a reasonable occupancy level within a reasonable time after such destruction or damage.
19. USE AND DISPOSAL OF TOXIC OR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. Licensee shall only use, store, and dispose of toxic or hazardous substances on the Premises in conformance with governing federal and state laws and regulations. A copy of all notifications of the presence of such substance on the Premises shall be provided to the City before such substances are used or stored on or brought to the Premises, and the City shall have the right to order that any such substance be removed from the Premises. In addition, Licensee shall not bring any such substance on City property unless it is to be used on the Premises.
20. SUCCESSORS. The terms and conditions of this License shall, subject to the restrictions on subleasing and assignment contained in this License, apply to and bind the successors, heirs, and assigns to the Licensee.
21. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND ACCESS. Licensee warrants that it is an Equal Opportunity Employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither Licensee nor any of its officers, agents, employees, or contractors shall discriminate in the employment of any person because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or age, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Neither Licensee nor any of its officers, agents, employees, or contractors shall discriminate in the use of the Premises by any person because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or age, and at all times, Licensee shall ensure that the Premises conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Federal regulations promulgated pursuant to the ADA.
22. TERMINATION. This License may be terminated on 180 days' written notice by either party to the other. In addition, City may terminate this License immediately upon the happening of any of the following:
A) Filing a petition, voluntarily or involuntarily, for the adjudication of Licensee as a bankrupt; 99 of 509
4 6
0 7
2 B) Licensee’s breach of any term or condition of this License; C) The occurrence of any act by Licensee which operates to deprive Licensee permanently of the ability to perform Licensee's obligation; and
D) Licensee’s abandonment or discontinuance of operations at the Premises.
23. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Under no circumstances shall one party to this agreement be liable to the other party for any special, consequential, indirect or incidental damages, including lost profits, arising out of or in connection with this agreement or any activities performed in connection with this agreement, regardless of whether a claim made by that party is based on contract or tort.
24. ATTORNEY FEES. Attorney fees in an amount not exceeding $5,000 shall be recoverable as costs by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this License. The above- mentioned $5,000 limit is the maximum attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, both or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals or actions. It is the intent that neither party to this contract shall have to pay the other more than $5,000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions, to enforce the provisions of this License.
25. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLEASING. Licensee shall not assign this license, or any portion thereof, nor sublet or sub-contract the operation without the prior written consent of the City.
26. NOTICES. Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses:
To CITY: Business Manager, Parks and Recreation
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Ave.
San Mateo, CA 94403
To Licensee: On Ice LLC
Pete Mott, Managing Member
42 El Nido Drive
Napa, CA 94559
27. GENERAL PROVISIONS
27.1 Nothing herein, express or implied, is intended to or shall confer upon any third person, any legal or equitable right, or remedy, nor may any provision hereof be enforced by any third party.
27.2 The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with California law. Any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in County of San Mateo, California.
27.3 This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties relating to the License and the rights and obligations of the Parties arising under this Agreement. The Exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior written or oral communication between the Parties relating to the License. 100 of 509
5 6
0 7
2 27.4 The waiver of any breach of a term or condition of this License shall not constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach.
27.5 Licensee is responsible for preparing and implementing an emergency and evacuation plan for multiple contingencies such as fire, earthquake, accident, etc. It is recommended that Licensee maintain an emergency supply kit consisting of a first aid, water, flashlight, and other emergency supplies.
27.6 During the term of this Agreement and for an additional period of 2 years thereafter, LICENSEE shall maintain accurate records pertaining to the operation of the ice rink.
27.7 It is expressly agreed that the Parties shall be independent contractors and that the relationship between the Parties shall not constitute a partnership, joint venture or agency.
27.8 If any provision of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, is found by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, such provision shall be severable and shall not, in any way, impair the enforceability of any other provision of this License Agreement.
27.9 This Agreement may be amended, in writing, and signed by the Parties.
27.10 This Agreement may be executed in one of more counterparts, which shall together constitute one and the same Agreement.
SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS:
101 of 509
6 6
0 7
2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF SAN MATEO and On Ice LLC, a California limited liability corporation have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN MATEO On Ice LLC
Sheila Canzian
Director of Parks and Recreation
On Ice LLC
Pete Mott
Managing Member
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Gabrielle Whelan
Assistant City Attorney
102 of 509
7 6
0 7
2 EXHIBIT A
103 of 509
8 6
0 7
2 EXHIBIT B
Insurance Requirements
Licensee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the Licensee’s operation and use of the premises. The cost of such insurance shall be borne by the Licensee.
MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1.Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $2M each occurrence). If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2.Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. (for Clubs with employees).
3.Property insurance against all risks of loss to any tenant improvements or betterments, at full replacement cost with no coinsurance penalty provision.
4. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Contractor has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
If the Licensee maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
Other Insurance Provisions:
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status
The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Licensee including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Licensee’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10.)
Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Licensee’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any 104 of 509
9 6
0 7
2 insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Licensee’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.
Waiver of Subrogation
Licensee hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Licensee may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Licensee agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.
Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the Licensee shall obtain coverage to reduce or eliminate such self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the Licensee shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses.
The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.
Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements at any time, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
Verification of Coverage
Licensee shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Licensee’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. 105 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
5 5
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 12 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-5991 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Library Department
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
San Mateo Public Library Foundation Operating Lease – Amendment RECOMMENDATION:
Approve an amendment to the Property Lease and Operating Agreement with the San Mateo Public Library Foundation to extend the lease for an additional year commencing retroactively to April 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023, and authorize the City Librarian to execute the amendment.
BACKGROUND:
The San Mateo Public Library Foundation (SMPLF) leases office space in the Main Library to accommodate Foundation employees who perform fund development duties in support of the Library Foundation’s mission. The Commercial Property Lease Agreement and Operating Agreement between the City of San Mateo and San Mateo Public Library Foundation was signed on December 14, 2007. Subsequent lease extensions through March 31, 2022 have been approved by the City Council. This Amendment represents a one-year extension of the lease agreement retroactive to April 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023.
In fiscal year 2021-22, the Library Foundation awarded $200,000 for support of programs and collections. The successful 2020 and 2021 Author Gala events raised funds to support and expand the Library's outreach program.
BUDGET IMPACT:
In consideration of the financial support the SMPLF fulfills on behalf of the San Mateo Public Library, the rental amount of the lease will continue to be set at the nominal rate of $12 per annum.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This lease is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Lease Amendment
106 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
5 5
STAFF CONTACT
Marcia Mendonca, Senior Management Analyst
[email protected]
(650) 522-7805
James Moore, City Librarian
[email protected]
(650) 522-7810
107 of 509
2 4
9 7
AMENDMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LEASE
AGREEMENT AND OPERATING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND
THE SAN MATEO PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo (“City”), a municipal corporation of the State of California, and the San Mateo Public Library Foundation, a California non-profit corporation (“Foundation”), entered into a Commercial Property Lease Agreement and Operating Agreement for space at the San Mateo Main Library (“Lease”) on December 14, 2007; WHEREAS, the lease was previously extended from December 14, 2008 through March 31, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City and Foundation wish to amend the Lease to extend its term for one year;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Paragraph 1 of the Lease is amended to read:
“The term of this Lease shall be from April 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023, unless terminated pursuant to Paragraph 20.”
2. The remaining terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
CITY OF SAN MATEO SAN MATEO PUBLIC LIBRARY
FOUNDATION
_____________________________ ______________________________ _____________________________ ______________________________ (print name) (print name)
Date: _____________________ Date: ____________________
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Assistant City Attorney
108 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
4 0
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 13 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-5968 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Human Resources Department
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
San Mateo City Employees' Association Memorandum of Understanding – Amendment RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution to amend the Memorandum of Understanding with the San Mateo City Employees' Association for salary increases and a term through June 22, 2024.
BACKGROUND:
The San Mateo City Employees' Association (SMCEA) represents approximately 125 employees throughout the City.
Prior to the pandemic, the City’s General Fund Long-Term Financial Plan assumed annual employee salary increases of two percent (2%). Due to the immediate and severe impact to transient occupancy tax and sales tax revenues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the City chose to tap into the Rainy-Day Reserve to prevent layoffs and conduct concessions bargaining. SMCEA was the second bargaining unit to agree to concessions that were equivalent to zero percent (0%) salary increase in fiscal year 2022 to support the Fiscal Sustainability Plan.
This agreement was reached on January 11, 2021 and adopted by City Council on February 1, 2021. The Memorandum of Understanding included a contract extension option that included the equivalent of zero percent (0%) salary increase in fiscal year 2023 in continued support of the City’s Fiscal Sustainability Plan.
The Adopted 2021-22 Budget assumed zero percent (0%) salary increases for members of SMCEA. The mid-year budget update presented to the City Council on January 18, 2022, projected increased General Fund revenues of $10.7 million and decreased expenditures of $2.8 million, providing funds to support salary increases for those bargaining units that agreed to concessions.
Negotiations with SMCEA concluded on March 23, 2022, and the membership subsequently ratified the proposed changes to their Memorandum of Understanding. Consistent with the direction provided by the City Council, negotiators for the City and the bargaining unit have reached agreement.
These agreements include:
Term: The contract will be extended for two additional years, expiring on June 22, 2024.
Salary: The bargaining unit will receive a 4.0% salary increase effective May 1, 2022, and a 4.0% increase effective June 25, 2023.
109 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
4 0
Retiree Health Savings Account (RHSA): The City’s contribution will return to 1.0% on the pay period beginning June 26, 2022.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Approval of the compensation resolution results in an increase of $76,935 total compensation for SMCEA members for the remainder of the fiscal year. It is projected that there are sufficient budget appropriations in the 2021-22 operating budget to absorb the additional cost. Updated salary and benefit amounts for these positions will be incorporated into the 2022- 23 budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This item is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
Exhibit A – Tentative Agreement
STAFF CONTACT
Teresa Abrahamsohn, Director of Human Resources
[email protected]
650.522.7276
110 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2022)
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND THE SAN MATEO CITY EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred, and have tentatively agreed to amend the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the San Mateo City Employees’ Association (Unit); and
WHEREAS, the amendments are related to salary, term, and other compensation; and
WHEREAS, the Unit has ratified the amendments to the MOU (Tentative Agreement); and
WHEREAS, no appropriation of additional funds to the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget is necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that:
1. The Tentative Agreement is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)
2. The amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding for the San Mateo City Employees’ Association, set forth in the Tentative Agreement attached as Exhibit A, is approved and summarized as follows:
Term: The contract will be extended for two additional years expiring on June 22, 2024.
Salary: The bargaining unit will receive a 4.0% salary increase effective May 1, 2022, and a 4.0% increase effective June 25, 2023.
Retiree Health Savings Account (RHSA): The City’s contribution will return to 1.0% on the pay period beginning June 26, 2022.
3. There is no budget impact in the current fiscal year for these recommended changes, as any increases can be absorbed within existing operating budgets. Updated salary and benefit amounts for these positions will be incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget. 111 of 509
TENTATIVE AGREEMENT
Between the San Mateo City Employees’ Association and the City of San Mateo Salary Increase and Reinstatement of RHSA
12.1 Compensation Increases During the Term of this Agreement
12.1.1 Base Salary Adjustments
The Unit will be given a base salary adjustment as outlined bel ow. The Unit will receive the following across the board increases during the term of this agreement:
June 16, 2019 3.0%
January 10, 2021 2.0%
January 9, 2022 1.0%
June 26 May 1, 2022 4.0%
June 25,2023 4.0%
19.2 Vacation Allowance
Employees shall accrue vacation with pay at the beginning of the following biweekly pay period as follows:
YRS OF SERVICE DAYS
PER YEAR
BIWEEKLY ACCRUAL
0 through 3rd year 11 days 3.39 biweekly
4th year through 9th year 16 days 4.93 biweekly
10th year 17 days 5.23 biweekly
11th year 18 days 5.54 biweekly
12th year 20 days 6.16 biweekly
13th through 23rd year 22.5 days 6.93 biweekly
24 years and beyond 25 days 7.69 biweekly
The above allowances shall be pro-rated for employees beginning employment or leaving employment with the City during a biweekly pay period.
24.11 Retirement Health Savings Account
All employees in the Unit will continue to be enrolled in the RHS Account (RHSA) in accordance with the Plan design. The administration costs of maintaining this RHSA will be borne by the City.
For calendar year 2019, separation pay contributions to each employee’s RHSA shall be as specified in the side letter of agreement attached to this document and identified as Exhibit “D”.
The Unit may elect to change the above conversion of separation pay arrangement for each successive calendar year of this Agreement. The Unit must notify the City’s Human
Exhibit A
112 of 509
Resources Department in writing no later than November 30th of the change(s) to be made for the following calendar year. In the event notification is not received by the deadline, the separation pay arrangement in effect at the time will continue for the following calendar year.
During the term of this MOU, employees in this bargaining unit may elect to contribute a set amount of salary to the RHSA. The City shall be notified of any such election sixty (60) days prior to the effective date.
Beginning June 16, 2019, the City will contribute one percent (1.0%) of base salary per month for each employee into the RHSA plan. Effective July 11, 2021, the City’s contribution shall be 0.5%. The City’s contribution shall return to 1.0% on June 26, 2022. unless extended by the Unit in accordance with Article 43.0 MOU Extension Option.
Beginning June 16, 2019, the City shall contribute two percent (2.0%) of base salary per pay period to the Retirement Health Savings accounts of those employees aged 45 or over with 15 or more years of City service. Employees who become eligible for this contribution during the term of the agreement shall begin receiving contribu tions in the first full pay period following establishing elig ibility. The continuation of this provision beyond the term of the contract would need to be made by mutual agreement between the parties.
42.0 Termination of Agreement
This Agreement shall terminate as of 11:59 p.m., June 2522, 20222024.
The existing and unmodified rules, regulations, resolutions or ordinances relating to wages, hours, and conditions of employment not covered in this Agreement for employees in this Unit shall remain unchanged for said period unless such changes are the result of meeting and conferring as required by law.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the City Council may increase the benefits for the General Unit or may increase the wages of specific clas sifications in the General Unit.
43.0 MOU Extension Option
The Unit has the sole discretion to extend the terms and conditions of this MOU with the following provisions:
12.1.1. Base Salary Adjustments
The Unit will receive the following across the board increase:
January 13, 2023 1%
24.11 Retirement Health Savings Account
113 of 509
The City’s RHS contribution shall remain at 0.5% through the term of the extension (June 24, 2023). The City’s RHS contribution shall return to
1.0% on June 25, 2023.
42.0 Termination of Agreement
The Agreement shall terminate as of 11:59 p.m., June 24, 2023.
The Unit must notify the City in writing on or before March 15, 2022 that they will be exercising their right to extend the MOU under this Article.
Any term and condition of the May 18, 2019 – May 15, 2021 MOU not identified above shall remain in full force and effect through the term of this Agreement.
This Tentative Agreement needs to be fully executed no later than 5:00 pm March 30, 2022 and notice of Union ratification needs to be received by the City no later than 5:00 pm April 13, 2022, in order for the above provisions to occur.
Dated:
FOR THE SMCEA FOR THE CITY OF SAN MATEO
John Noble Stacey Cue
114 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
9 6
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 14 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-6085 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Finance Department
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance – Commitment Approval RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution to authorize the commitment of $5,500,000 of General Fund unassigned fund balance for negotiated increases to employee compensation and $4,500,000 for capital improvement projects.
BACKGROUND:
As presented during the City Council special meeting on April 18, 2022, General Fund total revenues are projected to end fiscal year (FY) 2021-22 even more favorably than previously projected during the mid-year budget update in January 2022. Real property transfer tax (RPTT) revenues, which continue to exceed expectations, are projected to end the year at $16.0 million, which is $3.0 million more than previously estimated. Transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues have recovered faster from the pandemic-driven recession than expected, and are projected to end FY 2021-22 at $3.0 million, which is a favorable variance of $2.0 million. TOT revenues have been buoyed by an average occupancy rate of nearly 60% from July 2021 through February 2022.
Anchored by the above updated estimates, General Fund total revenues are projected to end FY 2021-22 at $160.2 million, while total expenditures are projected to be $146.6 million. If these current estimates come to fruition, the General Fund will realize a $13.6 million increase in fund balance. Within the context of the favorable results above, the proposed resolution commits $10.0 million of the General Fund unassigned fund balance, $5.5 million of which is for the additional cost of negotiated increases in employee compensation and the remaining $4.5 million is to provide support for the City's capital improvement plan for 2022-27, including the high-voltage streetlight conversion ($1.6 million), structural improvements to the Marina Library ($1.8 million), and pedestrian mall construction ($0.6 million).
BUDGET IMPACT:
Pursuant to the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement Number 54, there are five different types of fund balance classifications, from most constrictive to least constrictive: nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned. Adoption of the proposed resolution will reclassify $10.0 million of General Fund unassigned fund balance, the least constrictive category, to committed. In the future, if the Council wishes to uncommit the committed fund balance, it would do so via resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This commitment of unassigned fund balance is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).) 115 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
9 6
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Proposed Resolution
STAFF CONTACT
Rich Lee, Director, Finance
[email protected]
(650) 522-7102
116 of 509
6 3
2 7
CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2022)
APPROVING THE COMMITMENT OF $5,500,000 OF GENERAL FUND UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE FOR THE COST OF NEGOTIATED CHANGES TO EMPLOYEE SALARIES AND BENEFITS AND $4,500,000 OF GENERAL FUND
UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WHEREAS, the City Council received a mid-year budget update for fiscal year (FY) 2021-22 where General Fund total revenues are projected to be $160.2 million, while total expenditures are projected to be $146.6 million, largely due to additional real property transfer tax revenues and better recovery of the transient occupancy tax; and
WHEREAS, the Council may commit unrestricted fund balance for a specific purpose by resolution; and WHEREAS, the City negotiated concessions with its bargaining units as a part of the City’s Fiscal Sustainability Plan to provide financial relief to the General Fund in response to the immediate and severe financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, based on the improved financial condition of the City as reported during the fiscal year 2021- 22 mid-year budget update on January 18, 2022, the City completed negotiations with the bargaining units that provided concessions to provide them with compensation increases that will cost the General Fund an additional $5,500,000 between FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 in recognition of partnering with the City to address the pandemic-driven recession; and
WHEREAS, there is an escalated need for additional funding support for capital improvement projects in FY 2022-23 and 2023-24, including $1,625,000 for the high voltage street light conversion project, $1,725,000 for structural improvements to the Marina Library, and $600,000 for Pedestrian Mall Construction as a part of Downtown Phase I improvements, which will come from $4,500,000 in additional support from the General Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, RESOLVES that:
1. This action is not a project subject to CEQA because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)
2. A General Fund unassigned fund balance of $5,500,000 is committed for negotiated employee compensation increases.
3. A General Fund unassigned fund balance of $4,500,000 is committed for additional funding support for capital improvement projects.
117 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
7 9
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 15 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-6063 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Parks and Recreation Department
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool – Resolution in Support RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution to call upon Sutter Health to reopen the Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool located at the Mills Health Center in San Mateo for community use.
BACKGROUND:
For 25 years, the Mack E. Mickelson Therapy Pool at the Mills Health Center has been the only fully accessible pool in San Mateo County that provides warm water therapy programs and services to children and adults with a wide range of mobility, disability and rehabilitation needs. Sutter Health understandably closed the facility in March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, in June 2021, Sutter Health announced that the pool would be permanently closed to community use. The closure has left hundreds of vulnerable individuals without access to warm water therapy that they had come to rely on for many years.
At its April 4th meeting, the City Council requested that a Resolution calling upon Sutter Health to reopen the Mickelson Therapy Pool for community use be drafted for its consideration.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact for taking this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
STAFF CONTACT
Sheila Canzian, Director, Park and Recreation
[email protected]
(650) 522-7404
118 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2022)
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF REOPENING THE MACK E. MICKELSON ARTHRITIS AND REHABILITATION CENTER
THERAPY POOL FOR COMMUNITY USE AT THE MILLS HEALTH CENTER IN SAN MATEO WHEREAS, the Mack E Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool is an Americans with Disabilities Act accessible warm water therapy pool operated by Sutter Health and located at the Mills Health Center in San Mateo, California ; and
WHEREAS, the Mickelson Therapy Pool was constructed over 25 years ago using charitable contributions from residents of San Mateo County to serve as the centerpiece of an arthritis and rehabilitation center by Mills Peninsula; and
WHEREAS, for the past 25 years the Mickelson Therapy Pool has been used by thousands of children and adults of San Mateo County who suffer from a broad range of health issues, including permanent disabilities, debilitating injuries, autoimmune disorders and as well as those requiring rehabilitation from surgeries, strokes and other mobility impairments, such as arthritis; and WHEREAS, the Mickelson Therapy Pool is the only pool of its kind in San Mateo County, providing full access for the disabled and maintaining a water temperature that can adequately support the needs of those suffering from acute and chronic pain; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo has been designated an Age Friendly City by AARP and the World Health Organization and strives to provide the resources and services necessary to allow older adults to remain vibrant and independent in the community; and
WHEREAS, in spite of the critical need for the facility, Sutter Health announced in June 2021 that it was permanently closing the Mickelson Therapy Pool to independent use, removing a valuable healthcare facility for people needing this resource; and
WHEREAS, the community has shared with Sutter Health its overwhelming support to re-open the Mickelson Therapy Pool and restore the services this facility provides to those suffering from a broad range of health issues.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES to call upon Sutter Health to promptly reopen the Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool for those community members who have historically relied upon and benefited from the warm water therapy it provided so that they may continue to live healthy, vibrant and independent lives. 119 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 9
2 7
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 16 Section Name: OLD BUSINESS File ID: 22-5866 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
SUBJECT:
General Plan Update – Selection of the Preferred Land Use and Circulation Scenario RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a preferred land use and circulation scenario and direct staff to finalize the land use and circulation maps that will go into the draft General Plan Update.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s General Plan Update (GPU) kicked off in the fall of 2018 and began with a series of visioning workshops and community meetings. From April 2019 through January 2022, the General Plan team held a series of meetings and events to establish the General Plan study areas, create the range of land use and circulation alternatives, confirm the draft alternatives, and receive feedback on the preferred land use and circulation scenario with the community. This City Council meeting will be the final step in the land use and circulation alternatives selection process. More information about the outreach process, including meeting materials and recordings and public comment letters, is available at www.StriveSanMateo.org.
Overview of Alternatives Process
The land use alternatives explore different possible growth scenarios for how to accommodate future housing, jobs, commercial and retail establishments, and parks and open space. The City is proactively planning to meet the requirements of State housing law, identify solutions to transportation and housing affordability issues, be prepared for the projected population and job growth in the region and locally, and other issues such as improving community health, equity, and access to services. This work is guided by the General Plan Vision and Values established at the outset of the project (Attachment 1).
The process to create the land use and circulation alternatives and to ultimately select a preferred land use and circulation scenario has taken approximately two years and been shaped by community input at every significant step of the process.
In general, each step of the alternatives process includes a similar series of meetings: first, community workshop(s) and outreach events, then General Plan Subcommittee (GPS) meeting(s), followed by Planning Commission meeting(s), and culminating in City Council direction. For additional information about the steps to create the alternatives and ultimately select a preferred land use and circulation scenario, please refer to the July 27, 2021 Planning Commission agenda report.
DISCUSSION:
Overview of the Land Use Alternatives
The land use alternatives explore a range of residential growth within the 10 Study Areas based on both response to community input and the need to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 7,015 housing units for the next housing cycle (2023-2031). In addition, since the General Plan is planning for the next 20 years, the 120 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 9
2 7
preferred land use scenario should account for residential growth beyond the current RHNA to cover future housing cycles.
The three land use alternatives explore growth of approximately 12,000, 16,000, and 21,000 new residential units. By comparison, San Mateo currently has just over 39,000 housing units. All land use alternatives keep job growth constant despite varying residential growth, with the assumption that the City would not implement policies to either significantly stimulate, nor significantly dampen, job growth. The Alternatives Evaluation Report includes an assessment of future jobs/housing balance given these assumptions. Table 1 provides a summary of the three land use alternatives plus an estimate for the Planning Commission’s recommended land use alternative. The land use alternatives are included as Attachments 2 and 3.
Table 1 – Summary of Draft Land Use Alternatives
Existing (2019)
Alternative A
(Net New)
Alternative B
(Net New)
Alternative C
(Net New)
Planning Commission
Recommendation (Net New)
Homes 39,200 +11,810 +16,070 +21,080 +22,160
Population 104,500 +29,500 +40,260 +53,500 +56,304
Jobs 52,800 +15,430 +15,430 +14,990 +15,183
Source: PlaceWorks, 2022
Measure Y and the Land Use Alternatives
Measure Y is a ballot measure that was passed by voters in November 2020. It retained existing height and density limits that were adopted pursuant to Measure P on new development and has a sunset date of 2030. Overall, the Measure Y height limit is set at up to 55 feet, with a density limit that allows up to 50 dwelling units per acre. The height limit allows for exceptions in certain locations and under certain circumstances, and State Density Bonus law allows projects to exceed both limits when certain percentages of affordable units are provided. As noted above, some of the land use designations in Alternatives B and C include building heights and densities that exceed the limits set by Measure Y. Any GPU components that are inconsistent with Measure Y will require voter approval before they could take effect.
Overview of the Circulation Alternatives
The circulation alternatives explore different ways people could travel throughout San Mateo, improving bicycle, pedestrian, vehicular and transit access to connect residents to regional transportation systems. All the alternatives assume pedestrian and bicycle improvements consistent with adopted City planning documents such as the Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan. The circulation alternatives (Attachment 4) are generally described as follows:
Alternative A: A Walkable City. This alternative aims to create walkable communities throughout San Mateo by prioritizing pedestrian corridors, pedestrian improvements to challenging intersections, and implementing traffic calming and safety improvements near highway on-ramps, and would go beyond the pedestrian improvements contained in the Pedestrian Master Plan.
Alternative B: Prioritizing Regional Connections. This alternative aims to increase and improve transit access to and from major connections in San Mateo by adding transit connections east/west from Study Areas 3, 6, and 10 to the Hillsdale Caltrain station, prioritizing dedicated High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and bus lanes, and adding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) improvements to El Camino Real. Alternative C: Supporting, Walking, Regional Connections, and Emerging Mobility Solutions. This alternative combines the local and regional transportation improvements of Alternatives A and B, while using inventive urban design, inspired by Barcelona’s “superblocks”, to create a pedestrian focused, car-light space in Downtown. In addition, this alternative would explore future transportation technologies, like on-demand rideshare services or an autonomous vehicle shuttle.
Alternatives Evaluation Report
The Alternatives Evaluation Report, which is included as Attachment 5, was prepared to help the community and decisionmakers understand the implications of three different approaches to land use and transportation planning for the 121 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 9
2 7
next 20 years. The report considered a range of topics including Urban Form, Traffic and Multimodal Network, Community Services, Utilities, Environmental Sustainability, Equity and Public Health, Fiscal Sustainability, Market Feasibility and Community Benefits.
The Summary of Key Findings identified that potential impacts to water supply, the wastewater system, stormwater system, sea level rise, flooding, wildfire hazards, and the ability to secure community benefits would be similar or the same under any of the alternatives. All three land use alternatives are estimated to generate more General Fund revenues than expenditures under the City’s current cost structure and service levels. The major differences amongst the land use and circulation alternatives include:
Circulation Alternative B paired with Land Use Alternative C scored the highest in terms of transit benefit. Circulation Alternative C paired with Land Use Alternative C had the highest multi-modal benefit. Land Use Alternative A would likely not be able to meet future RHNA cycles, would have the highest per capita VMT, would propose the fewest changes to the Downtown historic district, and would have the most positive annual net fiscal impact for the City.
Land Use Alternative B would likely be able to fulfill future RHNA cycles, but with a smaller buffer than Alternative C would result in the most changes to the Downtown historic district and would have the best feasibility in the current market, which favors medium densities (40-99 units/acre). Land Use Alternative C would likely be able to fulfill future RHNA cycles within the horizon of this General Plan; would have the lowest per capita VMT; would produce the most affordable housing, but could also expose the most new residents to diesel particulate matter; would have the lowest net annual fiscal surplus; and would have lower feasibility in the current market due to the higher cost of construction for taller buildings.
Environmental Justice
Environmental justice is defined in California law as the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
Environmental justice issues often emerge from structural or geographic inequities that negatively affect low-income areas that are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. Neighborhoods that are disporportionately impacted by pollution and contamination often face an ongoing lack of representation and participation in the city’s decision-making process, despite direct impacts on their neighborhood. Throughout California, inequities exist in neighborhoods with higher percentages of racial or ethnic minority households and lower-income households when those residents bear a disproportionate burden of the region’s environmental hazards and corollary health conditions.
In response to these conditions, in 2017, California’s legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 1000, which added a new requirement for local jurisdictions that include “disadvantaged communities” to address environmental justice as a required topic in the General Plan. In addition, the State developed and is maintaining various tools to help identify “disadvantaged communities” as defined under SB 1000. One prominent tool is Cal EnviroScreen, which was developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on behalf of the California Environmental Protection Agency to help identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution. Updates to the data and methodology used in CalEnviroScreen in summer 2021, finalized in fall 2021, identified new “disadvantaged neighborhoods” in San Mateo that were not identified earlier in the General Plan Update process, specifically the Census tract that includes the North Central neighborhood.
Given that there is an SB 1000 disadvantaged neighborhood in the City, by law, the San Mateo General Plan Update will be required to identify objectives and policies:
To reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities, including reducing pollution exposure, improving air quality, and by promoting public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity.
122 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 9
2 7
To promote civic engagement in the public decision-making process. That prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.
In summer 2022, the City will implement an outreach program targeted to the San Mateo neighborhoods identified as disadvantaged communities. The primary outreach goal will be to hear the impacted communities’ ideas about how to prioritize and improve the most pressing issues facing these residents, in order to develop effective environmental justice policies and actions for the updated General Plan.
Jobs-Housing Balance
Throughout the General Plan Update, the San Mateo community has been interested in how the land use changes and anticipated future growth would affect the city’s jobs-housing balance. Although this topic is often described as “jobs- housing” balance, comparing the number of jobs to the number of residents is a more direct comparison of individuals, rather than comparing people to homes. The jobs-employed residents ratio is calculated by dividing the number of jobs in the community by the number of employed residents in the same area. A high number of jobs relative to residents typically indicates that workers are commuting into the community. A low number of jobs and high number of residents typically indicates that workers are commuting out of the community for work. Theoretically, an ideal jobs-to-employed residents ratio for a city like San Mateo would be 1.0. However, the ratio of jobs to employed residents indicates a numerical match, not a qualitative match in job type vs. resident skills and abilities. Even with an ideal jobs-to-employed residents ratio of 1.0, due to personal choices about where to live and work, many residents will continue to commute outside of San Mateo while workers that do not reside in San Mateo will continue to commute in. The Alternatives Evaluation compared existing conditions as of the baseline year of 2018 plus net new employees and new population projected through 2040 under each alternative.
Alternative A would result in more jobs than employed residents, with a ratio of 1.18. Alternative B result in slightly more jobs than employed residents, with a ratio of 1.05. Alternative C would result in slightly fewer jobs than employed residents, with a ratio of 0.95.
Water Supply
This section presents additional detail about the water supply analysis of the land use alternatives evaluation. The City’s water purveyor is California Water Service (Cal Water), a privately owned water utility company. In all of the alternatives, based on the projections in Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Cal Water would not have sufficient supply to meet the projected demand. This is primarily because all alternatives contemplate population increases that exceed the 2040 population projection used for Cal Water’s UWMP. Cal Water has indicated that they calibrate water supply closely to demand so as not to put ratepayers in the position of paying for supplies years or decades before they are actually needed. The next update of the UWMP, which will happen in 2025, will be created with reference to the projected development allowed under San Mateo’s updated General Plan 2040. The preferred scenario and updated General Plan will be an important input for Cal Water into ongoing future supply planning efforts along with other future conservation measures that could result in decreased water demand.
Environmental Sustainability
The Alternatives Evaluation Report also analyzed how hazards associated with climate change could affect the land use alternatives. In San Mateo, there are three primary climate-related hazards that could affect the physical environment: sea level rise (and associated saltwater intrusion) in the northern and eastern portions of the city, flooding along the eastern shoreline and along Marina Lagoon, and wildfire in the western and southern portions of the city. The eastern side of the city, including portions of Study Areas 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10, could be subject to sea level rise impacts depending on the rate of sea level rise that occurs over this century. In addition, portions of these same study areas are within the FEMA 100- year flood zone and could be susceptible to flooding risks. Since sea level rise and flooding impacts would be localized to the first floor of a structure, all alternatives would be similarly affected by these impacts.
To proactively address the potential impacts of sea level rise, the City of San Mateo is working with regional, state, and federal partners. For example, the City participated in San Mateo County’s 2018 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment 123 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 9
2 7
Report; collaborated with the City/County Association of Government’s process to form the new Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency/OneShoreline; created a new assessment district to fund necessary flood protection improvements; is in the process of completing the North Shoreview Levee and Pump Station Improvement project to provide flood protection to North Shoreview residents; and designed the upgrade and expansion of the wastewater treatment plant to provide protection from the 100-year base flood and 3.4 feet of sea level rise. The City is also engaged through the BayCAN collaborative, a Bay Area-wide collaborative network of local governments and organizations focused on responding effectively and equitably to the impacts of climate change.
Areas in San Mateo that are at risk of wildfire are located west of Alameda De Las Pulgas. Study Area 6 is located within the Wildland Urban Interface, a zone that includes dense housing and vegetation that can burn in a wildfire. However, there are no study areas that are within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as currently mapped by CAL Fire. Land Use Alternative C would add the most housing units and Land Use Alternative A would result in the fewest new housing units in Study Area 6.
Alternatives Process Community Input
Beginning in March 2021, and ongoing through the April 2022 City Council meeting, the City’s community engagement process is providing a range of forums, events and surveys, both in-person and virtual. These outreach efforts, for both the General Plan and Housing Element, have included the hosting of 15 virtual workshops and three online surveys. In addition, the General Plan team has focused targeted outreach to the City’s harder-to-reach demographics, including a Spanish language workshop hosted on February 24, 2022, and conducting three pop-ups in the North Central and Shoreview neighborhoods. A summary of the community engagement and public input on the land use and circulation alternatives and preferred scenarios is included in Attachment 6. Workshop materials and meeting recordings can be found at: www.strivesanmateo.org/workshops-pop-up-events/.
Following the publication of the Alternatives Evaluation Report at the beginning of the year, an online survey to collect resident and stakeholder input on the preferred scenario was launched on Friday, January 21, 2022 and closed on March 7, 2022. In total, the City collected 404 individual responses. The online survey settings limited participants to one response per user. The Communuty Engagement Summary in Attachment 6 includes a summary report of responses received from the online survey. In addition, over 65 public comment letters from residents and property owners were submitted to the General Plan Subcommitte and Planning Commission. Those comment letters, along with all written public comments submitted during the GPU process, can be found at: www.strivesanmateo.org/documents/publiccomments/.
As part of the public input that staff has received, there have been a number of individual land use designation requests from property owners for specific parcels around the City. A summary of these requests, along with their current land use designation, is included as Attachment 7. Many of these requests were considered by the General Plan Subcommittee and the Planning Commission and generally the requests were received favorably (see discussions below). 2022 Community Opinion Survey
The City of San Mateo also conducted a statistically reliable survey about a range of topics including land use and housing in the beginning of 2022. The survey sample size included 775 San Mateo adult residents and was administered in English and Spanish between January 21 and February 2, 2022. The complete 2022 Community Opinion Survey Report is included in Attachment 8. A summary of the main factual findings from the land use and housing questions included:
Approximately two-thirds of residents indicated that there is currently too little housing that is affordable for middle-income (67%) and low-income families (64%) in the City of San Mateo. When asked to prioritize among a list of factors the City could consider as it plans for additional housing units as required by State law, ensuring adequate water supplies (98% at least somewhat important) was viewed as the most important factor, followed by preserving open space and creating new park lands (97%), minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion (95%), creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive (94%), and minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (93%). 124 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 9
2 7
When compared to the other items tested, respondents indicated that keeping building heights low (68%) and minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods (68%) were the least important when planning for future housing in the City.
When presented with the opportunity to reserve more land for parks, recreation areas, and community amenities and minimize change to existing neighborhoods, 63% of San Mateo residents indicated they would support concentrating new housing in higher-density buildings downtown and near transit up to 12 stories. A higher percentage (68%) indicated they would support buildings up to eight stories.
General Plan Subcommittee Meetings
The General Plan Subcommittee (GPS) held two public meetings on February 17, 2022 and March 3, 2022 to consider the results of the Alternatives Evaluation Report and the community input on the preferred circulation and land use scenario.
Although the GPS was not asked to come to consensus, there was agreement on many topics.
Most GPS members preferred Circulation Alternative C as the most thorough response to San Mateo’s current and future transportation needs. Individual GPS members also supported Circulation Alternative A because focusing on pedestrian improvements is responsive to what residents prefer and is more likely to be achieved with future financing than the other two circulation alternatives. Those GPS members who expressed support for Circulation Alternative B cited the need for improved bus transit to meet the needs of service workers. Subcommittee members emphasized the importance of improving first and last mile connections to transit under any preferred circulation scenario.
The GPS reviewed the draft land use alternatives by study area. Each Subcommittee member expressed their individual feedback about the preferred scenario in each study area. In most study areas, Subcommittee members preferred either Land Use Alternative B or C, or a combination of these two land use alternatives. The matrix below summarizes the preference for each alternative by study area.
Table 2 – GPS Member Preferences on the Land Use Alternatives Study Area Alt A Alt B Alt C Other
1 – El Camino Real North 6 1 – B & A
1 – El Camino Real Central 3 1 3 – B & C
1 – El Camino Real South 1 5 1 – B & C
2 – Bel Mateo/Mollie Stone’s 1 6
3 – Rail Corridor 2 5
4 – Downtown 4 2- B & C, 1 – A & C
5 – Peninsula Avenue 1 3 3 – B & C
6 – Campus Drive 1 2 4
7 – North Shoreview and Shoreview 1 1 – C & A, 5 – mix
8 – Parkside Plaza 3 3 1 - mix
9 – Hillsdale/Norfolk 2 4 1 – C & B
10 – Bridgepointe n/a n/a n/a
The Subcommittee also stressed the importance of objective design standards to create beautiful spaces, allowing a mix of uses to provide for future flexibility, and considering air quality impacts to potential residential uses located along US 101 or SR 92.
Planning Commission Meeting
On March 22, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the draft circulation and land use alternatives. The Planning Commission made a recommendation for the preferred circulation scenario and a recommendation for the preferred land use scenario by study area. In most cases, the recommendation was made unanimously (4-0 vote), except for Study Areas 3, 6, and 7 where the recommendation passed with a 3-1 vote.
For the preferred circulation scenario, the Planning Commission recommended that the General Plan include Circulation 125 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 9
2 7
Alternative C and prioritize the implementation of the pedestrian improvements from that alternative, highlighting the need to prioritize pedestrian/bicycle crossings over US 101 and SR 92. As part of this motion, the Planning Commission recommended the City create a Specific Plan for the North Central neighborhood in the context of SB 1000.
For the preferred land use scenario, the Planning Commission primarily recommended a combination of Land Use Alternatives B and C by study area, except for Study Area 7, where they recommended Land Use Alternative A. For the majority of their recommendations, the Planning Commission recommended targeted changes as noted in the table below.
Table 3 – Planning Commission Recommendations on the Land Use Alternatives Study Area Alt A Alt B Alt C Notes
1 – ECR North
X
Change the Commercial Neighborhood at East Poplar Ave to Mixed-Use Medium Incorporate the Mixed-Use High at El Cerrito Ave/Tilton Ave from Land Use Alternative C
Change 7 De Sabla Rd site from Residential Medium to Residential High 1 – ECR Central X Change the Mixed-Use Medium west of El Camino Real to Mixed-Use High Change 1700 El Camino Real site from Office High to Mixed-Use High 1 – ECR South X Change Residential Low along 37 th Ave to Mixed-Use Low 2 – Bel Mateo/
Mollie Stone’s X Change Olympic Village site (42 nd) from Residential Low to Residential Medium Change sites south of 43 rd Ave from Mixed-Use Medium to Mixed-Use Low 3 – Rail Corridor
X
Designate Concar Passage and State Park Green as Mixed-Use Medium to reflect pending projects
Change the area west of the Hayward Park Caltrain station from Mixed-Use High to Mixed-Use Medium
Change the Safeway site from Mixed-Use Medium to Mixed-Use High Change the Commercial Service along Palm Ave to Mixed-Use Medium Reflect the requested designations from the Bohannon Group’s comment letter on the Hillsdale Mall sites
4 – Downtown
X
Change the Residential Low on 3 rd and 4th Ave east of Delaware St to Residential Medium
Change the Residential High along B St south of 5th Ave to Mixed-Use High Support the preparation of an updated Downtown Specific Plan in the future 5 – Peninsula
Avenue X
Change the Residential Medium along Peninsula Ave east of Woodside Way to Mixed-Use Low
Change the Residential Medium along North San Mateo Dr between E Santa Inez Ave and Tilton Ave to Residential High
6 – Campus Drive X Change 2600 Campus Dr site from Residential Low to Residential Medium 7 – North Shoreview
and Shoreview X Change the Commercial Service south of 3rd Ave to Mixed-Use Medium Change the Mixed-Use Low south of 3rd Avenue to Mixed-Use High 8 – Parkside Plaza
X
Change the PS Business Park sites from Residential Medium to Mixed-Use High to reflect the property owner request
Change 1900 S Norfolk St site from Mixed-Use Medium to Commercial Service 9 - Hillsdale/Norfolk X No modifications recommended
10 – Bridgepointe X Do not allow residential uses directly adjacent to SR-92 An updated land use alternative, by study area, that reflects the recommendation made by the Planning Commission has been prepared and is included as Attachment 9.
City Council Direction and Next Steps
Based on the results of the Alternatives Evaluation, the community input collected over the past year, the feedback from the General Plan Subcommittee and the recommendation from the Planning Commission, staff is seeking City Council’s direction on the preferred land use and circulation scenario that will go into the General Plan Update. For land use and circulation topics that are not directly related to the maps, such as allowed uses or circulation policies, Council can provide direction to staff and it will be addressed when the GPU goals, policies and actions are drafted as part of the next phase. 126 of 509
CITY OF SAN MATEO
2 9
2 7
Staff is also seeking direction on the property owner requests contained in Attachment 7 and if they should be incorprated into the preferred land use scenario.
Following the Council’s direction on the preferred land use and circulations scenario, the General Plan team will update and finalize the Draft Circulation Map and Draft Land Use Map. To confirm that the draft maps reflect the Council’s direction, they will be brought back to Council for confirmation in July. This meeting will be the final step in the Preferred Scenario phase of the General Plan Update.
The next phase of the project includes preparation of the goals, policies and actions that go into each Element of the General Plan. The draft goals, policies and actions will be published this summer and presented to the public as part of the next round of community engagement. Community workshops and General Plan Subcommittee meetings will be held over the summer, with meetings before the Planning Commission and City Council in the fall. Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to analyze potential environmental impacts from the General Plan Update will be happening concurrently with this phase. Publication of the Draft General Plan is targeted for the first half of 2023.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are no direct budgetary impacts to taking this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Once the City Council selects the preferred land use and circulation scenarios, preparation of the DEIR for the General Plan Update will commence. Publication of the DEIR for public review is anticipated in the first half 2023 and will be finished prior to any formal decisions on the updated General Plan. The DEIR will have a 45-day public comment period once it is published.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
All comments submitted on this topic are available online at www.strivesanmateo.org/documents/publiccomments. This link includes all comments that have been submitted since the beginning of the GPU effort in September 2018.
NOTICE PROVIDED:
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – General Plan Vision Statement
Att 2 – Land Use Alternatives Citywide
Att 3 – Land Use Alternatives by Study Area
Att 4 – Circulation Alternatives
Att 5 – Alternatives Evaluation Report
Att 6 – Summary of Community Outreach and Public Input
Att 7 – Summary of Property Owner Land Use Requests
Att 8 – 2022 Community Opinion Survey Summary Report
Att 9 – Planning Commission Recommended Land Use Alternative by Study Area Att 10 – Public Comments: www.strivesanmateo.org/documents/publiccomments
STAFF CONTACT
City of San Mateo PlaceWorks
Zachary Dahl, AICP, Deputy Director Joanna Jansen, AICP, LEED AP, Principal (650) 522-7207
[email protected]
127 of 509
Our Vision:
San Mateo is a vibrant, livable, diverse, and healthy community that respects the quality of its neighborhoods, fosters a flourishing economy, is committed to equity, and is a leader in environmental sustainability.
Diversity
We embrace
diversity and
respect the
experiences,
contributions,
and aspirations
of people of all
ages, abilities,
incomes, and
backgrounds.
We celebrate
arts and
culture.
Balance
We seek to
balance
well-designed
development
and thoughtful
preservation
with a full
spectrum
of choices
for housing
and effective
transportation.
Inclusivity
We strive
to include
everyone in
community life
and decisions
for a shared,
sustainable
future.
Prosperity
We cultivate
a diverse
and thriving
economy with
different types
of homes, jobs,
recreation,
lifelong learning
opportunities,
and services
for both current
and future
generations.
Resiliency
We are leaders
in sustainability,
making San
Mateo strong
and resilient by
acting boldly
to adapt to
a changing
world.
Our Values:
Vision
&Values
San Mateo General Plan Update www.strivesanmateo.org
128 of 509
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
HILLSBOROUGH
FOSTER CITY
BELMONT
BURLINGAME
PENINSULA GOLF
AND COUNTRY
CLUB (UNINC)
Monte Diablo Ave
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Kehoe Ave
41st Ave
28th Ave
N AmphlettBlvd
SNorfolkSt
W39th Ave
Tilton Ave
ElCaminoReal
W Hillsdale Blvd
E28thAve
EdinburghSt
WPoplar Ave
16th Ave
S Delaware St
W o odbridgeCir
NEl Camino Real
SaratogaDr
PalmAve
S B St
ParkwoodDr
ClarkDr
30th Ave
31st Ave
Monterey St
SGrantSt
Birch St
LosPrados
Yew St
EPoplar Ave
Lodi Ave
Branson Dr
NSanMateoDr
S Amphlett Blvd
Shoal Dr
Polhemus Rd
Mariners Island Blvd
QueensLn
J Hart Clinton Dr
CampusDr
VanBurenSt
Hacienda St
2ndAve
W3rdAve
CrescentAve
E 3rd Ave
DeAnza Blvd
B orelAve
Sunnybrae Blvd
Eisenhower St
La Selva St
N Humboldt St
43rd Ave
Harvard Rd
Dolores St
Clipper S t
Laurel Ave
FathomDr
W20th Ave
Norton St
DaleAve
Oregon Ave
Flores St
7th Ave
S Claremont St
BucknellDr
Maple St
San Miguel Way
E 39th Ave
VirginiaAve
Casanova Dr
E 40th Ave
Live
OakDr
NewbridgeAve
37th Ave
23rd Ave
York Ave
Clearview
W
ay
S Fremont St
Baldwin Ave
W5th Ave
IsabelleAve
Fernwood St
N Idaho St
Donner St
27th Ave
W 38th AveEdison St
PacificBlvd
PalosVerdes Dr
Kimberly W
ay
HuronAve
Peninsula Ave
WolfeDr
RobertaDr
S Quebec St
1stAve
NEllsworthAve
Annapolis Dr
Kent St
HamletSt
Ottawa St
EnsenadaAve
Shoreview Ave
N Kingston St
17th Ave
Foothill D r
Mason Ln
Royal Ave
Echo Ave
OceanViewAve
Laurie Meadows Dr
Woodland Dr
LosAltosDr
Nevada Ave
EHillsdale Ct
S Humboldt StS Eldorado St
EHillsdaleBlvd
GlendoraDr
FairfaxAve
29th Ave
N Delaware St
Rolling Hills Ave
Occidental Ave
Woodberry Ave
N Claremont St
HighlandAve
W 40th Ave
Pico Ave
Sunset Ter
HurlinghamAve
MarinaCt
Crestwood Dr
Avila Rd
Columbia Dr
Villa Ter
11th Ave
13th Ave
15th Ave
SBayshoreBlvd
SRailroadAve
RamonaSt
N Fremont St
N Grant St
Cobb St
Laurelwood Dr
Shafter St
Castilian Way
Meadow View Pl
Oak St
19th Ave
W 25th Ave
Georgetow
n
Ave
Poinsettia Ave
Madison Ave
N Rochester St
Verdun Ave
Oneill Dr
Alhambra Rd
Guildford Ave
Fallon Ave
BridgepointePkwy
FairmontDr
ViewridgeDr
CountrysideDr
CherrywoodDr
S Norfolk St
S Delaware St
W Hillsdale Blvd
SanFrancisco Bay
£¤101
£¤101
·|}þ 92
·|}þ 82
·|}þ 82
!10
!2
!9
!6
!8
!3
!4
!5
!7
!1
·|}þ 92
El Camino Real
£¤101
N Norfolk St
S Idaho St
Alameda De Las Pulgas
N Humbolt St
E Poplar Ave
3rd Ave
Alameda De Las Pulgas
FashionIsland Blvd
WHillsdale Blvd
Parrot Dr
Bayr idge Way
New Brunswick Dr
Ascension Dr
Burlingame
San
Mateo
Hayward Park
Hillsdale
(Future)
Belmont
Source data: City of San Mateo, 2019; San Mateo County, 2018; Esri, 2019; PlaceWorks, 2019.
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES - ALTERNATIVE A
I2 Caltrain Station
P Privately Owned Public Open Space
Caltrain
Study Areas
San Mateo City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Historic Districts
1,000 Foot Radius Around Caltrain
½ Mile Radius Around Caltrain
0 0.50.25
Miles
Residential Low (1-3 stories, 9 to 39 du/ac)
Residential Medium (4-/ stories, 40-99 du/ac)
Residential High (8+ stories, 100 to 200 du/ac)
Commercial Service (1-3 stories)
Commercial Regional (3+ stories)
Commercial Neighborhood (1-2 stories)
Office Low (1-3 stories)
Office Medium (4-7 stories)
Office High (8+ stories)
Research and Development (3+ stories)
Traditional Light Industrial (3+ stories)
Mixed-Use Low (1-3 stories, 9 to 39 du/ac)
Mixed-Use Medium (4-7 stories, 40-99 du/ac)
Mixed-Use High (8+ stories, 100 to 200 du/ac)
Parks/ Open Space
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
Transportation Corridor
Utilities
Land Use Change Areas
129 of 509
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
HILLSBOROUGH
FOSTER CITY
BELMONT
BURLINGAME
PENINSULA GOLF
AND COUNTRY
CLUB (UNINC)
Monte Diablo Ave
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Kehoe Ave
41st Ave
28th Ave
N AmphlettBlvd
SNorfolkSt
W39th Ave
Tilton Ave
ElCaminoReal
W Hillsdale Blvd
E28thAve
EdinburghSt
WPoplar Ave
16th Ave
S Delaware St
W o odbridgeCir
NEl Camino Real
SaratogaDr
PalmAve
S B St
ParkwoodDr
ClarkDr
30th Ave
31st Ave
Monterey St
SGrantSt
Birch St
LosPrados
Yew St
EPoplar Ave
Lodi Ave
Branson Dr
NSanMateoDr
S Amphlett Blvd
Shoal Dr
Polhemus Rd
Mariners Island Blvd
QueensLn
J Hart Clinton Dr
CampusDr
VanBurenSt
Hacienda St
2ndAve
W3rdAve
CrescentAve
E 3rd Ave
DeAnza Blvd
B orelAve
Sunnybrae Blvd
Eisenhower St
La Selva St
N Humboldt St
43rd Ave
Harvard Rd
Dolores St
Clipper S t
Laurel Ave
FathomDr
W20th Ave
Norton St
DaleAve
Oregon Ave
Flores St
7th Ave
S Claremont St
BucknellDr
Maple St
San Miguel Way
E 39th Ave
VirginiaAve
Casanova Dr
E 40th Ave
Live
OakDr
NewbridgeAve
37th Ave
23rd Ave
York Ave
Clearview
W
ay
S Fremont St
Baldwin Ave
W5th Ave
IsabelleAve
Fernwood St
N Idaho St
Donner St
27th Ave
W 38th AveEdison St
PacificBlvd
PalosVerdes Dr
Kimberly W
ay
HuronAve
Peninsula Ave
WolfeDr
RobertaDr
S Quebec St
1stAve
NEllsworthAve
Annapolis Dr
Kent St
HamletSt
Ottawa St
EnsenadaAve
Shoreview Ave
N Kingston St
17th Ave
Foothill D r
Mason Ln
Royal Ave
Echo Ave
OceanViewAve
Laurie Meadows Dr
Woodland Dr
LosAltosDr
Nevada Ave
EHillsdale Ct
S Humboldt StS Eldorado St
EHillsdaleBlvd
GlendoraDr
FairfaxAve
29th Ave
N Delaware St
Rolling Hills Ave
Occidental Ave
Woodberry Ave
N Claremont St
HighlandAve
W 40th Ave
Pico Ave
Sunset Ter
HurlinghamAve
MarinaCt
Crestwood Dr
Avila Rd
Columbia Dr
Villa Ter
11th Ave
13th Ave
15th Ave
SBayshoreBlvd
SRailroadAve
RamonaSt
N Fremont St
N Grant St
Cobb St
Laurelwood Dr
Shafter St
Castilian Way
Meadow View Pl
Oak St
19th Ave
W 25th Ave
Georgetow
n
Ave
Poinsettia Ave
Madison Ave
N Rochester St
Verdun Ave
Oneill Dr
Alhambra Rd
Guildford Ave
Fallon Ave
BridgepointePkwy
FairmontDr
ViewridgeDr
CountrysideDr
CherrywoodDr
S Norfolk St
S Delaware St
W Hillsdale Blvd
SanFrancisco Bay
£¤101
£¤101
·|}þ 92
·|}þ 82
·|}þ 82
!10
!2
!9
!6
!8
!3
!4
!5
!7
!1
·|}þ 92
El Camino Real
£¤101
N Norfolk St
S Idaho St
Alameda De Las Pulgas
N Humbolt St
E Poplar Ave
3rd Ave
Alameda De Las Pulgas
FashionIsland Blvd
WHillsdale Blvd
Parrot Dr
Bayr idge Way
New Brunswick Dr
Ascension Dr
Burlingame
San
Mateo
Hayward Park
Hillsdale
(Future)
Belmont
Source data: City of San Mateo, 2019; San Mateo County, 2018; Esri, 2019; PlaceWorks, 2019.
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES - ALTERNATIVE B
I2 Caltrain Station
P Privately Owned Public Open Space
Caltrain
Study Areas
San Mateo City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Historic Districts
1,000 Foot Radius Around Caltrain
½ Mile Radius Around Caltrain
0 0.50.25
Miles
Residential Low (1-3 stories, 9 to 39 du/ac)
Residential Medium (4-/ stories, 40-99 du/ac)
Residential High (8+ stories, 100 to 200 du/ac)
Commercial Service (1-3 stories)
Commercial Regional (3+ stories)
Commercial Neighborhood (1-2 stories)
Office Low (1-3 stories)
Office Medium (4-7 stories)
Office High (8+ stories)
Research and Development (3+ stories)
Traditional Light Industrial (3+ stories)
Mixed-Use Low (1-3 stories, 9 to 39 du/ac)
Mixed-Use Medium (4-7 stories, 40-99 du/ac)
Mixed-Use High (8+ stories, 100 to 200 du/ac)
Parks/ Open Space
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
Transportation Corridor
Utilities
Land Use Change Areas
130 of 509
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
HILLSBOROUGH
FOSTER CITY
BELMONT
BURLINGAME
PENINSULA GOLF
AND COUNTRY
CLUB (UNINC)
Monte Diablo Ave
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Kehoe Ave
41st Ave
28th Ave
N AmphlettBlvd
SNorfolkSt
W39th Ave
Tilton Ave
ElCaminoReal
W Hillsdale Blvd
E28thAve
EdinburghSt
WPoplar Ave
16th Ave
S Delaware St
W o odbridgeCir
NEl Camino Real
SaratogaDr
PalmAve
S B St
ParkwoodDr
ClarkDr
30th Ave
31st Ave
Monterey St
SGrantSt
Birch St
LosPrados
Yew St
EPoplar Ave
Lodi Ave
Branson Dr
NSanMateoDr
S Amphlett Blvd
Shoal Dr
Polhemus Rd
Mariners Island Blvd
QueensLn
J Hart Clinton Dr
CampusDr
VanBurenSt
Hacienda St
2ndAve
W3rdAve
CrescentAve
E 3rd Ave
DeAnza Blvd
B orelAve
Sunnybrae Blvd
Eisenhower St
La Selva St
N Humboldt St
43rd Ave
Harvard Rd
Dolores St
Clipper S t
Laurel Ave
FathomDr
W20th Ave
Norton St
DaleAve
Oregon Ave
Flores St
7th Ave
S Claremont St
BucknellDr
Maple St
San Miguel Way
E 39th Ave
VirginiaAve
Casanova Dr
E 40th Ave
Live
OakDr
NewbridgeAve
37th Ave
23rd Ave
York Ave
Clearview
W
ay
S Fremont St
Baldwin Ave
W5th Ave
IsabelleAve
Fernwood St
N Idaho St
Donner St
27th Ave
W 38th AveEdison St
PacificBlvd
PalosVerdes Dr
Kimberly W
ay
HuronAve
Peninsula Ave
WolfeDr
RobertaDr
S Quebec St
1stAve
NEllsworthAve
Annapolis Dr
Kent St
HamletSt
Ottawa St
EnsenadaAve
Shoreview Ave
N Kingston St
17th Ave
Foothill D r
Mason Ln
Royal Ave
Echo Ave
OceanViewAve
Laurie Meadows Dr
Woodland Dr
LosAltosDr
Nevada Ave
EHillsdale Ct
S Humboldt StS Eldorado St
EHillsdaleBlvd
GlendoraDr
FairfaxAve
29th Ave
N Delaware St
Rolling Hills Ave
Occidental Ave
Woodberry Ave
N Claremont St
HighlandAve
W 40th Ave
Pico Ave
Sunset Ter
HurlinghamAve
MarinaCt
Crestwood Dr
Avila Rd
Columbia Dr
Villa Ter
11th Ave
13th Ave
15th Ave
SBayshoreBlvd
SRailroadAve
RamonaSt
N Fremont St
N Grant St
Cobb St
Laurelwood Dr
Shafter St
Castilian Way
Meadow View Pl
Oak St
19th Ave
W 25th Ave
Georgetow
n
Ave
Poinsettia Ave
Madison Ave
N Rochester St
Verdun Ave
Oneill Dr
Alhambra Rd
Guildford Ave
Fallon Ave
BridgepointePkwy
FairmontDr
ViewridgeDr
CountrysideDr
CherrywoodDr
S Norfolk St
S Delaware St
W Hillsdale Blvd
SanFrancisco Bay
£¤101
£¤101
·|}þ 92
·|}þ 82
·|}þ 82
!10
!2
!9
!6
!8
!3
!4
!5
!7
!1
·|}þ 92
El Camino Real
£¤101
N Norfolk St
S Idaho St
Alameda De Las Pulgas
N Humbolt St
E Poplar Ave
3rd Ave
Alameda De Las Pulgas
FashionIsland Blvd
WHillsdale Blvd
Parrot Dr
Bayr idge Way
New Brunswick Dr
Ascension Dr
Burlingame
San
Mateo
Hayward Park
Hillsdale
(Future)
Belmont
Source data: City of San Mateo, 2019; San Mateo County, 2018; Esri, 2019; PlaceWorks, 2019.
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES - ALTERNATIVE C
I2 Caltrain Station
P Privately Owned Public Open Space
Caltrain
Study Areas
San Mateo City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Historic Districts
1,000 Foot Radius Around Caltrain
½ Mile Radius Around Caltrain
0 0.50.25
Miles
Residential Low (1-3 stories, 9 to 39 du/ac)
Residential Medium (4-/ stories, 40-99 du/ac)
Residential High (8+ stories, 100 to 200 du/ac)
Commercial Service (1-3 stories)
Commercial Regional (3+ stories)
Commercial Neighborhood (1-2 stories)
Office Low (1-3 stories)
Office Medium (4-7 stories)
Office High (8+ stories)
Research and Development (3+ stories)
Traditional Light Industrial (3+ stories)
Mixed-Use Low (1-3 stories, 9 to 39 du/ac)
Mixed-Use Medium (4-7 stories, 40-99 du/ac)
Mixed-Use High (8+ stories, 100 to 200 du/ac)
Parks/ Open Space
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
Transportation Corridor
Utilities
Land Use Change Areas
131 of 509
132 of 509
133 of 509
134 of 509
135 of 509
136 of 509
137 of 509
138 of 509
139 of 509
140 of 509
141 of 509
142 of 509
143 of 509
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
HILLSBOROUGH
FOSTER CITY
BELMONT
BURLINGAME
PENINSULA GOLF
AND COUNTRY
CLUB (UNINC)
Monte Diablo Ave
Alam
eda
De L
as Pul
gas
Kehoe Ave
41st Ave
28th Ave
N Amphlett Blvd
SNorfolkSt
W39th Ave
Tilton Ave
ElCaminoReal
W Hillsdale Blvd
E28thAve
Edinburgh
St
WPoplar Ave
16th Ave
S Del
aw
are St
W o odbridgeCir
NEl Camino Real
SaratogaDr
PalmAve
S B St
Parkwood
Dr
ClarkDr
30th Ave
31st Ave
Monterey St
S
GrantSt
Bir
ch St
LosPrados
Yew St
EPoplar Ave
Lodi Ave
Branson Dr
illsboroughBlvd
NSanMateoDr
S Amphlett Blvd
Shoal Dr
Polhemus Rd
Mari
ners
Islan
d B
lvd
QueensLn
J Hart Clinton Dr
CampusDr
VanBuren
St
Hacienda St
2ndAve
W 3rdAve
CrescentAve
E 3rd Ave
De Anza Blvd
BorelAve
Sunnybrae Blvd
Eisenhower St
La Sel
va St
N Humboldt St
43rd Ave
Harvard Rd
Dolores St
Clipper St
Laurel Ave
FathomDr
W20th Ave
Nor
ton
St
DaleAve
Oregon
Ave
Flores St
7th AveS Claremont St
Bucknell Dr
Maple St
San Miguel Way
E 39th Ave
VirginiaAve
Casanova
Dr
E 40th Ave
EdgewoodRd
Live
OakDr
NewbridgeAve
37th Ave
23rd Ave
York Ave
Clearview
W
ay
S Fremont St
Baldwin Ave
W5th Ave
IsabelleAve
Fernwood St
N Idaho St
Donner St
27th Ave
W 38th Ave
Edison St
PacificBlvd
PalosVerdes Dr
Kimberly Way
HuronAve
Peninsula Ave
WolfeDr
RobertaDr
S Quebec
St
1stAve
NEllsworthAve
Annapolis Dr
Kent St
HamletSt
Ottawa St
Ensenada Ave
Shoreview Ave
N K
ing
ston
St
17th Ave
Foothill Dr
Mason
Ln
Royal Ave
Echo Ave
OceanViewAve
Laurie Meadows Dr
Woodland Dr
LosAltosDr
Nevada
Ave
EHillsdale Ct
S Hu
mb
oldt StS Eldorado St
EHillsdale Blvd
GlendoraDr
FairfaxAve
29th Ave
N Delaware St
Rolling Hills Ave
Occi
dental
Ave
Woodberry Ave
N Claremont St
HighlandAve
W 40th Ave
Pico Ave
Sunset
Ter
HurlinghamAve
MarinaCt
Crestwood Dr
Avila Rd
Columbia Dr
Villa Ter
11th Ave
13th Ave
15th Ave
SBayshoreBlvd
SRailroadAve
RamonaSt
N Fremont St
N Grant St
Cobb St
Laurelwood Dr
Shafter St
Castilian Way
Meadow View Pl
Oak St 19th Ave
W 25th Ave
GeorgetownAve
Poinsettia Ave
Madison Ave
N R
ochester
St
Verdun Ave
On
eill D
r
Alhambra Rd
Guildford Ave
Fall
on
Ave
BridgepointePkwy
FairmontDr
ViewridgeDr
CountrysideDr
CherrywoodDr
S Norfolk St
S Delaware St
W Hillsdale Blvd
San Francisco Bay
£¤101
£¤101
!"#$
280
·|}þ 92
·|}þ 82
·|}þ 82
!10
!2
!9
!6
!8
!3
!4
!5
!7
!1
·|}þ 92
El Camino Real
Coyote Point
Recrea�on Area
£¤101
N Norfolk St
S Idaho St
Alameda De Las Pulgas
N Humbol
t St
E Poplar Ave
3rd Ave
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Fashion Island Blvd
W Hillsdale Blvd
Parrot Dr
Bayridge Way
Lexington Ave
New Brunswick Dr
Ascension Dr
Burlingame
San Mateo
Hayward Park
Hillsdale
(Future)
Belmont
Source data: City of San Mateo, 2019; San Mateo County, 2018; Esri, 2019; PlaceWorks, 2019; Nelson Nygaard, 2020.
CIRCULATION CONCEPTS - ALTERNATIVE A (2/14/2020)
0 10.5
Miles
Alternative A: Prioritizing a Walkable City
This alternative aims to create walkable communities
throughout San Mateo by prioritizing pedestrian
corridors, pedestrian improvements to challenging
intersections, and implementing traffic calming and
safety improvements near highway onramps. This
alternative envisions a two-block pedestrian-only street downtown. All the alternatives assume pedestrian and
bicycle improvements consistent with existing City
planning documents.
Alternative A: Circulation
Crossing Improvements
! Current Caltrain At-Grade Crossings
!
Proposed Pedestrian Crossing
Improvements
! Proposed Peninsula Interchange
Project
Line Improvements
2012 Proposed Pedestrian Priority Network
Transit Improvements
El Camino Real Bikeway and Public Realm Improvements
Exis�ng Bikeways
Exis�ng Shared Bike and Ped Path
Pedestrian-Only Space
Proposed Bikeways
Proposed Shared Bike and Ped Path
Missing Sidewalks
Crossing Improvements
! Current Caltrain At-Grade Crossings
!
Proposed Pedestrian Crossing
Improvements
! Proposed Peninsula Interchange
Project
Line Improvements
Sphere of Influence
Study Area
2012 Proposed Pedestrian Priority Network
Transit Improvements
El Camino Real BRT Improvements
Exis�ng Bikeways
Exis�ng Shared Bike and Ped Path
Missing Sidewalks
Proposed Bikeways
Proposed Shared Bike and Ped Path
I2 Caltrain Sta�on
Crossing Improvements
! Current Caltrain At-Grade Crossings
!
Proposed Pedestrian Crossing
Improvements
! Proposed Peninsula Interchange
Project
Line Improvements
Sphere of Influence
Study Area
2012 Proposed Pedestrian Priority Network
Transit Improvements
Exis�ng Pedestrian Mall
(Street Closure)
Exis�ng Pedestrian Mall
(Street Closure)
Exis�ng Pedestrian Mall
(Street Closure)
El Camino Real Bikeway, Public Realm & BRT Improvements Exis�ng Bikeways
Exis�ng Shared Bike and Ped Path
Pedestrian Improvements, Diverted Traffic
Proposed Bikeways
Proposed Shared Bike and Ped Path
Missing Sidewalks
I2 Caltrain Sta�on
Sphere of Influence
Study Area
I2 Caltrain Sta�on
Map Legend
Source data:
City of San Mateo, 2019;
San Mateo County, 2018; Esri,
2019; PlaceWorks, 2019;
Nelson Nygaard, 2020.
0 Scale (Miles)
.5
144 of 509
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
HILLSBOROUGH
FOSTER CITY
BELMONT
BURLINGAME
PENINSULA GOLF
AND COUNTRY
CLUB (UNINC)
Monte Diablo Ave
Alam
eda
De L
as Pul
gas
Kehoe Ave
41st Ave
28th Ave
N Amphlett Blvd
SNorfolkSt
W39th Ave
Tilton Ave
ElCaminoReal
W Hillsdale Blvd
E28thAve
Edinburgh
St
WPoplar Ave
16th Ave
S Del
aw
are St
W o odbridgeCir
NEl Camino Real
SaratogaDr
PalmAve
S B St
Parkwood
Dr
ClarkDr
30th Ave
31st Ave
Monterey St
S
GrantSt
Bir
ch St
LosPrados
Yew St
EPoplar Ave
Lodi Ave
Branson Dr
illsboroughBlvd
NSanMateoDr
S Amphlett Blvd
Shoal Dr
Polhemus Rd
Mari
ners
Islan
d B
lvd
QueensLn
J Hart Clinton Dr
CampusDr
VanBuren
St
Hacienda St
2ndAve
W 3rdAve
CrescentAve
E 3rd Ave
De Anza Blvd
BorelAve
Sunnybrae Blvd
Eisenhower St
La Sel
va St
N Humboldt St
43rd Ave
Harvard Rd
Dolores St
Clipper St
Laurel Ave
FathomDr
W20th Ave
Nor
ton
St
DaleAve
Oregon
Ave
Flores St
7th AveS Claremont St
Bucknell Dr
Maple St
San Miguel Way
E 39th Ave
VirginiaAve
Casanova
Dr
E 40th Ave
EdgewoodRd
Live
OakDr
NewbridgeAve
37th Ave
23rd Ave
York Ave
Clearview
W
ay
S Fremont St
Baldwin Ave
W5th Ave
IsabelleAve
Fernwood St
N Idaho St
Donner St
27th Ave
W 38th Ave
Edison St
PacificBlvd
PalosVerdes Dr
Kimberly Way
HuronAve
Peninsula Ave
WolfeDr
RobertaDr
S Quebec
St
1stAve
NEllsworthAve
Annapolis Dr
Kent St
HamletSt
Ottawa St
Ensenada Ave
Shoreview Ave
N K
ing
ston
St
17th Ave
Foothill Dr
Mason
Ln
Royal Ave
Echo Ave
OceanViewAve
Laurie Meadows Dr
Woodland Dr
LosAltosDr
Nevada
Ave
EHillsdale Ct
S Hu
mb
oldt StS Eldorado St
EHillsdale Blvd
GlendoraDr
FairfaxAve
29th Ave
N Delaware St
Rolling Hills Ave
Occi
dental
Ave
Woodberry Ave
N Claremont St
HighlandAve
W 40th Ave
Pico Ave
Sunset
Ter
HurlinghamAve
MarinaCt
Crestwood Dr
Avila Rd
Columbia Dr
Villa Ter
11th Ave
13th Ave
15th Ave
SBayshoreBlvd
SRailroadAve
RamonaSt
N Fremont St
N Grant St
Cobb St
Laurelwood Dr
Shafter St
Castilian Way
Meadow View Pl
Oak St 19th Ave
W 25th Ave
GeorgetownAve
Poinsettia Ave
Madison Ave
N R
ochester
St
Verdun Ave
On
eill D
r
Alhambra Rd
Guildford Ave
Fall
on
Ave
BridgepointePkwy
FairmontDr
ViewridgeDr
CountrysideDr
CherrywoodDr
S Norfolk St
S Delaware St
W Hillsdale Blvd
San Francisco Bay
£¤101
£¤101
!"#$
280
·|}þ 92
·|}þ 82
·|}þ 82
!10
!2
!9
!6
!8
!3
!4
!5
!7
!1
·|}þ 92
El Camino Real
Coyote Point
Recrea�on Area
£¤101
N Norfolk St
S Idaho St
Alameda De Las Pulgas
N Humbol
t St
E Poplar Ave
3rd Ave
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Fashion Island Blvd
W Hillsdale Blvd
Parrot Dr
Bayridge Way
Lexington Ave
New Brunswick Dr
Ascension Dr
Burlingame
San Mateo
Hayward Park
Hillsdale
(Future)
Belmont
Source data: City of San Mateo, 2019; San Mateo County, 2018; Esri, 2019; PlaceWorks, 2019; Nelson Nygaard, 2020.
CIRCULATION CONCEPTS - ALTERNATIVE A (2/14/2020)
0 10.5
Miles
Alternative B: Prioritizing Regional Connections
This alternative aims to increase and improve transit
access to and from major connections in San Mateo by
adding transit connections from Study Areas 3, 6, and
10 to the Hillsdale Caltrain station, prioritizing dedicated HOV and bus lanes, and adding BRT improvements to
El Camino Real. All the alternatives assume pedestrian
and bicycle improvements consistent with existing City
planning documents.
0 Scale (Miles)
.5
Alternative B: Circulation
Crossing Improvements
! Current Caltrain At-Grade Crossings
!
Proposed Pedestrian Crossing
Improvements
! Proposed Peninsula Interchange
Project
Line Improvements
2012 Proposed Pedestrian Priority Network
Transit Improvements
El Camino Real Bikeway and Public Realm Improvements
Exis�ng Bikeways
Exis�ng Shared Bike and Ped Path
Pedestrian-Only Space
Proposed Bikeways
Proposed Shared Bike and Ped Path
Missing Sidewalks
Crossing Improvements
! Current Caltrain At-Grade Crossings
!
Proposed Pedestrian Crossing
Improvements
! Proposed Peninsula Interchange
Project
Line Improvements
Sphere of Influence
Study Area
2012 Proposed Pedestrian Priority Network
Transit Improvements
El Camino Real BRT Improvements
Exis�ng Bikeways
Exis�ng Shared Bike and Ped Path
Missing Sidewalks
Proposed Bikeways
Proposed Shared Bike and Ped Path
I2 Caltrain Sta�on
Crossing Improvements
! Current Caltrain At-Grade Crossings
!
Proposed Pedestrian Crossing
Improvements
! Proposed Peninsula Interchange
Project
Line Improvements
Sphere of Influence
Study Area
2012 Proposed Pedestrian Priority Network
Transit Improvements
Exis�ng Pedestrian Mall
(Street Closure)
Exis�ng Pedestrian Mall
(Street Closure)
Exis�ng Pedestrian Mall
(Street Closure)
El Camino Real Bikeway, Public Realm & BRT Improvements Exis�ng Bikeways
Exis�ng Shared Bike and Ped Path
Pedestrian Improvements, Diverted Traffic
Proposed Bikeways
Proposed Shared Bike and Ped Path
Missing Sidewalks
I2 Caltrain Sta�on
Sphere of Influence
Study Area
I2 Caltrain Sta�on
Map Legend
Source data:
City of San Mateo, 2019;
San Mateo County, 2018; Esri,
2019; PlaceWorks, 2019;
Nelson Nygaard, 2020.
145 of 509
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
HILLSBOROUGH
FOSTER CITY
BELMONT
BURLINGAME
PENINSULA GOLF
AND COUNTRY
CLUB (UNINC)
Monte Diablo Ave
Alam
eda
De L
as Pul
gas
Kehoe Ave
41st Ave
28th Ave
N Amphlett Blvd
SNorfolkSt
W39th Ave
Tilton Ave
ElCaminoReal
W Hillsdale Blvd
E28thAve
Edinburgh
St
WPoplar Ave
16th Ave
S Del
aw
are St
W o odbridgeCir
NEl Camino Real
SaratogaDr
PalmAve
S B St
Parkwood
Dr
ClarkDr
30th Ave
31st Ave
Monterey St
S
GrantSt
Bir
ch St
LosPrados
Yew St
EPoplar Ave
Lodi Ave
Branson Dr
illsboroughBlvd
NSanMateoDr
S Amphlett Blvd
Shoal Dr
Polhemus Rd
Mari
ners
Islan
d B
lvd
QueensLn
J Hart Clinton Dr
CampusDr
VanBuren
St
Hacienda St
2ndAve
W 3rdAve
CrescentAve
E 3rd Ave
De Anza Blvd
BorelAve
Sunnybrae Blvd
Eisenhower St
La Sel
va St
N Humboldt St
43rd Ave
Harvard Rd
Dolores St
Clipper St
Laurel Ave
FathomDr
W20th Ave
Nor
ton
St
DaleAve
Oregon
Ave
Flores St
7th AveS Claremont St
Bucknell Dr
Maple St
San Miguel Way
E 39th Ave
VirginiaAve
Casanova
Dr
E 40th Ave
EdgewoodRd
Live
OakDr
NewbridgeAve
37th Ave
23rd Ave
York Ave
Clearview
W
ay
S Fremont St
Baldwin Ave
W5th Ave
IsabelleAve
Fernwood St
N Idaho St
Donner St
27th Ave
W 38th Ave
Edison St
PacificBlvd
PalosVerdes Dr
Kimberly Way
HuronAve
Peninsula Ave
WolfeDr
RobertaDr
S Quebec
St
1stAve
NEllsworthAve
Annapolis Dr
Kent St
HamletSt
Ottawa St
Ensenada Ave
Shoreview Ave
N K
ing
ston
St
17th Ave
Foothill Dr
Mason
Ln
Royal Ave
Echo Ave
OceanViewAve
Laurie Meadows Dr
Woodland Dr
LosAltosDr
Nevada
Ave
EHillsdale Ct
S Hu
mb
oldt StS Eldorado St
EHillsdale Blvd
GlendoraDr
FairfaxAve
29th Ave
N Delaware St
Rolling Hills Ave
Occi
dental
Ave
Woodberry Ave
N Claremont St
HighlandAve
W 40th Ave
Pico Ave
Sunset
Ter
HurlinghamAve
MarinaCt
Crestwood Dr
Avila Rd
Columbia Dr
Villa Ter
11th Ave
13th Ave
15th Ave
SBayshoreBlvd
SRailroadAve
RamonaSt
N Fremont St
N Grant St
Cobb St
Laurelwood Dr
Shafter St
Castilian Way
Meadow View Pl
Oak St 19th Ave
W 25th Ave
GeorgetownAve
Poinsettia Ave
Madison Ave
N R
ochester
St
Verdun Ave
On
eill D
r
Alhambra Rd
Guildford Ave
Fall
on
Ave
BridgepointePkwy
FairmontDr
ViewridgeDr
CountrysideDr
CherrywoodDr
S Norfolk St
S Delaware St
W Hillsdale Blvd
San Francisco Bay
£¤101
£¤101
!"#$
280
·|}þ 92
·|}þ 82
·|}þ 82
!10
!2
!9
!6
!8
!3
!4
!5
!7
!1
·|}þ 92
El Camino Real
Coyote Point
Recrea�on Area
£¤101
N Norfolk St
S Idaho St
Alameda De Las Pulgas
N Humbol
t St
E Poplar Ave
3rd Ave
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Fashion Island Blvd
W Hillsdale Blvd
Parrot Dr
Bayridge Way
Lexington Ave
New Brunswick Dr
Ascension Dr
Burlingame
San Mateo
Hayward Park
Hillsdale
(Future)
Belmont
Source data: City of San Mateo, 2019; San Mateo County, 2018; Esri, 2019; PlaceWorks, 2019; Nelson Nygaard, 2020.
CIRCULATION CONCEPTS - ALTERNATIVE A (2/14/2020)
0 10.5
Miles
Alternative C: Supporting Walking,
Regional Connections and Emerging Mobility Solutions
This alternative combines the local and regional
transportation improvements of Alternatives A and B,
while using inventive urban design downtown, inspired
by Barcelona’s “superblocks” that allow vehicle access, while diverting cut-through vehicles to create a pedestrian- focused, car-light space downtown. In addition, this
alternative would explore an automated micromobility
circulator (such as an AV shuttle) within City limits. All the alternatives assume pedestrian and bicycle improvements consistent with existing City planning documents.
0 Scale (Miles)
.5
Alternative C: Circulation
Crossing Improvements
! Current Caltrain At-Grade Crossings
!
Proposed Pedestrian Crossing
Improvements
! Proposed Peninsula Interchange
Project
Line Improvements
2012 Proposed Pedestrian Priority Network
Transit Improvements
El Camino Real Bikeway and Public Realm Improvements
Exis�ng Bikeways
Exis�ng Shared Bike and Ped Path
Pedestrian-Only Space
Proposed Bikeways
Proposed Shared Bike and Ped Path
Missing Sidewalks
Crossing Improvements
! Current Caltrain At-Grade Crossings
!
Proposed Pedestrian Crossing
Improvements
! Proposed Peninsula Interchange
Project
Line Improvements
Sphere of Influence
Study Area
2012 Proposed Pedestrian Priority Network
Transit Improvements
El Camino Real BRT Improvements
Exis�ng Bikeways
Exis�ng Shared Bike and Ped Path
Missing Sidewalks
Proposed Bikeways
Proposed Shared Bike and Ped Path
I2 Caltrain Sta�on
Crossing Improvements
! Current Caltrain At-Grade Crossings
!
Proposed Pedestrian Crossing
Improvements
! Proposed Peninsula Interchange
Project
Line Improvements
Sphere of Influence
Study Area
2012 Proposed Pedestrian Priority Network
Transit Improvements
Exis�ng Pedestrian Mall
(Street Closure)
Exis�ng Pedestrian Mall
(Street Closure)
Exis�ng Pedestrian Mall
(Street Closure)
El Camino Real Bikeway, Public Realm & BRT Improvements Exis�ng Bikeways
Exis�ng Shared Bike and Ped Path
Pedestrian Improvements, Diverted Traffic
Proposed Bikeways
Proposed Shared Bike and Ped Path
Missing Sidewalks
I2 Caltrain Sta�on
Sphere of Influence
Study Area
I2 Caltrain Sta�on
Map Legend
Source data:
City of San Mateo, 2019;
San Mateo County, 2018; Esri,
2019; PlaceWorks, 2019;
Nelson Nygaard, 2020.
146 of 509
Land Use and
Circulation Alternatives Evaluation
for the City of San Mateo | January 14, 2022 – Public Review Draft 147 of 509
148 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................ ........................ 1
1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION ................................ .............. 1
1.2 WHAT IS A GENERAL PLAN? ................................ ......... 2
1.3 ALTERNATIVES PROCESS ................................ ............... 2
1.4 COVID-19 PANDEMIC ................................ .................. 5
1.5 SENATE BILL 9 ................................ .............................. 5
2. Description of Alternatives ................................ .. 6
2.1 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES ................................ ............. 6
2.2 CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES ................................ ..... 34
3. Summary of Key Findings ................................ . 38
3.1 KEY FINDINGS................................ ............................. 38
3.2 BUILDING YOUR PREFERRED SCENARIO .................... 46
4. Project Context ................................ ................. 52
4.1 GENERAL PLAN VISION AND VALUES ......................... 52
4.2 PIPELINE PROJECTS ................................ .................... 52
4.3 AREA PLANS, MASTER PLANS, AND SPECIFIC PLANS.. 53
4.4 THE HOUSING ELEMENT ................................ ............ 54
4.5 OTHER CITYWIDE REGULATIONS AND PROJECTS ....... 58
4.6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUIREMENTS .................. 59
5. Alternatives Evaluation ................................ ...... 60
5.1 URBAN FORM ................................ ............................. 60
5.2 TRAFFIC AND MULTIMODAL CIRCULATION ................ 67
5.3 COMMUNITY SERVICES ................................ .............. 75
5.4 UTILITIES ................................ ................................ .... 84
5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY ............................ 91
5.6 EQUITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH ................................ ..... 96
5.7 FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY ................................ ............ 110
5.8 MARKET FEASIBILITY ................................ ................ 113
5.9 COMMUNITY BENEFITS ................................ ............ 116
6. Next Steps ................................ ...................... 119
Tables
TABLE 1 PROJECTED BUILDOUT CITYWIDE ................................ 6 TABLE 2 PROJECTED BUILDOUT BY STUDY AREA ..................... 17 TABLE 3 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTIONS ................................ ...... 19 TABLE 4 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY
MATRIX ................................ ................................ ....... 40 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS OF
CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES ................................ ..... 45 TABLE 6 APPROVED PROJECTS BY STUDY AREA ....................... 53 TABLE 7 JOBS TO EMPLOYED RESIDENTS RATIO ...................... 63 TABLE 8 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK EVALUATION ........................ 69 TABLE 9 BICYCLE NETWORK EVALUATION ............................... 70 TABLE 10 TRANSIT NETWORK EVALUATION ............................... 71 TABLE 11 2040 RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) – VMT PER CAPITA ................................ ........................ 72 149 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report ii
TABLE 12 2040 EMPLOYMENT VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
– VMT PER JOB ................................ ........................... 73 TABLE 13 2040 VEHICLE HOURS TRAVELED (VHT) ..................... 73 TABLE 14 2040 AVERAGE SPEEDS ................................ .............. 74 TABLE 15 2040 VEHICLE HOURS OF DELAY (VHD) ..................... 74 TABLE 16 2021-2022 ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY FOR
SCHOOLS IN SAN MATEO ................................ ........... 77 TABLE 17 NEW STUDENTS UNDER EACH ALTERNATIVE ............ 79 TABLE 18 PROJECTED POPULATION COMPARISON
(2020 CAL WATER UWMP VS. ALTERNATIVES) ........... 85
TABLE 19 WATER USAGE – CAL WATER - NORMAL YEAR
PROJECTED DEMAND & SUPPLY ................................ . 85 TABLE 20 WATER USAGE – CAL WATER - DRY YEAR PROJECTED
DEMAND & SUPPLY ................................ .................... 86 TABLE 21 PROJECTED POPULATION COMPARISON
(2020 EMID UWMP VS. ALTERNATIVES (AREA 10)) .... 87
TABLE 22 WATER USAGE – EMID - PROJECTED DEMAND
COMPARISON ................................ ........................... 87 TABLE 23 SEWER CAPACITY – JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ...... 88 TABLE 24 SEWER USAGE - PROJECTED DEMAND BASED ON USE
COEFFICIENTS ................................ ........................... 88 TABLE 25 SEWER USAGE – PROJECTED EFFLUENT FLOWS - ....... 89 TABLE 26 URBAN DISPLACEMENT TYPOLOGIES ......................... 98 TABLE 27 INCLUSIONARY UNITS UNDER EACH ALTERNATIVE .. 101 TABLE 28 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN
ALTERNATIVES ................................ ......................... 111 TABLE 29 NEAR-TERM DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY ................. 113
Figures
FIGURE 1. STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES ................................ ........... 4 FIGURE 2. LAND USE ALTERNATIVE A ................................ ............ 7 FIGURE 3. LAND USE ALTERNATIVE B ................................ ............ 8 FIGURE 4. LAND USE ALTERNATIVE C ................................ ............ 9 FIGURE 5. PLACE TYPE MENU ................................ ..................... 10 FIGURE 6. STUDY AREA 1-NORTH ................................ ............... 22 FIGURE 7. STUDY AREA 1-CENTRAL ................................ ............ 23 FIGURE 8. STUDY AREA 1-SOUTH ................................ ............... 24 FIGURE 9. STUDY AREA 2 ................................ ........................... 25 FIGURE 10. STUDY AREA 3 ................................ ........................... 26 FIGURE 11. STUDY AREA 4 ................................ ........................... 27 FIGURE 12. STUDY AREA 5 ................................ ........................... 28 FIGURE 13. STUDY AREA 6 ................................ ........................... 29 FIGURE 14. STUDY AREA 7 ................................ ........................... 30 FIGURE 15. STUDY AREA 8 ................................ ........................... 31 FIGURE 16. STUDY AREA 9 ................................ ........................... 32 FIGURE 17. STUDY AREA 10 ................................ .......................... 33 FIGURE 18. CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE A: PRIORITIZING A
WALKABLE CITY ................................ .......................... 35 FIGURE 19. CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE B: PRIORITIZING
REGIONAL CONNECTIONS ................................ .......... 36 FIGURE 20. CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE C: SUPPORTING WALKING,
REGIONAL CONNECTIONS AND EMERGING
MOBILITY SOLUTIONS ................................ ................ 37 FIGURE 21. WHERE PEOPLE LIVE VS. WORK ................................ . 63 FIGURE 22. HISTORIC RESOURCES ................................ ................ 65 FIGURE 23. SCHOOLS ................................ ................................ .... 78
150 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo iii FIGURE 24. PARKS AND PARK WALKABILITY ................................ . 81 FIGURE 25. COMBINED HAZARDS ................................ ................. 93 FIGURE 26. GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT
TYPOLOGIES IN SAN MATEO ................................ ...... 99 FIGURE 27. BICYCLE COLLISIONS ................................ ................ 103 FIGURE 28. PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS ................................ ......... 104 FIGURE 29. CALENVIROSCREEN COMBINED SCORES.................. 106 FIGURE 30. TRAFFIC DENSITY AND POLLUTANT EXPOSURE........ 107 FIGURE 31. GROUNDWATER THREATS ................................ ........ 109
151 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report iv
This page intentionally left blank.
152 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 1
1. Introduction
San Mateo is undertaking a major public planning effort, called Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040, to help guide how the City will look, feel, and change over the next 20 years. As part of the General Plan visioning process, the community expressed that San Mateo should be: “a vibrant, livable, diverse, and healthy community that respects the quality of its neighborhoods, fosters a flourishing economy, is committed to equity, and is a leader in environmental sustainability.” To achieve the General Plan vision, the City has analyzed three land use and transportation alternatives for 10 Study Areas throughout San Mateo that were developed through an extensive public process. Each land use alternative shows a vision for the different types and ranges of development that should occur in each Study Area over the next 20 years. The circulation alternatives guide ho w people could travel throughout San Mateo using bicycles, cars, transit, or by walking.
This Alternatives Workbook is intended to help you understand the implications of the three different approaches to land use and transportation planning represented by each of the alternatives, including both positive and negative impacts, so that you can participate in developing a Preferred Scenario that will be a combination of the individual preferred scenarios for each Study Area in the City.
1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Alternatives Workbook will give readers the information necessary to provide meaningful input into choosing the Preferred Scenario for each Study Area that best reflects how they wish San Mateo to grow and change over the next 20 years . The workbook evaluates the land use and transportation alternatives for each Study Area on a wide variety of criteria , which are intended to help community members and decision-makers understand the impacts and benefits of each alternative.
This Alternatives Workbook is organized into the following chapters:
1. The Introduction chapter describes the organization of th e workbook, purpose of the General Plan, and outlines the alternatives process.
2. The Description of Alternatives chapter explains the place type menu that was used for each alternative, provides the projected buildout for the City, presents the proposed land use alternative maps by Study Area, and shows the circulation alternatives.
3. The Summary of Key Findings chapter provides a very high -level snapshot of the key findings for each alternative, based on the more detailed evaluation in Chapter 5, and provides information on how to build your Preferred Scenario.
4. The Project Context chapter lists the vision and values of the General Plan, provides a table of projects that are approved or in the development review process in all Study Areas , describes the relationship of the General Plan to the Housing Element and Measure Y , cites other Citywide plans and regulations in San Mateo that will affect future development.
5. The Alternatives Evaluation chapter provides a detailed comparison of each alternative for selected topics, including urban form, traffic and multimodal circulation, utilities, community services, environmental sustainability, equity and public health, city fiscal sustainability, and market viability.
153 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 2
6. The Next Steps section details the process to select the preferred scenario and upcoming General Plan tasks.
7. The Appendices includes a detailed description of the buildout methodology used for the alternatives evaluation.
1.2 WHAT IS A GENERAL PLAN?
San Mateo is updating its General Plan, which is the plan that expresses the community’s vision for how the City will look, feel, and change over the next 20 years. Every City in California is required to have a General Plan that covers the entire city. State law says that General Plans must address many different topics that affect our daily lives, such as housing, transportation, natural resources, public safety, and equity. – Where housing, businesses, industry, open space, schools, civic buildings, and ot her land uses will be located, and what density or intensity of use is allowed.
– Where roads, truck routes, bicycle routes, walking trails, and public utilities and facilities will go, and ensures that the City’s infrastructure can serve the future developm ent that is allowed in the General Plan.
– Current and future housing needs for people at all income levels, and housing policies and programs to preserve affordable housing and build new affordable and market -rate housing to meet those needs.
– How to protect our natural resources, such as water, air, trees, and hillsides, and how to preserve and improve open spaces, including open space for recreation, for habitat, or for public health and safety.
– Ways to protect residents from harmful or disruptive levels of noise, and to keep the community safe from natural and human- caused hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, floods, and wildfires, including increased risks from climate change. – Improving the safety and quality of life for residents of neighborhoods that face a combination of both higher -than- average pollution exposure and social and economic
challenges such as low incomes, language barriers, or housing instability.
The General Plan will include policies that determine what can and cannot be built in the City, including new homes, new businesses, new parks, and improvements to our streets and sidewalks, and how this development will be served.
1.3 ALTERNATIVES PROCESS
The alternatives presented in this workbook consider different locations and intensities of development that could occur over the next 20 years for each of the 10 Study Areas. They were created to test the pros, cons, and different possible outcomes of a range of possible futures for San Mateo.
Here’s how the alternatives were created:
1. Choose Study Areas. San Mateo community members provided input at workshops, meetings, and online to identify areas of the City that have the greatest potential to experience and to accommodate land use changes over the next 20 years. Study Areas include areas near transit; areas where current buildings are aging, vacant, or not maintained; or areas where property owners have expressed interest in considering redevelopment of the property. T en Study Areas were identified as part of this process, as shown in Figure 1, Study Area Boundaries. The ten Study Areas are the locations where the most growth is projected to occur; however, changes could still occur outside of these areas. T he General Plan will allow for continued growth outside of the Study Area s based on existing densities, regulations, and state law.
154 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 3
2. Create a Range of Alternatives for each Study Area. Three draft land use and circulation alternatives were created for each Study Area to consider different locations and intensities of development that could occur over the next 20 years. The range of three alternatives was vetted through a process of community meetings and input from the General Plan Subcommittee, Planning Commission, and City Council.
3. Evaluate and Compare Alternatives. This report eval uates and compares the alternatives to help facilitate selecting a Preferred Scenario.
4. Choose a Preferred Scenario for Further Study. Using this alternatives evaluation as a tool, the City will solicit community input on their preferences for the city’s f uture growth and development.
The Preferred Scenario will be developed through a robust public engagement process. The Preferred Scenario will be created by mixing and matching various features of each alternative. The City Council will provide final direction on the Preferred Scenario.
5. Refine the Preferred Scenario. The Preferred Scenario will become the basis for the land use and circulation maps in the Draft General Plan and will undergo extensive additional analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, is required unde r the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to identify and mitigate any potential environmental effects of adopting the updated General Plan. In addition to growth within the Study Areas, the General Plan will anticipate and allow for continued grow th outside of the Study Areas based on existing regulations.
6. Continued Participation. After the Preferred Scenario is selected, the public will continue to play an important role. The City will ask the community for input on the Draft General Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Public participation at these key steps is vital to shaping a plan that represents the values and vision of the community.
155 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 4
Figure 1. Study Area Boundaries
156 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 5
1.4 COVID-19 PANDEMIC
City staff and the General Plan consultant team, including economists from Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), reexamined the land use alternatives in early 2021 to consider whether changes are needed to reflect effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The team concluded that, by the year 2040, the effects of the current pandemic will not be discernable from other social and economic changes. Current economic predictions are that residential demand will continue to increase even though some parts of the Bay Area may be experiencing a temporary dip in the rental market.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic could result in a longer-term trend of more people working from home, there will continue to be a strong office market demand as employers see value in face -to-face work. In addition, other types of work, such as research and development in a lab environment, cannot feasibly happen from home. The decline of traditional “brick and mortar” retail is likely to be accelerated by online shopping habits built during the pandemic, but retail is not a significant proportion of the jobs or development foreseen in the land use alternatives. The pandemic also impacted the hospitality industry, especially hotels, during 2020, although demand has recovered over 2021 and is exp ected to continue to increase towards pre -pandemic levels over the next few years.
Overall, the range of possible futures contemplated in the draft land use alternatives remain a valid and feasible range of outcomes to analyze for housing and work over th e next 20 years, taking COVID -19 into account.
1.5 SENATE BILL 9
In addition to growth within the Study Areas under an updated General Plan land use map, the General Plan will anticipate and allow for continued growth outside of the Study Area s based on existi ng regulations. Those regulations include both local and State laws.
On September 16, 2021, the State passed Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), intended to help address California’s housing shortage. SB 9 allows homeowners in single-family residential zones to subdivide parcels of 2,400 square feet or more into two parcels and/or build a duplex on each parcel without a discretionary review process or a public hearing. This new law, which went into effect on January 1, 2022, will make it easier for homeowners to build up to four units on properties with a single-family residential zoning designation. Areas that are within very high fire hazard zones, historic districts, or affected by other environmental constraints are limited in their ability to subdivide or add units.
The alternatives presented in this workbook do not propose a change to properties zoned R-1 (One-Family Residential) within the city, whether or not they are in a Study Area. However, u nder SB 9, s ingle-family zoned properties could still accommodate future growth by building a duplex and/or or by splitting the lot into two separate lots that would allow two units each.
157 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 6
2. Description of Alternatives
2.1 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
The draft land use alternatives are shown on Figures 2 through 4 and are generally described as follows:
– Alternative A generally has the least change in designations and the lowest residential growth.
– Alternative B has the second -highest residential growth and spreads growth and midrange heights more evenly across all ten Study Areas. Outlying Study Areas like 6 and 2 become mini- villages that incorporate a mix of offices, homes, shopping, dining, and services within the study area.
– Alternative C has the highest residential growth and concentrates growth, change, tallest heights, and density near transit in Study Areas 3 and 4.
LAND USE PLACE TYPES
Figure 5 presents the land use categories that were used in the creation of the alternatives. The Place Types Menu presents simplified land use categories to streamline the amount of information presented in a more accessible format. Once the Council decides upon the preferred land use scenario, the General Plan team will revisit these land use categories to add additional detail about the allowed uses.
The Place Types Menu describes the density range permitted by each land use designation and the type of use that would be permitted based on the land use category. Most land use categories in the alternat ives are similar to the existing General Plan land use designations, however there are a few differences. The biggest change is that Residential High and Mixed-Use High categories permit greater heights and densities than currently allowed under the voter approved initiative Measure Y .
The current General Plan 2030 designation of Residential High most closely matches the Residential Medium category used for these alternatives.
The photographs in Figure 5 are not intended to represent recommended architectural design styles, only their general scale and character.
PROJECTED BUILDOUT
Table 1 shows the existing number of homes, population, and jobs in San Mateo as of 2018 and for each alternative. As shown in the table, the alternatives are exploring 11,810, 16,070, and 21,080 new residential units. By comparison, in 2019, which is used as the baseline comparison year for this evaluation, San Mateo had just over 39,000 homes.
Although the City is largely “built out,” California law requires cities to plan for housing to accommodate a range of households and income levels. While the above projections are estimates, the City of San Mateo can reasonably assume we will continue to grow, and that we will need to zone for that growth in order to meet our legal obligations to the State.
The General Plan Update provides an opportunity to set the foundation for future growth that is logical, orderly, and achieves the community’s vision o f San Mateo as a place that is “vibrant, livable, diverse, and healthy.”
Table 1 Projected Buildout Citywide
Existing
(2019)
Alternative A
(Net New)
Alternative B
(Net New)
Alternative C
(Net New)
Homes 39,200 +11,810 +16,070 +21,080
Population 104,500 +29,500 +40,260 +53,500
Jobs 52,800 +15,430 +15,430 +14,990
Source: PlaceWorks, 2021 . Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10 . 158 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 7 Figure 2. Land Use Alternative A
159 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 8
Figure 3. Land Use Alternative B
160 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 9 Figure 4. Land Use Alternative C
161 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 10
Figure 5. Place T ype Menu
REF CATEGORY PHOTO/ILLUSTRATION
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family
• 1-2 story, detached homes including “in law” units (also known as ADU’s)
• Up to 9 units per acre
Residential Low
• 1-3 story, attached homes including townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes
• 9 to 39 units per acre
Residential Medium
• 4-7 story buildings including condominiums and
apartments
• 40 to 99 units per acre
162 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 11
REF CATEGORY PHOTO/ILLUSTRATION
Residential High
• 8+ story buildings including multi-story condominiums and apartments.
• 100 to 200 units per acre
MIXED USE
Mixed-Use Low
• 1-3 story buildings with a mix of commercial, office, and/or residential integrated within the same site or the same building.
• 9 to 39 units per acre
• 0.25 FAR retail
• 1.0 FAR office
Mixed-Use Medium
• 4-7 story buildings with a mix of commercial, office, and/or residential integrated within the same site or the same building.
• 40 to 99 units per acre
• 0.25 FAR retail
• 3.0 FAR office
Mixed-Use High
• 8+ story buildings with a mix of commercial, office, and/or residential integrated within the same site or the same building.
• 100 to 200 units per acre
• 0.25 FAR retail
• 5.0 FAR office
163 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 12
REF CATEGORY PHOTO/ILLUSTRATION
COMMERCIAL
Commercial Neighborhood
• 1-2 story buildings with small shops, restaurants, salons, gyms, or shopping centers that serve the immediate
neighborhood.
• 1.0 FAR
Commercial Service
• 1-3 story buildings with businesses such as automotive repair, pet hospitals, or self-storage.
• 1.0 FAR
Commercial Regional
• 3+ story buildings with large shopping centers such as Hillsdale Mall and Bridgepointe Shopping Center.
• 1.0 to 2.5 FAR
164 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 13
REF CATEGORY PHOTO/ILLUSTRATION
OFFICE
Office Low
• 1-3 story buildings with medical or professional offices. • 1.0 FAR
Office Medium
• 4-7 story buildings with medical or professional offices. • 3.0 FAR
Office High
• 8+ story buildings with medical or professional offices. • 5.0 FAR
165 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 14
REF CATEGORY PHOTO/ILLUSTRATION
INDUSTRIAL
Traditional Light Industrial
– 1-2 story buildings with light manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution facilities.
– 1.0 FAR
Research and Development
– 3+ story buildings with professional office uses and
manufacturing, laboratories, makers’ spaces, and assembly processes to support the development of new products.
– 1.0 to 2.0 FAR
166 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 15
REF CATEGORY PHOTO/ILLUSTRATION
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Parklet – small park or gathering space.
Community Park – a larger park of 1 to several acres that includes recreational or community amenities.
Privately-Owned Public Open Space - publicly accessible but privately maintained plazas and courtyards integrated within private development.
Civic Gathering Space – a plaza, amphitheater, or town
square that can accommodate community events.
167 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 16
REF CATEGORY PHOTO/ILLUSTRATION
MULTI-MODAL CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
Pedestrian Supportive Improvements – such as sidewalks, pedestrian cut-throughs, pedestrian bridges, bulb -outs/curb extensions, street lighting, and street trees.
Bicycle Supportive Improvements – such as sharrows, bike lanes, separated bike paths, bike bridges, signage, bike racks, bike repair stations, etc. Community members have already provided input during the Bicycle Master Plan update process, refer to the Proposed Bicycle Network map.
Transit Supportive Improvements – the City can partner with transit providers such as Caltrain and SamTrans on transit stop improvements such as covered bus shelters, lighting, benches, signage, bicycle storage lockers, pedestrian underpass, dedicated areas for buses, dedicated areas for drop-off/pick-up, commuter parking, etc.
Circulation and Safety Improvements – improvements that address circulation on multiple levels such as grade separations, directional signage, dedicated areas for bike share facilities, etc.
168 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 17
REF CATEGORY PHOTO/ILLUSTRATION
Emerging Transportation Technologies – This includes scooter- and bike-share, autonomous vehicles, shared use vehicles, etc.
The land use alternatives explore a range of residential growth within 10 Study Areas. The projected total number of homes, population, and jobs for each Study Area are shown in Table 2. Study Area 3 would result in the highest number of new homes and population for all alternatives, primarily due to its location since many of the sites within this Study Area are located a half-mile from a transit service. For Alternative A and B, Study Area 5 would result in the lowest number of new homes and population, while Study Area 9 would result in the lowest number of homes and population under Alternative C. All alternatives keep job growth constant despite varying residential growth, with the assumption that the City would not implement policies to either significantly stimulate, nor significantly dampen, job growth.
Although this alternatives evaluation makes an assumption about the amount of change that could occ ur within each Study Area, it is ultimately up to property owners to decide whether or when to redevelop their properties.
Table 2 Projected Buildout by Study Area
Existing
(2019)
Alternative A
(Net New)
Alternative
B (Net
New)
Alternative
C (Net
New)
1 Homes 830 +290 +1,370 +920
Population 1,720 +751 +3,548 +2,383
Jobs 1,010 +1,220 +320 +880
2 Homes 290 +500 +700 +600
Population 590 +1,295 +1,813 +1,554
Jobs 700 -70 -200 -100
3 Homes 2,090 +5,000 +5,160 +7,210
Population 4,860 +12,950 +13,364 +18,674
Jobs 13,440 +2,010 +2,460 +3,200
4 Homes 3,560 +1,000 +2,000 +5,150
Population 4,780 +2,590 +5,180 +13,339
Jobs 8,440 +820 +370 +1,530
169 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 18
Existing
(2019)
Alternative A
(Net New)
Alternative
B (Net
New)
Alternative
C (Net
New)
5 Homes 1,130 +90 +200 +300
Population 2,550 +233 +518 +777
Jobs 850 +40 +90 +40
6 Homes 130 +320 +500 +700
Population 250 +829 +1,295 +1,813
Jobs 610 +880 +1,240 0
7 Homes 610 +100 +390 +1,140
Population 2,030 +259 +1,010 +2,953
Jobs 1,410 -190 -270 -230
8 Homes 20 +1,200 +2,000 +1,710
Population 60 +3,108 +5,180 +4,429
Jobs 5,300 +3,250 +2,330 +2,310
9 Homes 170 +160 +350 +200
Population 470 +414 +907 +518
Jobs 740 +600 +590 +520
10 Homes 440 +1,900 +1,900 +1,900
Population 890 +4,921 +4,921 +4,921
Jobs 7,210 +6,870 +8,500 +6,840
LAND USE ALTERNATIVE MAPS BY STUDY AREA
The draft land use alternatives anticipate that housing and job growth would mainly occur within the 10 Study Areas, as explained previously.
However, growth is still anticipated throughout the City, including the single-family zoned properties , which will be able to accommodate future growth under SB 9 by building a duplex or splitting a lot, or by adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) (aka granny flat or in-law unit) or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU).
Table 3 describes changes specific to each of the Study Area s and Figures 6 through 17 show the draft land use alternatives by study area. 170 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 19 Table 3 Study Area Descriptions
Study Area Location Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 1 - El Camino
Real NORTH
Located on El Camino Real
between Peninsula Ave and
Baldwin Ave
Includes various apartment
buildings, the Sterling Court
assisted living facility, and
Saint Joseph Parish.
Majority of parcels would be
designated as Residential
Medium. A few parcels would be
Mixed-Use Medium
Most net new residential units than
Alt. C
Majority of parcels would be
designated as Residential
Medium. Includes two
Commercial Neighborhood
parcels
Most net new residential units
Majority of parcels would be
designated as Residential Medium.
A few parcels would be Mixed-Use
High
Least net new residential units
1 - El Camino
Real
CENTRAL
Located on El Camino Real
between Notre Dame Ave
and Bovet Rd
This Study Area includes
various restaurants, Charles
Schwab, and St. Matthew
Catholic Church.
Most properties along El Camino
Real would be designated for
mixed use at varying densities
Would result in a decrease of
residential units
Would allow a mix of uses,
including Mixed-Use Medium and
Residential High
Most net new residential units
Most properties along El Camino
Real would be designated as
Mixed-Use Medium
Most net new residential units than
Alt. A
1 - El Camino
Real SOUTH
Located on El Camino Real
between 36th and 40th Ave
This Study Area includes a
variety of commercial
buildings, such as AutoZone,
Mancini’s Sleepworld, and
Kelly-Moore Paints
West side would be mostly
Commercial Neighborhood
Would result in the lowest
decrease of residential units
compared to Alt. C
West side would be mostly Mixed-
Use Low
Would result in the lowest
decrease of residential units
West side would be Mixed-Use Low
and Commercial Neighborhood
Would result in the most decrease
of residential units
2 - Bel Mateo/
Mollie Stone
Area
Located between 39th Ave
and North Rd
Includes the Bel Mateo Bowl
and Mollie Stone Market
Would designate the area
primarily as residential and
commercial
Bel Mateo Bowl would be
designated as Residential Low
and Mollie Stone Market as
Residential Medium
Least net new residential units
Would designate the area as
primarily residential and mixed
use
Bel Mateo Bowl would be
designated as Residential Low
and Mollie Stone Market as
Residential Medium
Most net new residential units
Would allows a mix of uses,
including Mixed-Use Medium,
Commercial Neighborhood, and
Residential Low
Bel Mateo Bowl would be
designated as Residential Low and
Mollie Stone Market as Mixed-Use
Medium
Most net new residential units than
Alt. A
171 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 20
Study Area Location Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 3 - Rail
Corridor Area
Located between 16th Ave
and 36th Ave
This Study Area includes
Hillsdale Caltrain stations and
Hayward Park, events center,
Bay Meadows, and Hillsdale
shopping center
Borel Square Shopping Center
would be Mixed-Use Medium
Hillsdale Shopping Center would
be designated as Commercial
Regional and Mixed-Use Medium
Least net new residential units,
population, and jobs
Borel Square Shopping Center
would be Residential Medium
Hillsdale Shopping Center would
be designated the same as Alt. A
More net new residential units,
population, and jobs than Alt. A
Borel Square Shopping Center
would be Mixed-Use
Hillsdale Shopping Center would
be designated as Mixed-Use
Medium and Mixed-Use High
Most net new residential units,
population, and jobs than Alt. A
and B
4 – Downtown
Located between Tilton Ave
and 9th Ave
This Study Area includes San
Mateo Central Park, San
Mateo Public library, and a
variety of commercial and
residential uses
Would reflect the current General
Plan and would be closest to the
City’s Downtown Specific Plan
Built Form Alternative 1, which did
not make changes to allowed
heights or FARs.
Least net new residential units
than Alt. B and C. Would allow
more jobs than Alt. B
Would designate most of the
Downtown core as Mixed-Use
Medium and would be closest to
Downtown Specific Plan Built
Form Alternative 2, which kept
most heights the same but
increased density and FAR.
More net new residential units
than Alt. A. Would result in less
jobs compared to Alt. A and C
Would designate most of the
Downtown core as Mixed-Use High
(except the Historic District) and
would be closest to Downtown
Specific Plan Built Form Alternative
3, which increased heights near
transit and lower heights in
transition to residential areas.
Most net new residential units and
more jobs than Alt. A and B
5 - Peninsula
Ave. Area
Located between Peninsula
Ave and Tilton Ave
Includes office and
commercial uses along San
Mateo Drive and Safeway on
Peninsula Ave
Would allow a mix of uses,
including Residential Low,
Residential Medium, Office High,
and Commercial Neighborhood
Would allow the same number of
jobs as Alt. C
Would designate most of the area
as Residential Medium and
Mixed-Use Medium
Would allow the most net new
jobs
Would allow for the most net new
housing, designating the parcels
along San Mateo Drive that are
closest to Downtown as Residential
High or Mixed-Use High
Would result in the most net new
residential units
6 - Campus
Dr. Area
Located along State Route 92
Includes Laurelwood
Shopping Center and office
buildings on Campus Dr
Would represent the least change
to the existing office uses
Would allow more jobs than Alt. C
Would designate most of the area
for residential and mixed use and
maintain an office area
Would allow the most net new
jobs
Would change the office uses
along Campus Dr to residential and
maintain the commercial
designation at the Laurelwood
Shopping Center
Would result in the most net new
residential units
172 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 21 Study Area Location Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 7 - North
Shoreview and
Shoreview
Area
Located along Bayshore
Blvd, between Poplar Ave
and south of Cary Ave
This Study Area includes
Market Fiesta and North
Peninsula Veterinary hospital
Would allow a mix of uses and
designates most of the east side
of Bayshore Boulevard as
Commercial Service
Least net new residential units
than Alt. B and C
Would allow a mix of uses, but a
majority of the area would be
reserved for Residential Medium
and Residential High uses
Would result in more net new
residential units than Alt. A
Would allow a mix of uses,
including, Commercial Service,
Residential Medium and
Residential High uses
Would result in the most net new
residential units
8 - Parkside
Plaza Area
Located near the State Route
92 and Highway 101
interchange
This Study Area includes
Parkside Plaza, San Mateo
Marriott and the Crossroads
office park
San Mateo Marriott would be
designated as Residential Low.
Parkside Plaza would be Mixed-
Use Low. The fish market parcel
would be designated as Mixed-
Use Medium
Would allow the most net new
jobs
San Mateo Marriott would be
designated as Residential
Medium. Parkside Plaza would be
Residential Medium. The fish
market parcel would be
designated as Mixed-Use
Medium
Would allow the most net new
residential uses
San Mateo Marriott would be
designated as Residential Low.
Parkside Plaza would be Mixed-
Use Medium. The fish market
parcel would be designated as
Mixed-Use Medium
More net new residential units than
Alt. A
9 - Hillsdale/
Norfolk Area
Located near the Highway
101 and Hillsdale Blvd
Interchange
Includes Kaiser, Hillsdale Inn
and Marina Plaza Shopping
Center
Would allow a mix of uses and
maintain the commercial
designation at the Marina Plaza
Shopping Center
Would allow the most net new
jobs
Would add the most net new
residential units by
accommodating most of the new
residential units at the Marina
Plaza Shopping Center which
would have a Mixed-Use Medium
designation
Would allow a mix of uses and
maintain the commercial
designation at the Marina Plaza
Shopping Center
More net new residential units than
Alt. A
10 -
Bridgepointe
Located on Mariners Island
Blvd
This Study Area includes
Bridgepoint Shopping Center
and surrounding offices,
commercial and residential
buildings
Would allow a mix of uses and
would designate the Bridgepoint
Shopping Center as Mixed Use
High
Would result in the same number
of residential units as Alt B and C
Would allow a mix of uses and
would designate the Bridgepoint
Shopping Center as Mixed Use
High
Would allow the most net new
jobs
Would allow a mix of uses and
would designate the Bridgepoint
Shopping Center as Mixed Use
High
Would result in the same number of
residential units as Alt A and B
Source: PlaceWorks, 2021
173 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 22
Figure 6. Study Area 1-North
174 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 23 Figure 7. Study Area 1-Central
175 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 24
Figure 8. Study Area 1-South
176 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 25 Figure 9. Study Area 2
177 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 26
Figure 10. Study Area 3
178 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 27 Figure 11. Study Area 4
179 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 28
Figure 12. Study Area 5
180 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 29 Figure 13. Study Area 6
181 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 30
Figure 14. Study Area 7
182 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 31 Figure 15. Study Area 8
183 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 32
Figure 16. Study Area 9
184 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 33 Figure 17. Study Area 10
185 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 34
2.2 CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES
The draft circulation alternatives are shown on Figures 18 through 20 and are generally described as follows:
– Circulation Alternative A . This alternative aims to create walkable communities throughout San Mateo by prioritizing pedestrian corridors, pedestrian improvements to challenging intersections, and implementing traffic calming and safety improvements near highway onramps. This alternative includes the closure of B Street to vehicles between 1 st Avenue and 3 rd Avenue Downtown, and creating a pedestrian mall, a project approved in September 2021 . All the alternatives assume pedestrian and bicycle improvements consistent with existing City planning documents.
– Circulation Alternative B . This alternative aims to increase and improve transit access to and from major connections in San Mateo by adding transit connections from Study Areas 3, 6, and 10 to the Hillsdale Caltrain station, prio ritizing dedicated HOV and bus lanes, and adding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
improvements to El Camino Real. All the alternatives assume pedestrian and bicycle improvements consistent with existing City planning documents , including the Downtown pedestrian mall on B Street between 1st Avenue and 3rd Avenue.
– Circulation Alternative C . This alternative combines the local and regional transportation improvements of Alternatives A and B. It adds innovative urban design downtown, inspired by Barcelona’s “superblocks ,” that allow s vehicle access at the periphery and limits cut-through vehicles to create a pedestrian focused, car-light spaces downtown. In addition, this alternative would explore concepts such as an automated micro-transit circulator (such as an Autonomous Vehicle shuttle) or a locally focused rideshare program (similar to the Via-Cupertino Shuttle) within City limits. All the alternatives assume pedestrian and bicycle improvements consistent with existing City planning documents, including the Downtown pedestrian mall on B Street between 1st Avenue and 3rd Avenue.
Many roadways in San Mateo are lined with existing buildings, utilities, and private property, and widening most existing roadways could be difficult and/or cost prohibitive. Therefore, under any alternative, it would be most likely for future changes to take place within the existing public right-of-way. In some cases, depending on the specific location, projects such as adding a bicycle lane, creating a dedicated bus lane, or widening a sidewalk may affect existing roadway features such as on-street parking, a turn lane, or a vehicle travel lane.
186 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 35 Figure 18. Circulation Alternative A: Prioritizing a Walkable City
187 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 36
Figure 19. Circulation Alternative B: Prioritizing Regional Connections
188 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 37 Figure 20. Circulation Alternative C: Supporting Walking, Regional Connections and Emerging Mobility Solutions
189 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 38
3. Summary of Key Findings
3.1 KEY FINDINGS
To help sort through the information offered about each topic, this chapter summarizes the performance of each alternative relative to the topics analyzed in Chapter 5 Alternatives Evaluation, focusing on those topics where the alternative performs exceptionally well or poorly. Table 5 also provides a complete summary of the differences among the land use alternatives.
The findings of this report are meant to help the reader d ecide which elements of each of the alternatives should be combined to create the preferred land use and circulation alternatives. There are no value judgements placed on the findings because everyone differs on what outcomes could be considered positive or negative. For example, some individuals might consider maintaining an appropriate jobs -housing balance a top priority while others may place less importance on this issue. The goal of this report is to present sufficient information to let you draw your own conclusions.
– Land Use Alternative A
– This alternative would result in the least amount of
residential growth and have lower densities and heights. – Due to the lower densities, this alternative would likely not be able to meet future RHNA cycles beyond 2031 and
would result in fewer residents within close proximity to transit and less publicly accessible open space.
– Since there are fewer residents ne ar transit, the City’s per capita VMT (including both residents and workers) would increase under Alternative A. However, total VMT would be lowest under Alternative A because it has the lowest total amount of new residents and job growth.
– All alternatives have the potential to impact historic resources, but Alternative A would propose the fewest
changes to the Downtown historic district.
– Although police, fire, schools, parks, and library services would be impacted under all alternatives, Alternative A would necessitate the least expansion of these services because it results in the lowest population growth.
– In terms of equity and environmental justice, this alternative would add fewer residents within proximity to diesel
particulate matter exposure but would also provide fewer affordable housing units.
– Alternative A would generate the most positive annual net fiscal impact for the City, producing 13 percent more net revenue ($980,000) than Alternative B and 56 percent more net revenue ($ 2.9 million) than A lternative C. Although Alternative A generates the lowest revenues, it also results in the lowest cost for public services.
– In terms of market feasibility, the land use types and densities would be feasible under Alternative A, although the development c ommunity would prioritize medium
density development projects (4 to 7 stories) over the low- density projects allowed under Alternative A.
190 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 39 – Land Use Alternative B
– Alternative B would most likely be able to fulfill future State- mandated housing targets, but would have a smaller
housing buffer compared to Alternative C.
– Alternative B could result in the most changes to the Downtown historic district.
– The current market climate favors medium densities (4 to 7 stories) because the construction costs and parkin g
requirements enable the project to pencil out. Alternative B includes the most medium density land use designations
and would have the highest market feasibility.
– Land Use Alternative C
– Alternative C would generate the greatest residential growth and have the highest heights and densities.
– Since Alternative C has the greatest residential growth, it would most likely be able to fulfill future State -mandated housing targets including a suf ficient housing site surplus as preferred by the State Housing and Community
Development Department.
– Higher densities around San Mateo’s Caltrain stations and high frequency bus stops, would likely increase transit ridership, resulting in the lowest per capita VMT of the three alternatives. However, total VMT is highest under Alternative C because it has the highest increase in both residents and workers.
– All alternatives would impact public services and schools and generate more water demand than Cal Wat er’s
currently planned available supply, but Alternative C would produce the greatest demand for expansion of both public services and water supply. However, Alternative C could also generate the most publicly accessible private open space.
– Alternative C could generate the most affordable housing, but could also expose the most new residents to diesel
particulate matter from trucks, buses, and trains on major nearby arterial roads and highways, including Highway 101, Highway 92, and El Camino Real, as well as the Caltrain rail corridor.
– Land Use Alternative C would have a positive net fiscal impact on the City, generating $ 5.2 million net annual in funding after accounting for the City’s annual expenditures.
All three land use alternatives would result in a net annual fiscal surplus, but A lternative C would produce the lowest net annual fiscal surplus since it has the highest cost for providing additional public service needs to accommodate the population growth.
– The high construction costs associated with buildings over eight stories and subterranean parking make Alternative C have lower market feasibility given current market
conditions, although the market is likely to change over the life of the General Plan.
– T opics with Similar Outcomes Among Alternatives
– Understanding the different pros, cons, and tradeoffs of each alternative is valuable to inform decision -making about the preferred scenario. For some important topics, this evaluation concluded that the outcomes would likely be similar among the three land use alternatives.
191 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 40
– As shown in T able 4, for six of the 2 8 topics, the analysis concluded that there would not be a meaningful difference among the three land use alternatives. Potential impacts to the wastewater system, stormwater system, sea level rise, flooding, and wildfire hazards and the ability to secure community benefits would be the same under all
alternatives.
– These outcomes are similar among the land use
alternatives because they are not dependent on specific land use changes. These topics will be influenced more
strongly or effectively by the policies and actions in the updated General Plan, as well as by other local, regional, or State actions and regulations.
Table 4 Land Use Alternatives Analysis Summary Matrix
Components Land Use Alternative A Land Use Alternative B Land Use Alternative C Urban Form
Height and Density Has the least high density designations. Has more high density-designations than Alternative A, but less than Alternative C. Has the most high density designations.
Ability to meet Future
RHNA
Would provide the least assurance of meeting
future RHNA cycles and buffers.
Would likely accommodate future RHNA
cycles, but would have a smaller buffer
compared to Alternative C.
Would provide the most assurance of
meeting future RHNA cycles plus buffers.
Job-Housing
Balance
Would have slightly more employed residents
than local jobs.
Would have an even number of employed
residents and local jobs.
Would have an even number of employed
residents and local jobs.
Historic Resources Has fewest changes within the Downtown historic district.
Has the most changes within the Downtown
historic district.
Has fewer changes to the Downtown historic
district than Alternative B, but more changes
than Alternative A.
Traffic
Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)
Would result in least total VMT, but highest
per capita VMT.
Would result in less total VMT compared to
Alternative C, but more compared to
Alternative A. Would result in less per capita
VMT than Alternative A, but more than
Alternative C.
Would result in most total VMT, but lowest per
capita VMT.
192 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 41 Components Land Use Alternative A Land Use Alternative B Land Use Alternative C Mode Shift
Would result in the least amount of future
residents traveling by bus, bicycle and
walking.
Would have similar mode shifts as Alternative
C and would result in more future residents
traveling by bus, bicycle, and walking
compared to Alternative A.
Would have similar mode shifts to Alternative
C and would result in more future residents
traveling by bus, bicycle, and walking
compared to Alternative A.
Vehicle-Hours
Traveled (VHT)
Would result in the lowest total hours in traffic,
but the highest number of hours in traffic per
capita.
Alternatives B and C would result in the
highest total hours in traffic. Alternative B
would have a slightly lower per capita hours in
traffic than Land Use Alternative A and higher
per capital hours in traffic than Alternative C.
Alternatives B and C would result in the
highest total hours in traffic. Alternative C
would have the fewest hours in traffic per
capita.
Average Speed Would have the highest average speeds.
Would have similar average speeds as
Alternative C and lower average speeds than
Alternative A.
Would have similar average speeds as
Alternative B and lower average speeds than
Alternative A.
Vehicle-Hours of
Delay (VHD)
Would have the lowest total hours of vehicle
delay.
Would have the highest total hours of vehicle
delay.
Would have more total hours of vehicle delay
than Alternative A and fewer total hours of
vehicle delay than Alternative B.
Utilities
Water
Would create more water demand than
current projected supply, but would create
less demand compared to Alternatives B and
C.
Would create more water demand than
current projected supply, but would create
less demand than Alternative C.
Would result in the most water demand
compared to Alternatives A and B and would
result in the greatest need for additional future
water supplies.
Wastewater Service
Wastewater Treatment Plant will have
sufficient capacity to handle projected flows,
but the use of capacity would have to be
negotiated with other members of the Joint
Powers Authority.
Wastewater Treatment Plant will have
sufficient capacity to handle projected flows,
but the use of capacity would have to be
negotiated with other members of the Joint
Powers Authority.
Wastewater Treatment Plant will have
sufficient capacity to handle projected flows,
but the use of capacity would have to be
negotiated with other members of the Joint
Powers Authority.
Stormwater Service All alternatives would have an equal impact to the stormwater system.
All alternatives would have an equal impact to
the stormwater system.
All alternatives would have an equal impact to
the stormwater system.
Community Services
Police Would create the least demand for additional
police services.
Would create more demand for additional
police services compared to Alternative A, but
less demand compared to Alternative C.
Would create the most demand for additional
police services.
Fire Would create the least demand for additional
fire services.
Would create more demand for additional fire
services compared to Alternative A, but less
demand compared to Alternative C.
Would create the most demand for additional
fire services.
193 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 42
Components Land Use Alternative A Land Use Alternative B Land Use Alternative C Emergency Access
Would have the fewest number of new homes
in Study Areas 7, 8, and 9, which are currently
difficult to access or pass through.
Would result in the most net new number of
homes in Study Areas 8 and 9, which has
difficult access
Would result in the most net new number of
homes in Study Area 7, which has difficult
access
Public Schools
Existing schools would be able to
accommodate the additional new students
under Alternative A. Would also generate the
fewest new students.
Existing schools would be able to
accommodate the additional new students
under Alternative B. Would generate less
students than Alternative C and more
students than Alternative A.
Alternative C would exceed existing school
capacity, and would also generate the most
new students.
Parks and Recreation
All alternatives would further exacerbate the
existing park land deficiency. Alternative A
would generate the fewest new residents and
would have the least demand for new parks
compared to Alternatives B and C.
All alternatives would further exacerbate the
existing park land deficiency. Alternative B
would generate more park demand than
Alternative A, but less park demand
compared to Alternative C.
All alternatives would further exacerbate the
existing park land deficiency. Alternative C
would generate the most new residents and
would result in the greatest demand for new
parks.
Publicly Accessible
Privately-Owned
Open Space
Has the potential to provide the lowest
amount of publicly accessible open space.
Has more potential to provide more publicly
accessible open space than Alternative A, but
less compared to Alternative C.
Has the potential to provide the most publicly
accessible open space.
Library Would generate the least demand for
additional library services.
Would generate more demand for library
services compared to Alternative A, but less
demand compared to Alternative C.
Would generate the most demand for
additional library services.
Environmental Sustainability
Sea Level Rise All alternatives would have an e qual impact from sea level rise.
All alternatives would have an equal impact
from sea level rise.
All alternatives would have an equal impact
from sea level rise.
Flooding All alternatives would have an equal impact
from flooding.
All alternatives would have an equal impact
from flooding.
All alternatives would have an equal impact
from flooding.
Wildfire Risk Study Area 6 is located within the Wildland Urban Interface for wildfire risk.
Study Area 6 is located within the Wildland
Urban Interface for wildfire risk.
Study Area 6 is located within the Wildland
Urban Interface for wildfire risk.
Equity and Public Health
Housing
Vulnerability/
Displacement
Would result in the least physical
displacement through redevelopment.
Displacement as a result of rising housing
costs unknown. Includes the least amount of
new housing, including less affordable
housing.
Displacement as a result of rising housing
costs unknown. Would provide more new
housing, including affordable housing, than
Alternative A, but less than Alternative C.
Displacement as a result of rising housing
costs unknown. Would provide the most new
housing, including affordable housing.
194 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 43 Components Land Use Alternative A Land Use Alternative B Land Use Alternative C Collision Reduction
All alternatives could present the opportunity
to improve traffic and safety conditions in the
study areas.
All alternatives could present the opportunity
to improve traffic and safety conditions in the
study areas.
All alternatives could present the opportunity
to improve traffic and safety conditions in the
study areas.
Traffic Density and
Diesel Particulate
Matter
Would add the fewest residents near diesel
particulate matter exposure areas.
Would add more residents near diesel
particulate matter exposure areas than
Alternative A, but less than Alternative C.
Would add the most residents near diesel
particulate matter exposure areas.
Groundwater Threats
Following regulations and appropriate
construction practices will reduce the risk
from groundwater threats under all
alternatives.
Following regulations and appropriate
construction practices will reduce the risk
from groundwater threats under all
alternatives.
Following regulations and appropriate
construction practices will reduce the risk
from groundwater threats under all
alternatives.
Access to Parks and
Open Space
Alternative A adds the fewest new residents to
study areas with the least walkable park
access. It also adds the fewest new residents
in study areas with good park access.
Alternative B would add the greatest number
of new residents to Study Areas 1-N, 1-S, and
2 that have the least walkable park access,
but would add the most residents in 1-C with
high park access.
Alternative C would add the greatest number
of new residents to Study Area 6, which has
low walkable park access, but would add the
most residents to Study Areas 3 and 4 that
have high park access.
Market Feasibility
Fiscal Sustainability
Generates the least revenue ($32.9 million),
but would have the lowest costs to provide
additional public service and infrastructure.
($24.8 million).. The annual net fiscal surplus
at General Plan buildout is estimated to be
$8.1 million
Would generate more revenue ($40.3 million)
than Alternative A, but less than Alternative C.
Would cost more to provide additional public
services and infrastructure ($33.1 million) than
Alternative A, but less than Alternative C. The
annual net fiscal surplus at General Plan
buildout is estimated to be $7.1 million.
Generates the most revenue ($48.6 million),
but would also have the highest costs to
provide for additional public services and
infrastructure. ($43.4 million). The annual net
fiscal surplus at General Plan buildout is
estimated to be $5.2 million..
Financial Feasibility Generally financially feasible.
Offers the greatest potential for near-term
development feasibility due to the current
feasibility of most midrange-height
developments.
Could become more financially feasible if
there are above ground parking solutions for
high density development and/or changes in
real estate economics over time.
Community Benefits
Community Benefits All alternatives have the potential to capture community benefits.
All alternatives have the potential to capture
community benefits.
All alternatives have the potential to capture
community benefits.
195 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 44
CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
This section highlights the primary differences between the circulation alternatives. Since land use and the performance of the circulation network are directly related, the circulation alternatives were reviewed in relation to the land use alternatives where feasible. Table 5 summarizes the of the analysis of the circulation alternatives in relation to the land use alternatives. Each analysis was worth three points and each mode had between four and six individual analyses that were combined to get a score for each mode. The pedestrian evaluation did not include land use changes because the analysis did not look at access but instead completing the sidewalk network, potential changes to Downtown and tree coverage. The highest scoring alternative is Land Use Alternative C with Circulation Alternative C. The lowest scoring is Circulation Alternative B with Land Use Alternatives A and B. For a more detaile d description of this analysis, please refer to the Multimodal Network section in Section 5.2.
It is important to understand that transit projects and roadway projects on the state highways system envisioned in the alternatives will require partnership and coordination with neighboring jurisdictions, transit operators, and Caltrans to implement and cannot be completed by the City of San Mateo alone.
– Circulation Alternative A
– This alternative would result in the second highest amount of pedestrian improvements and would perform the same
under all land use alternatives
– Circulation Alternatives A and C include more bicycle improvements than Circulation Alternative B.
– Circulation Alternative A performed the lowest in terms of transit because it does not include east -west transit
connections.
– Bicycle and transit improvements under Circulation
Alternative A performed slightly higher when matched with Land Use Alternative C because these improvements
would benefit more residents.
– Circulation Alternative B
– Circulation Alternative B includes the fewest number of pedestrian improvements.
– All circulation alternatives include good bicycle network coverage, but because Circulation Alterna tive B does not include bicycle improvements along El Camino Real it
scored the lowest in this category.
– Circulation Alternatives B and C would have the highest transit benefit and both circulation alternatives would perform slightly better under Land Use Alternative C.
– Pedestrian and bicycle improvements included under
Circulation Alternative B performed the same when
considered in context of the three land use alternatives.
However, the transit improvements performed slightly
higher under Land Use Alternative C because it would
benefit a higher number of people.
– Circulation Alternative C
– Circulation Alternative C would have the highest multi - modal benefit because it anticipates the most pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements.
– The public realm improvements and Downtown superblock included in Circulation Alternative C would result in the most pedestrian benefits amongst the three circulation
alternatives and would perform the same under all land use alternatives.
196 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 45 – The bicycle improvements includ ed in Circulation
Alternative C would perform the same under all land use alternatives.
– Circulation Alternative C implemented with Land Use
Alternative C would have the most circulation benefits.
Table 5 Summary of Multimodal Analysis of Circulation Alternatives Circulation Alternatives
evaluation by Mode (best
scores bolded)
Circulation Alternative A
Walkability
Circulation Alternative B
Transit Connections
Circulation Alternative C
Hybrid
Land Use ¹
A
Land Use
B
Land Use
C
Land Use
A
` Land Use
B
Land Use
C
Land Use
A
Land Use
B
Land Use
C
Pedestrian Evaluation 13/18 7/18 16/18
Bicycle Evaluation 15/18 15/18 15/18 13/18 13/18 13/18 15/18 15/18 15/18 Transit Evaluation 6/12 6/12 7/12 8/12 8/12 9/12 8/12 8/12 9/12 Total Multimodal Score² 34/48 34/48 35/48 28/48 28/48 29/48 39/48 39/48 40/48 ¹ Land Use Alternative
² Points assigned based on comparative evaluation, description of methodology in the Traffic and Multimodal Circulation section. 197 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 46
3.2 BUILDING YOUR PREFERRED SCENARIO
When reviewing the results of the alternatives evaluation, you may want to think about the topics and outcomes that are most important to you to help define your preferred land use and circulation scenario.
Components and ideas from the land use and circulation alternatives can be mixed and matched by land use designation or circulation improvement to create your ideal preferred land use and circulation scenarios.
Use this space to jot down your ideas about the land use and circulation alternatives and the components you want the preferred scenarios to embody.
1 – El Camino Real
2 - Bel Mateo/ Mollie Stone Area
Land Use Alternative A:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative B:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative C:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative A:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative B:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative C:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ 198 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 47 3 - Rail Corridor Area
4 - Downtown
Land Use Alternative A:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative B:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative C:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative A:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative B:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative C:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ 199 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 48
5 - Peninsula Ave. Area
6 - Campus Dr. Area
Land Use Alternative A:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative B:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative C:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative A:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative B:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative C:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ 200 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 49 7 - North Shoreview and Shoreview Area
8 - Parkside Plaza Area
Land Use Alternative A:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative B:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative C:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative A:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative B:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative C:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ 201 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 50
9 - Hillsdale/ Norfolk Area
10 – Bridgepointe
Land Use Alternative A:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative B:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative C:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative A:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative B:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Land Use Alternative C:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ 202 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 51 Circulation
Alternatives Notes
A
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
B
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
C
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
________________________________ _____________________
203 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 52
4. Project Context
4.1 GENERAL PLAN VISION AND VALUES
For six months from fall of 2018 through spring 2019 , hundreds of San Mateo residents provided input on the General Plan Vision Statement.
In April 2019, the City Council discussed and finalized the General Plan Vision Statement:
OUR VISION :
San Mateo is a vibrant, livable, diverse, and healthy community t hat respects the quality of its neighborhoods, fosters a flourishing economy, is committed to equity, and is a leader in environmental sustainability.
OUR VALUES :
Diversity: We embrace diversity and respect the
experiences, contributions, and aspirations of people of all ages, abilities, incomes, and backgrounds. We celebrate arts and culture.
Balance: We seek to balance well -designed development
and thoughtful preservation w ith a full spectrum of choices for housing and effective transportation.
Inclusivity: We strive to include everyone in community life and decisions for a shared, sustainable future.
Prosperity: We cultivate a diverse and thriving economy with different types of homes, jobs, recreation, lifelong learning opportunities, and services for both current and future generations.
Resiliency: We are leaders in sustainability, making San Mateo strong and resilient by acting boldly to adapt to a changing world.
4.2 PIPELINE PROJECTS
There are a number of projects currently underway in the City. Table 6 shows the approved projects by Study Area. Approved projects are concentrated in the Downtown area, rail corridor area, and the Campus Drive area. This table includes project s that have been approved and are eligible to start construction. It does not include projects that are currently under review but not yet approved , or projects that are currently under construction. There are also a number of projects under construction in the city, including Station Park Green (599 units), “One 90” on Waters Park Drive (190 units), 1650 S. Delaware Street (73 units) and the redevelopment of Trag’s Market at 303 Baldwin Avenue (64 units).
– Study Area 3 (Rail Corridor Area) includes a major development project called Concar Passage, which is located on the Concar Shopping Center site . The site is approximately 14.5 acres in size. The Concar Passage project includes construction of 961 multifamily dwelling units and approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial and retail space. The project also includes 73 affordable housing units, associated parking and 3 acres of community open space. This project was approved by the City Council on August 17, 2020. However, due to existing leases for shopping center tenants, construction is not anticipated to start until 2023 or 2024.
– Study Area 4 (Downtown) includes the Kiku Crossing project at 480 E. 4th Avenue, which consists of a new 7 -story residential building with 225 affordable rental units on two City-owned sites that are approximately 2.4 acres in size . Construction is anticipated to begin in the first half of 2022.
– The Peninsula Heights projec t in the Study Area 6 on Campus Drive was approved by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2020, and consists of 290 new residential units on two parcels approximately 15.5 acres in size. Construction is anticipated to begin in the first quarter of 2022.
204 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 53 There are currently no approved but unbuilt projects in Study Areas 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10; however, the City is currently reviewing development proposals for new projects in most of these Study Areas.
For the most up -to-date information on development pro jects in San Mateo, visit the City’s website:
www.cityofsanmateo.org/whatshappening.
Table 6 Approved Projects by Study Area
Study
Area Project name Land Use New Units
3 Hillsdale Terraces Mixed Use/
Parking Garage 68
21 Lodato Residential 3
Bay Meadows II SPAR #1 STA 1
& 5 Modification Office -
Bay Meadows MU 2 Office -
Bay Meadows MU 3 Office/Residential 67
Bay Meadows Res 6 Residential 54
Concar Passage Mixed Use 961
1919 O’Farrell Mixed Use 49
4 210 South Fremont Street Residential 15
Essex at Central Park Mixed Use 80
180 E. Third Avenue Commercial/Office -
480 E. 4th Ave (Kiku Crossing) Affordable Housing/
Parking 225
6 Peninsula Heights (Campus
Drive) Residential 290
Source: City of San Mateo, 2021
4.3 AREA PLANS, MASTER PLANS, AND
SPECIFIC PLANS
The following approved specific plans, master plans and area plans guide the development and growth in the city:
– Bay Meadows Specific Plan . The Bay Meadows Specific Plan covers the 75-acre area of the former Bay Meadows Racetrack.
Phase I of the Specific Plan has been constructed and included 734 residential units, 300,000 square feet of retail, 900,000 square feet of office/commercial, and a 310 -room hotel with a restaurant. Phase II of the Specific Plan , which includes 1,048 residential units, 68 of which are affordable units, 1.2 million square feet of office space, 67,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, a 450 -student private high school, Nueva School, and three public parks, is in the process of being constructed.
– Hillsdale Station Area Plan . The Hillsdale Station Area Plan, adopted on April 18, 2011, is the guiding document for the Hillsdale Station Area that sets forth the regulatory framework, goals, and policies to transform the area surrounding t he Hillsdale Caltrain Station into a sustainable, pedestrian-oriented, transit hub.
– El Camino Real Master Plan. The City of San Mateo’s El Camino Real Committee (ECRC) developed a vision for the future of El Camino Real south, from State Route (SR) 92 to the Belmont city border. The El Camino Real Master Plan provides greater depth into streetscape plans, design guidelines, and implementation strategies than the San Mateo Rail Corridor Transit Oriented Development Plan.
– Mariner’s Island Specific Plan . The M ariner’s Island Specific Plan established land use and policy regulation for the 263 net acres of land located between Marina Lagoon and San
Mateo/Foster City City Limits. It was mostly developed in the 1970’s and 1980’s to include retail, offices, and residences. The 205 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 54
Plan included the following major development projects: the Century Centre, San Mateo Centre, and other Class A offices; The Edgewater Isle condominiums project; and the Fashion Island Shopping Center.
– Shoreline Specific Plan. The Shoreline Specific Plan, adopted in 1971 and revised in 1990, covers a total of 885 acres and plans for 511 acres of park and recreation, the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant, water -oriented commercial uses, passive open space, storm drainage facilities, an d bicycle and pedestrian paths. The five subareas of the Plan include Shoreland, Seal Point, Seal Cove, Marina Lagoon, and San Mateo Creek.
– Detroit Drive Specific Plan . The Detroit Drive Specific Plan, adopted in 1984 and amended in 1990, established
development criteria for industrial and manufacturing use of a
7.25-acre site bounded by J. Hart Clinton Drive, the realigned Detroit Drive, the Dale Avenue Entrance to the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the South Shoreview residential
subdivision.
– Downtown Area Plan. The Downtown Area Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2003 then revised on May 19, 2009, covers about 70 blocks traditionally known as Downtown, plus the area known as the Gateway and portions of adjacent neighborhoods. This plan pertains to new Downtown development and focuses on preserving existing Downtown resources, enhancing its vitality and activity, all while maintaining a sense of place.
4.4 THE HOUSING ELEMENT
The Housing Element is a required section of the General Plan that provides policies and programs to ensure that San Mateo can accommodate housing for all members of the community at all income levels. The Housing Element must include a variety of sta tistics on housing needs, constraints to development, and policies and programs to implement a variety of housing -related land use actions, and a detailed inventory of “opportunity sites” on which future housing may be built. The Housing Element is the only element of the General Plan that is subject to State requirements for content and which must be approved (“certified”) by the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). Having a certified Housing Element is a prerequisite for many State grants and funding programs.
Although the Housing Element is legally a part of the General Plan, the two projects are on parallel but separate tracks in order to ensure that the Housing Element meets State imposed deadlines for adoption by the beginning of 2023. The General Plan team is working closely with the Housing Element team to ensure that these two important efforts are integrated. The Housing Element will evaluate specific sites citywide and establish programs and policies to address fair housing co nditions citywide.
The City itself is not responsible for building housing, but it must demonstrate in the Housing Element that it has policies and programs in place to support housing construction for all income levels, as well as available land with appropriate zoning and densities to accommodate new housing. The City of San Mateo supports efforts to provide affordable housing in the city and has a department that is dedicated to providing financial assistance for the construction and rehabilitation of rental housing, minor home repair programs, and home ownership programs. The following is a list of housing resources and programs available at the City:
– Minor Home Repairs . The City provides grants to non -profit service agencies for provision of Minor Home Repairs to income qualified homeowners. The program offers home repairs to improve health and safety, housing accessibility modifications, and energy efficiency retrofit measures to income qualified individuals.
206 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 55 – Home Rehabilitation Loan . The City offers up to a maximum of $60,000 for housing rehabilitation as sistance to low -income homeowners in the form of deferred payment loans.
– Code Enforcement . The City enforces State and local codes to improve residential areas through abatement, administr ative citations and fees, civil penalties, and civil litigation to bring about compliance. It also provides tenant relocation assistance in the event tenants are displaced due to code enforcement actions.
– Public Funding of Low/Moderate Income Housing . The City coordinates federal Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program
funds, Low/Moderate Income Housing funds from the former Redevelopment Agency, Commercial Linkage Fees, the State Permanent Local Housing Allo cation, and CalHome funds to address the construction, acquisition , and rehabilitation of housing units affordable to very low, low and moderate income households.
Since 2013, the City has provided three City owned sites for affordable housing resulting in the development of 400 units.
The City’s First Time Homebuyer program provides down
payment assistance to units at three locations in addition to the below-market rate ownership units located in market rate developments. The City keeps a master waitlist for interested buyers of these restricted units. The City also has over 1,670 restricted affordable units (30 0 ownership and 1,370 rental) citywide. In 2021, another 388 affordable units are approved or under construction.
– Private Development of Affordable Housing. The City
increased the minimum inclusionary requirement from 10 to 15 percent for its Below Market Rate program in February 2020.
Many developers also take advantage of the State Density Bonus provisions that often results in more affordability than the City base requirements . The City also adopted a Commercial Linkage Fee ordinance in 2016. All non -housing projects with net new construction of 5,000 square feet or greater are required to pay the commercial linkage fee, which is used to provide affordable housing units.
– ADUs/JADUs . Consistent with 2016 State housing legislation, the City Council adopted a new ADU/JADU ordinance in March 2017. The City is working on another revision of the ADU /JADU Ordinance to be consistent with current State law and to further streamline production , with adoption anticipated in the first quarter of 2022.
– Senior Project Location. The City continues to promote the development of senior housing through its use of the Senior Citizen Overlay District, which reduces parking requirements for senior developments and by allowing senior projects within multifamily and commercially zoned properties.
– Mixed Use. Construction of mixed use buildings that include housing units are permitted in all commercial zoning districts , except Service Commercial, either by zoning or a Special Use Permit.
– Persons Experiencing Homelessness . The City provides continuous representation and participation in the County Continuum of Care, which focuses on programs for prevention of homelessness and services to homeless families and
individuals. T here is also a permanent supportive housing project, called Vendome, that provides 16 units for the most chronic formerly homeless individuals. First Step for Families also provides 39 emergency and transitional shelter units for families with children.
207 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 56
The Zoning Code was amended in 2009 to allow emergency
shelters in C-2 and C-3 zoning districts as a permitted use. The City also supports home sharing through funding Human Investment Project Housing, a local non -profit whose main service is matching home seekers with those offering space for home sharing to prevent homelessness.
– Energy and Water Efficiency. The City joined 5 Property Assessed Clean Energy programs to provide financing options to homeowners to perform energy upgrades to their homes. – Special Need Groups. The City provides financial as sistance to nonprofit organizations that provide housing, rental assistance and/or housing related services to a variety of special needs populations. The City also adopted a Reasonable
Accommodation ordinance on June 16, 2014 , which allows reasonable acco mmodation requests from the City’s Zoning Code.
– Open Choice . The City contracts with Project Sentinel to provide Fair Housing services, monitoring and investigation. All housing related projects or services funded by the City include affirmative marketing guidelines and are monitored on a regular basis.
– Transit-Oriented Development. The San Mateo Rail Corridor Plan Transit -Oriented Development Plan, and a subsequent ordinance, was adopted by the City Council in 2005. This document and the subsequent specific plan and design
guidelines regulate development in the rezoned Transit Oriented Development properties.
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) – the regional planning agency for the Bay Area - assigns State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) units to each jurisdiction. The methodology used to allocate units is the same for all jurisdictions within the nine-county Bay Area. ABAG must distribute the Bay Area’s regional housing need of 441,176 housing units to all of the cities, towns, and counties in the Bay Area . San Mateo’s RHNA for the current Housing Element is expected to be approximately 7,015 units, distributed among four income categories that range from very low income to above moderate income.
This means the City of San Mateo must ensure that there is enough land zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate 7,0 15 new units, plus a buffer which is described further herein. In comparison to this current RHNA, which is the “6 th cycle,” San Mateo’s previous 5th Cycle allocation in 2014 was 3,100 units. The draft allocations throughout the Bay Area are high in part because the region’s bulk allocation from the State of California is more than double the last Housing Element Cycle’s allocation to the region, which was about 189,000 units.
Although the RHNA allocation is not a direct requirement to build units, the State legislature has enacted increasingly stringent requirements on localities to ensure they are doing everything possible for housing to be built and to remove common barriers to housing construction. This includes demonstrating in an opportunity sites inventory that the allocation can be met, plus providing a buffer of at least 15 to 30 percent.
A buffer is necessary to ensure that if some of the sites listed in the Housing Element are developed without housing, are developed with less than the full amount of housing projected in the Housing Element, or are not developed at the income levels identified in the Housing Element, there is sufficien t remaining capacity to ensure an ongoing supply of sites for the full RHNA during the eight years of the Housing Element Cycle at every income level . HCD recommends a buffer of at least 15 to 30 percent, but many jurisdictions anticipate providing a buffer of up to 50 percent. The City’s previous Housing Element 208 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 57 included a RHNA allocation of 3,100 units along with a “buffer” of 1,623 units (about 52 percent of the allocation) – that is, the Housing Element identified enough land zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate a total of 4,723 units.
It is important to note that, while the State requires the City of San Mateo to plan for the RHNA housing units, it does not mean that the City is required to build these housing units.
Please visit https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/HousingElement2023 to learn more about the City’s Housing Element.
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Assembly Bill 686 requires cities and counties t o administer its programs and activities relating to housing in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing and not take any action that is inconsistent with this obligation. This means taking actions to overcome patterns of segregation, address dispari ties in housing needs and access to opportunity, and foster inclusive communities. Housing Elements must now, among other things, include an assessment of fair housing practices, examine the relationship of available sites to areas of high opportunity, and include actions to affirmatively further fair housing.
Potential programs that may be included in the Housing Element which affirmatively further fair housing include assisting with rehabilitation and repair of housing for low-income households and expanding services to underserved communities. The Housing Element is also intended to affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring that San Mateo can accommodate housing for all members of the community at all income levels.
HOUSING ELEMENT SITES
State law requires that the Housing Element contain a site -by-site inventory of land suitable for development of all housing types, including multifamily. The identified land must have access to appropriate services and infrastructure, such as water, wastewater, and roads.
These are called opportunity sites. As has been the case for the last three Housing Elements, staff has conducted a City -wide review of parcels that are either vacant or underutilized to discern if these sites are appropriate for development. These sites may or may not eventually be developed for housing, as the choice is, and always will be, at the owner’s decision.
The constraints facing the City with respect to developing the opportunity sites inventory are significant, in part because there is very little vacant land available for development. As a consequence, the City must analyze sites with existing uses that may be redeveloped. Further, Measure Y imposes height and density limits that limit the amount of development that can be built on any site in San Mateo through 2030.
All of these factors will present challenges in developing an acceptable opportunity sites inventory for the current and future RHNA Cycles solely within the 10 Study Areas.
Some additional factors considered in the de velopment of the site inventory include:
1. Whether a site has an underperforming use on it;
2. Whether other sites in the area have seen recent redevelopment to housing;
3. Whether the site has sufficient infrastructure available to it;
4. Whether the site’s topography makes it suitable for housing development; and,
5. Whether the site is of a sufficient size to be developed for housing.
209 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 58
Except for Study Area 1-North, all other Study Areas have several sites that have been identified as suitable land for development of all housing types, including multifamily. All identified opportunity sites are designated Residential Medium or Residential High , Mixed Use Medium, or Mixed Use Hig h in all three alternatives to maintain consistency with the Housing Element process. The inventory of opportunity sites will be finalized when the Housing Element is adopted.
4.5 OTHER CITYWIDE REGULATIONS AND
PROJECTS
In addition to the General Plan, the Ci ty has other documents and projects that guide land use, transportation, and sustainability . The following lists includes a several of the key documents and projects:
– Zoning Code. The City’s Zoning Code implements the land use goals and policies established in the General Plan. It regulates land uses, building heights, setbacks, provision of open space, and other factors that relate to development on individual properties.
– Future Complete Streets Plan . The City was awarded a California Department of Transpo rtation Sustainable
Communities Grant for the development of a Complete Streets Plan. This effort , which will be initiated in 2022, will create an actionable transportation plan rooted in safety for all modes, resulting in policies, goals, and prioritized projects that are focused on improving mobility, equity, connectivity, and sustainability.
– Climate Action Plan. The City’s 2020 Climate Action Plan provides a comprehensive list of community -wide actions that will help reduce GHG emissions from buildings, vehicles, and other sources.
– Green Infrastructure Plan. This plan guides the siting , implementation, tracking, and reporting of green infrastructure projects, which use plants and soils to mimic natural watershed processes, capture stormwater, increase groundwater infiltration and create healthier environments on City-owned land.
– Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan. The City’s pedestrian master plan provides a broad vision, strategies, and actions for improving the pedestrian environment in San Mateo. It studied pedestrian travel in the City, analyzed collision data , and developed recommendations to improve pedestrian access. – Bicycle Master Plan . This plan guides the future development of bicycle facilities and programs in the City. This plan will enable San Mateo residents and visitors with the opportunity to utilize various bicycle network roadways and parking facilities for work or recreation.
– US 101/Peninsu la Avenue Interchange Project . This project includes the relocation of the U.S. Hwy 101 southbound on- and off-ramps from East Poplar Avenue to Peninsula Avenue in order to create a single, full -access interchange at Peninsula Avenue and Airport Boulevard to improve safety and traffic operations .
The project is currently undergoing an environmental review process.
– 25th Avenue Grade Separation Project. This project was completed in September 2021. It raised the train tracks, slightly lowered the road (gra de separated) at E. 25th Avenue, and created new east -west street connections at 28th and 31st Avenues between S. Delaware Street and El Camino Real.
210 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 59 – Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. A Draft 2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigati on Plan was recently released. This Plan was written with a partnership of 36 local governments and special districts in San Mateo County,
including the City of San Mateo. It identifies natural and human- caused hazards and helps the City plan ahead to miti gate, respond to, and recover from disasters.
For more information on other planning efforts, please visit the City’s website: www.cityofsanmateo.org
4.6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
Even after the Preferred Scenario is selected and the updated General Plan is adopted, there are many steps a project must go through to ensure it meets all applicable City standards and requirements. The following is a brief summary of San Mateo’s development review process for all projects that require a Planning Application:
PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW
– Planning staff consultation. Initial discussions with planning staff to determine scope of project, application requirements, applicable codes and policies, and to
determine if a pre -application submittal is required. Formal Pre-Applications are required for projects consisting of more than 20 residential units; 10,000 square feet of new floor area; and/or Zoning Reclassifications or General Plan
Amendments.
– Pre-Application submittal. Plans and materials submitted per the submittal requirements in the Pre-Application Guide. – Internal staff review. Departmental review (Planning, Building Public Works, Transportation, Parks a nd
Recreation, Police, Fire) for high -level compliance with applicable codes, policies and City requirements
– Neighborhood meeting. In coordination with staff, a
neighborhood meeting is scheduled and notices are sent
out. Applicant leads the meeting and ta kes meeting
minutes. Staff planner attends and answers City
requirements or procedure-related questions.
– Planning Commission Study Session. Following the
neighborhood meeting, a study session is held before the Planning Commission to review the project on a preliminary basis to provide input on elements such as site plan ning, building and architectural design, and landscaping.
FORMAL PLANNING APPLICATION
– Internal staff review. Once an application is submitted, City departments (Planning, Building Public Wor ks,
Transportation, Parks and Recreation, Police, Fire) review for compliance with applicable codes, policies and City
requirements; once all comments are addressed the
application is deemed complete. After being deemed
complete, Conditions of Approval are prepared.
– Environmental Review. Once an application is deemed complete, environmental review completed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which
could include an exemption, an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report. – Final Approval. Depending on the type of project and the type of approval being sought, final approval could come from the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission, or the City Council.
211 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 60
5. Alternatives Evaluation
This chapter includes a detailed evaluation and comparison of the three land use and circulation alternatives and their differing potential outcomes on:
– Urban Form
– Traffic and Multimodal Circulation
– Community Services
– Utilities
– Environmental Sustainability
– Equity And Public Health
– Fiscal Sustainability
– Market Feasibility
– Community Benefits
Each section also lists potential Policy Considerations . Future development in San Mateo will be influenced by the land uses allowed in the General Plan and will also be strongly influenced by the policies in the General Plan. The policy considerations offered here will be subject to community discussion and deb ate as the General Plan is drafted and reviewed before adoption.
5.1 URBAN FORM
HEIGHT AND DENSITY
The City of San Mateo’s Zoning Code regulates the height and density of buildings citywide. Maximum building height standards are set forth on the Building Height Plan of the General Plan. Additionally, the City’s Downtown Specific Plan and Bay Meadows Specific Plan define height and density standards for the areas encompassed by these specific plans.
San Mateo is largely “built-out,” meaning there are relatively few vacant parcels within the city limit. In order to accommodate the State required housing numbers (RHNA) and anticipated job growth, some limited areas of the city will need to redevelop at a higher intensity. This could be achieved through increased densities and/or higher building heights.
The alternatives are based on community input and consider potential land use changes, using the new land use typologies, that reflect a range of allowed heights and densities for all types of development. The alternatives do not assume or propose any specific buildings or development projects, and no decisions have been made about future heights on individual parcels.
In November 2020, San Mateo voters approved Measure Y, which extended past voter-approved limits on new residential building heights and densities to be no more than 50 dwelling units per acre and 55 feet in height with some exceptions, including development within the Hillsdale Shopping Center (Study Area 10) and some specific areas of Downtown (Study Area 4) where building heights of up to 60 feet and 75 feet may be allowed, respectively. The range of land use categories used in the alternatives would maintain existing height limits in some areas, but the land use categories Residential Medium, Resid ential High, Mixed-Use Medium, Mixed-Use High, Office Medium, and Office High would allow buildings with six or more stories , which exceed Measure Y’s prescribed building height and/or density limits. Residential Medium, Office Medium, and Mixed-Use Medium, which allow a range of 4 to 7 stories in building height. Buildings of 4 to 5 stories under these “Medium” land use designations would generally be allowed under Measure Y, but buildings exceeding 5 stories would not be aligned with the measure.
Among the three alternatives, Alternative C shows the most areas of change with the highest intensities (density and building height) throughout the study areas, including Mixed -Use Medium along the southern end of El Camino Real (Study Area 2), Mixed -Use High uses along El Camino Real around the Hillsdale station (Study Area 3), and in Downtown (Study Area 4) with Residential High uses along Railroad 212 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 61 Avenue and Mixed -Use High uses between Baldwin Avenue and 5 th Avenue. Buildings in the Residential High designatio n could be 8 or more stories tall. At the same time, Alternative C also maintains the most areas that are in alignment with Measure Y, including the Mixed -Use Low uses along Peninsula Avenue and the Residential Low uses in Study Areas 4 and 8. Alternative C focuses its highest density uses in concentrated nodes throughout the study areas, while Alternatives A and B have greater distribution of Medium density uses throughout the study areas.
Overall, Alternative A has the least High-density designations compared to Alternatives B and C, and also preserves several areas consistent with Measure Y, including Mixed-use Medium in Downtown (Study Area 4) between Baldwin Avenue and 3 rd Avenue and Mixed-Use Low along El Camino Real near the Hillsdale station (Study Area 3).
Alternative B has more High density-designations than Alternative A, but less than Alternative C, including Residential High uses along El Camino Real between 12 th Avenue and 16 th Avenue (Study Area 1 Central). In contrast, Alternatives A and C propose primarily Mixed -Use Medium in this area.
Most of the study areas are bordered by existing single-family residential neighborhoods with homes typically 1 to 2 stories high. Since Mixed- Use, Residential, and Office uses at Medium and High densities would potentially be 4 to 7 stories (Medium) and more than 8 stories tall (High), new development at these proposed heights would affect the visual character of neighborhoods adjacent to these higher density nodes and could cast shadows during certain parts of the day onto nearby single- family residences. This would occur in all Alternatives, but Alternatives B and C have the most Medium and High density designations that abut single-family neighborhoods. Alternative C has the greatest amount of High density development next to single-family neighborhoods in Study Areas 3 and 4, particularly around the Hayward Park and future Hillsdale transit stations. In Alternative B, there are areas with High density development near single -family residences along El Camino Real in Study Area 1 and around the future Hillsdale transit station in Study Area
3. Land use changes proposed within Study Areas 6, 9, and 10 have less of an impact on existing single -family residences as these study areas are more geographically isolated , adjacent to wider roadways , or are buffered from single-family residential neighborhoods by other uses.
ABILITY TO MEET FUTURE RHNA
As described in Section 4. 4., State law requires every California jurisdiction to plan for its “fair share” of the regional housing need for households of all income levels. San Mateo’s 6th Cycle RHNA is 7,015 housing units , distributed among four income categories that range from Very Low Income to Abov e Moderate Income. The City must ensure it can accommodate the new housing units that might be built for the period from 2023 to 2031.
Although the RHNA allocation is not a requirement to build units, the State legislature has enacted increasingly string ent requirements on cities to ensure they are doing everything possible for housing to be built and to remove common barriers to housing construction. Working under this assumption, all three alternatives have been developed to include enough housing sites to fulfill the city’s ant icipated RHNA 6th Cycle numbers. However, the General Plan extends beyond the 6th Cycle.
Assuming continued 8-year RHNA cycles, and that the General Plan’s expected life cycle is until 2040, the updated General Plan should designate sufficient residential land to accommodate the future 7th Cycle (January 2031 to January 2039) and early 8th Cycle (January 2039 to January 2047).
213 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 62
The scale of future housing allocations is unknown and difficult to predict. If the 7th Cycle RHNA is in the same proportion to the existing number of homes as the 6th Cycle RHNA, it would call for 8,000 to 8,500 new units, for a minimum of about 15,000 new units over the 6th and 7th Cycles combined , covering the years 2023 to 2039 . This does not include any additional “buffer” for the two RHNA cycles, nor additional capacity for the 8th Cycle RHNA , which will begin in 2039 before the General Plan horizon year of 2040.
If the City does not designate adequate residential sites to meet the future RHNAs as part of the General Plan Upda te, the next Housing Element, eight years from now, will need to revisit the General Plan land use map and include a process to identify and change the designations on additional sites to accommodate more future housing. The ability for each alternative to meet the 6 th Cycle RHNA and future cycles are described below.
– Alternative A, which anticipates 11,810 units , meets the 6 th Cycle RHNA plus a buffer and would likely accommodate about 1,188 units of capacity remaining for future RHNAs beyond 2031. However, if future RHNAs are similar to the 6th cycle RHNA, Alternative A isn’t enough to accommodate the full amount, and the City would have to complete a substantial update to the Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Elements in order to account for future RHNA cycles, including the 7th Cycle, which is due for certification in January 2031.
– Alternative B , which anticipates 16,070 units , could likely accommodate the City’s 6th and 7th Cycle RHNAs and at least a small buffer, and would allow for Land Use and Circulation Elements that align more closely with the desired life cycle of General Plan 2040, assuming future allocations follow curr ent trends.
– Alternative C, which anticipates 21,080 units, would provide the most assurance in terms of meeting future RHNA cycles and buffers within the Study Areas and corresponding with the projected life cycle of General Pan 2040.
JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE
Jobs-housing balance is a measure of how well the local economy provides jobs for the local labor force. An adequate balance of housing and jobs can benefit the city’s economy, environment, and the resident’s quality of life. Although this topic is often described as “jobs- housing” balance, comparing the number of jobs to the number of residents is a more direct comparison of individuals, rather than comparing people to homes. The jobs -employed residents ratio is calculated by dividing the number of jobs in the community by the number of employed residents in the same area. It must take into account the fact that many residents are children, seniors, students, or otherwise not part of the workforce. A high number of jobs relative to residents typically in dicates that workers are commuting into the community. A low number of jobs and high number of residents typically indicates that workers are commuting out of the community for work.
When the number of employed residents is significantly higher than the number of jobs in the city, it can lead to increased traffic congestion as workers commute either in or out, which in turn creates increased air pollutant emissions, increased noise, and increased GHG emissions. It should be noted that the ratio of jobs to employed residents indicates a numerical match, not a qualitative match in job type vs. resident skills and abilities.
An ideal jobs-to-employed residents ratio for a city like San Mateo would be 1.0, which indicates that there is a job in the community for every employed resident. It is important to note, even with a n ideal jobs -to- employed residents ratio of 1.0 , that many residents will continue to commute outside of San Mateo while workers that do not reside in San Mateo will continue to commute in . As shown in Figure 21, “Where People Live vs. Work ,” as of 2018, approximately 49,000 people that worked in San Mateo lived outside of the city and approximately 49,000 214 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 63 San Mateo residents commuted outside of the City for work, and only approximately 7,000 both live and work in San Mateo. Since 2020, the Covid pandemic has changed commute patterns in the Bay Area for those workers who are able to work remotely. However, comparable US Census data to what is displayed in Figure 21 is not yet available for 2020 or 2021.
Although the City cannot control whether jobs within San Mateo are filled by residents, striv ing for a jobs-to-employed residents ratio of 1.0 increases the opportunity for employed residents to find a job in San Mateo.
Table 7 shows the jobs -to-employed residents ratio for the three land use alternatives. Based on existing conditions plus net new employees and new population projected through 2040 under each alternative:
– Alternative A would result in a slightly higher jobs-employed residents balance when compared to the baseline year of 2018 (this is the most recent year for which reliable data is available; in 2020 and 2021 these numbers have been affected by the Covid pandemic). This implies that San Mateo would have slightly more jobs than employed residents.
– Alternative s B and C would result in a slightly lower jobs- employed residents balance when compared to the baseline year of 2018. However, Alternative B would still result in a jobs- employed residents ratio over 1.0. Alternative C would result in a jobs-employed residents ratio of .95.
All three alternatives are very close together when considering the total number of existing pl us net new jobs and employed residents , and because this is a numerical ratio rather than an exact match of workers to jobs. As describe previously, in- and out-commuting will still continue under any alternative even with at an ideal jobs -to-employed residents of 1.0.
Figure 21. Where People Live vs. Work
Table 7 Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio
Existing
(2018)
Alternative A
(Net New +
Existing)
Alternative B
(Net New +
Existing)
Alternative C
(Net New +
Existing)
Population 104,500 133,998 144,759 158,007
Jobs 52,800 68,230 68,230 67,790
Est. Employed
residents (0.45) 49,500 60,300 65,150 71,100
Jobs-to-
Employed
Residents Ratio
1.07 1.13 1.05 .95
Source: PlaceWorks, 2021
215 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 64
HISTORIC RESOURCES
The City of San Mateo’s 1989 Historic Building Survey includes information regarding a variety of historic resources as well as contributors to a historic district. The Historic Building Survey identified approximately 200 historically significant structures as shown on Figure
22. Of the 200 structures, approximately 37 structures were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 1 To establish the historic significance of buildings, the Survey utilized the evaluation standards adopted by the Cali fornia State Office of Historic Preservation. The Historic Building Survey focused on areas east of El Camino Real because this is where the oldest neighborhoods mostly occurred. 2 Since over 30 years have passed since the last Historic Building Survey, it is possible that there are new structures that could be considered historic per federal and State guidelines.
Five buildings in the City are listed on the National Register of Historic Places: Ernest Coxhead House on the East of Santa Inez , De Sabla Teahouse and Tea Garden on De Sabla Avenue , Hotel Saint Matthew on Second Avenue, National Bank of San Mateo on B Street , and the US Post Office on South Ellsworth Street. 3 Thirteen historic resources, including Central Park and the Jepson Laurel Tree (t he ol dest and largest known Laurel in California ), are listed on the California State Register. The City of San Mateo’s 1989 Historic Building Survey includes information regarding a variety of historic resources as well as contributors to a historic district. The Historic Building Survey identified approximately 200 historically significant structures. Of the 200
1 City of San Mateo, Historic Resources Handout, page 1. 2 San Mateo County Historical Association, City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey, 1989, page 4. 3 City of San Mateo, Vision 2030 General Plan, pages VI-8. 4 City of San Mateo, Historic Resources Handout, page 1. 5 San Mateo County Historical Association, City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey, 1989, page 4. 6 https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf 7 San Mateo County Historical Association, City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey, 1989, page 19. 8 San Mateo County Historical Association, City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey, 1989, page 20. structures, approximately 37 structures are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 4 To establish the historic significance of buildings, the Survey utilized the evaluation standards adopted by the California State Office of Historic Preservation. The Historic Building Survey focused on areas east of El Camino Real.5
The Historic Buildi ng Survey also identified two historic districts, the Downtown Historic District and the Glazenwood Historic District. In addition to any individual buildings, common areas, or historic sites within these Districts, the relationship of buildings to each ot her, setbacks, fence patterns, views, driveways and walkways, and street trees and other landscaping together establish the character of the District.6
Historic resources in the Downtown Historic District, which is within Study Area 4, are mainly concentr ated along East Third Avenue and South B Street, though historic structures exist throughout the Downtown.7 Historic structures in the Downtown Historic District were built before 1900 to the late 1930s. 8 The Glazenwood Historic District, which is immediately south of Study Area 4 but is not within any of the study areas, is a residential area that includes 1920’s Spanish Colonial Revival homes. To support the preservation of these historic resources, the City has codified protection of historic buildings in the General Plan and Zoning Code.
216 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 65 Figure 22. Historic Resources
217 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 66
Within the Historic District itself, any future change would be regulated by federal, State, and local codes that protect identified historic resources, although these regulations do not prohibit demolition or alteration of histor ic buildings. Impacts to the Historic District could come from change within the district or from development outside of , but adjacent to, the district. New construction replacing historic buildings could introduce incompatible site design, height and bulk, or materials and features adjacent to historic buildings. This could effect the integrity of the buildings and the Historic District as resources even if the historic buildings themselves are not changed.
Study Area 4 includes the Downtown Historic District and the highest concentration of individual historic buildings in San Mateo. Within Study Area 4:
– Alternative A includes least change Downtown. Most of Downtown is designated Mixed Use Medium, which is
consistent with the existing development pattern, therefore least likely to stimulate change and likely to have the fewest impacts. – Alternative B would allow the greatest change inside the Historic District. It designates the northern arm of District between Baldwin Avenue, 2nd Avenue, Ellsworth Avenue, and B Street as Mixed-Use High. The ability to build larger and taller buildings as compared to the other two alternatives could motivate property owners to go through the difficult, expensive, and risky process of proposing to redevelop on or next to an historic property. Alternative B would be the most likely to impact historic resources within the Downtown Historic District. – Alternative C designates the entire Historic District Mixed Use Medium, so properties within the District would be less likely to be directly impacted than under Alternative B . However, Alternative C allows Mixed Use High throughout much of
Downtown, including properties immediately next to the Historic District. Alternative C would be most likely to result in development incompatible with the existing historic fabric surrounding the Downtown Historic District.
Central Park is a State-listed historic resource also located within Study Area 4. The three alternatives are substantially similar in the land use designations around Central Park, with the exception of the buildings to the north across 5th Avenue. These parcels are designated Mixed Use Medium in Alternative A, a mix o f Mixed-Use Medium and Mixed-Use High in Alt B, and Mixed-Use High in Alternative C. Alternative C would represent the greatest likelihood of change to the existing urban fabric on the north side of Central Park. However, this change would not be likely to threaten the eligibility of Central Park to remain on the California State Register.
The Histor ic Building Survey identifies scattered historic resources in Study Area 5 along San Mateo Drive and North Ellsworth Avenue, especially in the southern end of the study area closest to Downtown.
These are designated Residential Medium in Alternatives A and B and a mix of Residential Medium, Residential High, and Mixed -Use High in Alternative C. In Study Area 5, Alternative C would be most likely to lead to redevelopment on or next to the site of existing historic buildings.
Farther south in Study Area 3, the Historic Building Survey identifies a cluster of historic buildings on the northwest corner of 25th Avenue and El Camino Real (Cobani, Wes Liquors, and the Goodwill). These are designated as Mixed -Use Low in Alternative A and as Mixed -Use Medium in both Alternatives B and C. Because they would allow more intensive new development, both Alternatives B and C are more likely than A to impact the historic buildings in Study Area 3.
218 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 67
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The Housing Element currently underway will be requi red to include a variety of policies and programs to demonstrate that the City can provide housing for all income levels. In addition, the General Plan Update could consider various policies and actions related to urban form, historic resources, and jobs-housing balance. Examples include:
– Considering natural topography and the design of new
development.
– Requirements for preservation or replacement of mature trees and robust new landscaping as part of new development.
– Pursuing new sources of funding for historic preservation. – Creating incentives to preserve historic and cultural resources. – Creating objective design standards for development within historic districts or adjacent to historic structures and/or culturally important sites to maintain the histo ric character of these resources.
– Encouraging uses that provide job opportunities for City residents.
5.2 TRAFFIC AND MULTIMODAL
CIRCULATION
MULTIMODAL NETWORK
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
To provide a comparative analysis of three circulation and three land use alternatives, the multimodal analysis used multiple evaluation metrics for each mode and summed up the scores to identify performance across alternatives. Access to the bicycle and t ransit network, defined as people living or working in locations with access to each modal network, was used to compare circulation alternatives with land use alternatives (LUA). Access to the pedestrian network cannot be analyzed directly since there is n o “walkshed” for the pedestrian network that can be linked to land use in the same way that exists for transit. Therefore, the evaluation of the pedestrian network for each Circulation Alternative does not measure a significant distinction between LUAs. The pedestrian analysis focuses on evaluating network coverage as well as changes to Study Area 4, San Mateo’s Downtown, where the Circulation Alternative includes various projects intended to benefit the Downtown as a local and regional destination regardless of changes to land use.
In addition, please refer to the discussion of pedestrian and bicycle safety as an aspect of equity and public health in Section 5.6.
1. PEDESTRIAN NETWORK METHODOLOGY
The Pedestrian Master Plan (2012), specifically its pedestrian greenway network, are included in all three alternatives, limiting the amount of variation for citywide pedestrian projects in the General Plan Update Circulation Alternatives. The future pedes trian network analysis depends on the calculation of several metrics to estimate both network coverage and quality, using through proxies such as public realm, safety, and tree coverage. The following metrics were developed to evaluate the pedestrian network:
– Increase in Sidewalk Coverage : Calculated a ‘maximum’ possible from existing street lengths and compared to existing sidewalks plus alternatives for both study areas and the entire city.
– Increase in Public Realm : Measured percent of street length within SA 4 (Downtown) receiving traffic calming, place making, pedestrianization, and other public realm improvements. – Safety Improvements : Identified areas with historic pedestrian- involved injury collisions that have occurred from 2015-2017 and overlayed with circulation alternatives.
219 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 68
– Increase in Tree Coverage: Estimate of area covered by tree shading (10-foot radius of each point in GIS) was combined with the greenway corridor network from the Pedestrian Master Plan.
The output was the same citywide for all alternatives since they all include the greenway corridors. Calculated changes in SA 4 (Downtown) are a result of individual projects in Alternatives A and C.
2. BICYCLE NETWORK METHODOLOGY
The recently adopted Bicycle Master Plan (2020) provides a comprehensive network for San Mateo, limiting the amount of variation for bicycle projects in the General Plan Update Circulation Alternatives.
The future bicycle network evaluation looked at both coverage as well as access to bicycle facilities between the differen t land use changes.
The following metrics were developed for evaluating the bicycle network:
– Increased Bike Facility Coverage : Calculated a ‘maximum’ possible bike facility mileage from existing street lengths and compared to existing bike facilitie s of al l facility classes plus alternatives for the entire city.
– Increased Protected Bike Facility Coverage: Calculated the percent of the total bike network that is protected by comparing existing total bike network plus future bike network with existing protected bike facilities of all classes plus alternatives for the entire city.
– Increased Bike Facility Access for Residents : Calculated a bike access area by buffering all existing and future bike facilities by an 1/8 of a mile. An eighth of a mile was c hosen because it represents approximately half a block. This was overlayed with existing and future population for all land use alternatives to estimate the number of residents served by the network. – Increased Bike Facility Access to jobs: Calculated a b ike access area by buffering all existing and future bike facilities by an 1/8 of a mile. This was overlayed with existing and future employment for all land use alternatives to estimate the number of jobs served by the network.
– Increased Protected Bike Fa cility Access for Residents :
Calculated a protected bike access area by buffering all existing and future protected bike facilities by an 1/8 of a mile. This was overlayed with existing and future population for all land use alternatives to estimate the number of residents served by the network.
– Increased Protected Bike Facility Access for Employees :
Calculated a protected bike access area by buffering all existing and future protected bike facilities by an 1/8 of a mile. This was overlayed with existing and future employment for all land use alternatives to estimate the number of jobs served by the network.
3. TRANSIT NETWORK METHODOLOGY
Transit service was evaluated based on coverage of the entire network as well as the frequent network. The frequent transit network is made up of bus lines with 15-minute frequencies or less as well as Caltrain. The following metrics were developed for evaluating the transit network:
– Transit Coverage for Residents: Buffered stops in the transit network with pre -COVID service and with each circulation alternative by ¼ mile to identify existing and future transit service coverage. This was overlayed with existing and future population for all land use alternatives to estimate the number of residents served by the network.
– Transit Coverage to Jobs: Buffered stops in the transit network with pre-COVID service and with each circulation alternative by ¼ mile to identify existing and future transit service coverage.
This was overlayed with existing and future employment for all 220 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 69 land use alternatives to estimate the number of jobs served by the network.
– Frequent Transit Access for Residents: Buffered frequent stops (15 minutes or better + Caltrain) in the transit network with pre- COVID service and with each circulation alt ernative by 1/4 mile to identify existing and future transit service coverage. This was overlayed with existing and future population for all land use alternatives to estimate the number of residents served by the network.
– Frequent Transit Access to Jobs : Buffered frequent stops (15 minutes or better + Caltrain) in the transit network with pre - COVID service and with each circulation alternative by 1/4 mile to identify existing and future transit service coverage. This was overlayed with existing and future employment for all land use alternatives to estimate the number of jobs served by the network.
4. PEDESTRIAN NETWORK EVALUATION
Table 8 presents the comparative analysis of the circulation alternatives for the pedestrian network. Each row has a possible high score of three (+++) and low score of one (+). Each analysis shows the relative difference between each alternative. Where the score is the same, there is no significant difference between the alternatives. Alternative C scored the highest because the down town traffic calming, and public realm improvement included in the superblock approach would provide the most pedestrian benefits. Alternative B scored the lowest since there are the fewest pedestrian improvements in that alternative.
Table 8 Pedestrian Network Evaluation
Pedestrian Improvements Circulation
Alternative A
Circulation
Alternative B
Circulation
Alternative C
Increase in Sidewalk
Coverage - Study Areas +++ + +++
Increase in Sidewalk
Coverage - Citywide ++ + ++
Safety Improvements ++ + +++
Public Realm Improvements -
Downtown (SA 4) ++ + +++
Tree Coverage Increase -
Citywide ++ ++ ++
Tree Coverage Increase -
Downtown (SA 4) +++ + +++
Pedestrian Score Total 14/18 7/18 16/18
5. BICYCLE EVALUATION
Table 9 presents the comparative analysis of the circulation alternatives for the bicycle network. Each row has a possible high score of three (+++) and low score of one (+). Each analysis shows the relative difference between each alternative. Where the score is the same, there is no significant difference between the alternatives. Alternatives A and C scored the highest because they include bicycle and public realm improvements on El Camino Real that are not included in Alternative B.
Given the high level of bicycle coverage, particularly in the study areas where most growth is planned, there were no significant distinctions between the land use alternatives.
221 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 70
6. TRANSIT EVALUATION
Table 10 presents th e comparative analysis of the circulation alternatives for the transit network. Each row has a possible high score of three (+++) and low score of one (+). Each analysis shows the relative difference between each alternative. Where the score is the same, there is no significant difference between the alternatives.
Alternatives B and C scored the highest because they include increased transit coverage from a new east -west transit connect or microtransit/on-demand shuttle as well as improved transit service on El Camino Real. Land Use Alternative C, which places the highest numbers of new residents near frequent transit, had a higher percent or residents with access to frequent transit than the other land use alternatives.
Table 9 Bicycle Network Evaluation
Bicycle Improvements
Circulation Alternative A Circulation Alternative B Circulation Alternative C
LU A LU B LU C LU A LU B LU C LU A LU B LU C
Bike Facility Coverage +++ +++ +++
Protected Bike Facility
Coverage +++ ++ +++
Bike Facility Access for
Residents +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++
Bike Facility Access to Jobs ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Protected Bike Facility Access
for Residents ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Protected Bike Facility Access
to Jobs ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Biking Score Total 15/18 14/18 15/18
222 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 71 Table 10 Transit Network Evaluation
Transit Improvement
Circulation Alternative A Circulation Alternative B Circulation Alternative C
LU A LU B LU C LU A LU B LU C LU A LU B LU C
Transit Access for Residents ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ +++ Transit Access to Jobs ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Frequent Transit Access for
Residents ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Frequent Transit Access to Jobs + + + + + + + + +
Transit Score Total 7/12 7/12 7/12 7/12 7/12 8/12 7/12 7/12 8/12
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY
This section describes the analysis of the circulation system in context of the proposed land use and circulation alternatives. The General Plan team used the countywide traffic model to project how the land use alternatives would affect Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), mode shift, Vehicle-Hours Traveled (VHT), average speed, and Vehicle -Hours of Delay (VHD). A model allows planners to simulate potential future conditions. The traffic modeling is based off the existing road network and proposed and existing bike facilities in the City Bicycle Master Plan as well as other proposed transit improvements and pedestrian facilities.
The analysis of these delay based and mode shift metrics pairs each land use alternative with Circulation Alternative C. The performance of each land use alternative in context of these metrics is then compared to each land use alternative and to existing conditions (2019). Therefore, all tables in this section ident ify the Land Use Alternatives A, B or C matched with Circulation Alternative C. The General Plan team chose to model the land use alternatives against Circulation Alternative C because it represents an amalgamation of the proposed circulation improvements in all the circulation alternatives.
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
A common indicator used to quantify the amount of motor vehicle use is Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). VMT represents the total number of miles driven per day by persons traveling to and fro m a defined area.
VMT can include the total VMT for all San Mateo travel, which is a useful comparative evaluation metric for the general plan, or it can include VMT per person (capita) and VMT per employee that is required for CEQA environmental analysis.
Many factors affect VMT, including the average distance people drive to work, school, and shopping, as well as the proportion of trips that are made by non -automobile modes. Areas that have a diverse land use mix and facilities for non -automobile modes, including transit, walking, and biking, tend to generate lower VMT than auto -oriented suburban areas where land uses are typically segregated. Further, cities and regions where the jobs/housing ratio is balanced generate a lower VMT than areas where most r esidents commute long distances to work.
From an environmental perspective, development that generates less 223 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 72
per capita VMT reflects less auto usage, and correspondingly, lower fuel consumption and production of GHG emissions.
In California, the use of VMT instead of delay-based metrics (like Level of Service (LOS)) to assess transportation -related environmental impacts has been adopted as part of updates to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). [1] As a result, transportation-related environmental impacts are now based on the per capita miles of vehicle travel associated with a project instead of the project’s effects on local traffic congestion. VMT allows for an analysis of a project’s impact to be reviewed on a broader regional scale rather than only in the vicinity of the proposed project, allowing for a better understanding of the full extent of a project’s transportation -related impact. It should be noted that SB 743 pertai ns to CEQA only and local jurisdictions are still permitted to use other metrics, such as LOS, to analyze the effects on a project on the local transportation network for other planning purposes outside the scope of CEQA. Therefore, since travel occurs across cities and counties, VMT was evaluated at three levels - citywide, San Mateo Countywide, and for the larger Bay Area region.
As shown in Table 11, although Land Use Alternative A would result in the lowest total VMT, this alternative would have the highest citywide per capita VMT compared to Alternatives B and C. This is likely because Land Use Alternative A has a lower density land use pattern that would result in fewer housing units near transit. Conversely, Land Use Alternative C would generate the m ost total VMT, but would have the lowest citywide per capita VMT compared to Land Use Alternatives A and B. Land Use Alternative C would result in a higher density land use pattern that would place more housing near transit, enabling more residents the option of commuting by bus or Caltrain. The results also indicate the land use alternatives would have lower VMT per capita in 2040 compared to 2019. Since the land use alternatives would add more housing and jobs near transit and would also result in increas ed congestion in 2040, more people would choose to travel by transit, walking, and biking due to increased access to these modes and to avoid roadway congestion compared to 2019.
As shown in Table 12, VMT per employee varies less among the land use altern atives than the VMT per capita since the number of 2040 employees is similar among all three land use alternatives. Furthermore, as more residents are added in the City of San Mateo, particularly in Land Use Alternative C, this would result in lower VMT pe r employee compared to Land Use Alternatives A and B. This is likely because Land Use Alternative C would provide the most new housing units, providing the greatest likelihood that San Mateo workers can find a place to live in San Mateo, resulting in less net out-commuting and lower commute trip lengths.
Table 11 2040 Residential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) – VMT per Capita
Scenario
City County Region
Total
VMT
VMT/
Capita
Total
VMT
VMT/
Capita
Total
VMT
VMT/
Capita
2019 2,915,599 16.5 19,178,787 15.9 176,872,069 15.3
Alternative
A 3,314,113 14.5 22,901,378 15.2 239,122,502 16.3
Alternative
B 3,430,467 14.4 23,029,242 15.2 239,677,063 16.3
Alternative
C 3,569,586 14.3 23,148,970 15.2 238,539,410 16.2
Note: 2019 County VMT per capita is higher than the regional VMT likely because San Mateo County has longer trip lengths compared to the San Francisco Bay Area region which includes denser urban areas like Sa n Francisco and Oakland. As San Mateo County increases in density over the next 20 years, the model projects that per capita VMT will reduce countywide.
224 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 73 Table 12 2040 Employment Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) – VMT per Job Scenario
City County Region
Total VMT VMT/Employee Total VMT VMT/Employee Total VMT VMT/Employee 2019 2,915,599 16.9 19,178,787 18.0 176,872,069 17.2
Alternative A 3,314,113 15.5 22,901,378 18.1 239,122,502 17.3 Alternative B 3,430,467 15.3 23,029,242 18.0 239,677,063 17.3 Alternative C 3,569,586 15.0 23,148,970 17.9 238,539,410 17.2 1 The purpose of CEQA is to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project and identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage through feasible mitigation or project alternatives, based on specific criteria according to an environmental checklist. VMT is one of several transportatio n-related criteria used in CEQA’s environmental checklist.
VEHICLE-HOURS TRAVELED (VHT)
The General Plan team used the model to estimate vehicle hours of travel (VHT) for 2019 and the land use alternatives in 2040. This metric is computed for all roadway travel to and from and within San Mateo by summing all daily vehicle travel multiplied by travel time and delay for four time periods of the day: two peak hours, midday, and night. Similar to how VMT measures the number of vehicle miles or the distance driven to and from, and within San Mateo, VHT is a metric that represents the total number of vehicle hours driven per day by persons traveling to, from and within San Mateo. Also similar to VMT, there are many factors that affect VHT, including the amount of travel by automobiles during peak commute periods when driving takes longer due to congestion or when there is an imbalance of housing and jobs requiring more and longer commutes. Therefore, a VHT measure is another way of describing how travel times are affected by changes in land use and density. Increasing VHT may also suggest increasing economic activity as more people travel to San Mateo to shop, dine, and work. Increased VHT could also suggest there is insufficient transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure to enable people to choose not to drive. While total VHT may increase with increased housing and jobs, VHT per capita may be lower if housing and jobs are located near transit and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
As shown in Table 13, VHT is projected to increase from 2019 to 2040.
The VHT analysis demonstrates that locating more housing and jobs near transit and non -motorized infrastructure, as in Land Use Alternatives B and C, could contribute to slower growth in VHT per service population (per capita plus employee). While Land Use Alternative A would produce the lowest total VHT since it has the lowest land use density, it would have the highest citywide VHT per service population compared to Land Use Alternatives B and C. On a per service population basis, VH T within San Mateo is lowest under Land Use Alternative C, which has the highest land use densities.
Table 13 2040 Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT)
Scenario
VHT
Total VHT VHT/Service Pop Service Population
2019 79,137 0.45 174,992
Alternative A 130,817 0.59 222,388
Alternative B 135,379 0.58 233,335
Alternative C 135,143 0.55 245,253
225 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 74
AVERAGE SPEED
The average speed of the roadway system is a comparative indicator of how the road network responds to changing land use density, mode shift and traffic congestion. This metric represents the average daily 24- hour and peak hour speeds on all key roadway segments in San Mateo that are represented in the City travel model.
Table 14 provides average systemwide daily and peak hour speeds for all roads in San Mateo. As expected, average daily and peak hour traffic speeds decrease between 2019 and 2040 for all land use alternatives due to increasing land use densities resulting in more congestion. Land Use Alternative A would have the highest average speeds when compared to Land Use Alternatives B and C by a small margin. This is because Land Use Alternative A would add the fewest new residents.
However, this trend flattens out with Land Use Alternative C as the jobs/housing ratio is more balanced resulting in lower net out - commuting from San Mateo.
Table 14 2040 Average Speeds
Scenario
Average Speed (MPH)
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2019 34.1 23.3 23.1
Alternative A 26.4 10.8 10.4
Alternative B 25.8 10.2 10.1
Alternative C 25.9 10.3 10.0
VEHICLE-HOURS OF DELAY (VHD)
Similar to VHT, VHD is a systemwide metric that represents the total amount of time motorists throughout the city are delayed in traffic or waiting at intersections during peak congestion compared to ideal off - peak travel. VHD is a measure that compares the amount of time a driver is delayed during their trip between 2019 and between each 2040 land use alternative.
Usually, VHD increases with added land use creating additional congestion. As land uses intensify in the alternatives , congestion and delay would be expected to increase from Land Use Alternative A to Land Use Alternative C. However, as shown in Table 15, the rate of VHD does slow down as the higher density uses in Land Use Alternative C creates a better housing/jobs balance, shorter trip lengths, a nd the transportation system provides options for non-auto travel compared to Land Use Alternative B.
VHD per service population is slightly lower under Land Use Alternative C than it is under A or B. This is likely because Alternative C locates more new homes closer to transit, so trips between home, work, and/or services are shorter under Land Use Alternative C. This could also reflect that people would be more likely to choose to take transit, walk or bike under Land Use Alternative C both because transit is a feasible commute option and to avoid local traffic congestion.
Table 15 2040 Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
Scenario
VHD
Total VHD VHD/
Service Pop
Service
Population
2019 15,633 0.09 174,992
Alternative A 45,640 0.21 222,388
Alternative B 48,852 0.21 233,335
Alternative C 48,012 0.20 245,253
226 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 75
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The General Plan Update could consider various policies and actions related to circulation and traffic, such as:
– Developing and adopting a Complete Streets Plan to
accommodate green infrastructure, pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, and all users on streets that are safe, comfortable, and efficient.
– Collecting appropriate development impact fe es to fund transportation improvements that help mitigate impacts on the circulation network.
– Requiring new and existing developments to include
transportation demand management strategies and trip
reduction targets and monitoring.
– Establishing the policy framework and infrastructure
improvements necessary to support emerging transportation technologies.
– Working wi th regional partners to identify and fund
transportation demand management strategies.
– Requiring new development to make specific types of bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway improvement to ensure the safety of all users.
– Conducting safety, education, and a wareness efforts for bicyclists, pedestrians, and drivers.
– Utilizing data on activity of pedestrians and bicyclists to understand where the heaviest use and safety needs are and to prioritize improvement projects.
5.3 COMMUNITY SERVICES
How land is developed can influence the efficiency and cost associated with providing community services; therefore, it is important to consider how the alternatives would impact those services when deciding on a Preferred Scenario. For example, the alternatives could create a demand for additional police officers, fire fighters, expanded school facilities, or new parkland. On the other hand, the city might already have sufficient capacity to meet the estimated demand for services under all or any of the alternatives. This section describes how the alternatives affect the city’s police and fire protection services, public schools, parks and recreational facilities, and libraries , based on available data from each service provider.
POLICE
Police services in the City of San Mateo are provided by the San Mateo Police Department (SMPD). SMPD’s mission is to provide safe streets, security in schools and in homes, success of the city’s businesses, and services to the members of the community. SMPD is also committed to diversity and providing excellent public service.
Overall, the population growth under all alternatives would require a corresponding need for additional sworn and professional police staff.
According to the City’s Police Chief, to serve the population increase in all alternatives, SMPD would need to attract and provide space for new staff, add space and staff to handle increases in call volume, and potentially identify a new substation location within Study Areas 6 and/or 10, which are the most distant from central San Mateo.
Under all alternatives, new tall buildings would need to install public safety radio and emergency responder radio boosters to ensure communication with SMPD.
Alternative A has the least High density -designated uses compared to Alternatives B and C, which means it would have the least impact require the fewest changes to current SMPD communication and policing services. Alternative C shows the most areas with the highest intensities 227 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 76
(density and building height) including Mixed -Use High uses along El Camino Real around the Hillsdale station (Study Area 3) and in Downtown (Study Area 4) with Residential High uses along Railroad Avenue and Mixed -Use High uses between Baldwin Avenue and 5 th Avenue. Therefore, Alternative C would pose require the greatest potential impact changes to current communication and police services due to the number of buildings over 8 stories.
FIRE
Fire services in the City of San Mateo are provided by the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department (SMCFD). On January 13, 2019, the fire departments of San Mateo, Belmont, and Foster joined together to form SMCFD which is a joints powers authority that provides fire services to all three cities.
All new development in San Mateo is required to conform with California Building Code standards for fire-resistant building materials, sprinklers, and defensible space.
Under all alternatives, SMCFD would need to provide fire services in higher density areas. While new construction is subject to much more rigorous fire and life safety requirements than older existing buildings, according to the City’s Fire Marshal, h igh density buildings can also increase demand for fire emergency services and put pressure on the fire department’s resources. SMCFD would need to add fire staffing in areas with higher density uses.
Alternative A has the least amount of high density -designated uses compared to Alternatives B and C, which means it would require the fewest changes to SMCFD’s current fire and emergency response services. Alternative C has the most areas designated for higher density uses and would demand some changes in fire and emergency response services when considering the density of the buildings.
SMCFD would also be responsible for responding to wildfires in San Mateo. According to the City’s Fire Marshal, State maps are expected to increase the hazard level in certain areas in San Mateo from a high hazard wildland fire severity zone to a very high hazard severity zone.
The wildland fire hazard discussion in Section 5.5 of this evaluation is based on the data currently available.
EMERGENCY ACCESS
This section describes how the draft alternatives could affect police and fire emergency access.
POLICE ACCESS
The most accessible Study Areas for SMPD are Study Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 due to existing inf rastructure and transportation routes. In Study Areas 1 and 2, Alternative B would result in the most net new number of homes when compared to Alternative A and C. In Study Area 3, 4, and 5, Alternative C would result in the most net new number of homes when compared to Alternative A and B.
Study Areas 7, 8, and 9 are currently difficult to access or pass through especially during commute conditions but servicing those areas could be accomplished with improvements to access routes. In Study Area 7, Alternative C would result in the most net new number of homes when compared to Alternative A and B. In Study Areas 8 and 9, Alternative B would result in the most net new number of homes when compared to Alternative A and C.
Study Areas 6 and 10 are the hardest to access given the limited routes of access to those areas from the remainder of the city. Accessing Study Area 6 is challenging to access since this area is isolated from close mutual aid partners and would require significant infrastructure improvements, including upgrades to the radio signals. In Study Area 6, Alternative C would result in the most net new number of homes when compared to Alternative A and B. In contrast, access to Study Area 10 is a bit more readily available due to a mutual aid agreement with Foster City unless a catastrophic event severs the bridges crossing the lagoon 228 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 77 cutting that portion off from the city. All alternatives in Study Area 10 would result in the same number of net new homes.
FIRE ACCESS
Traffic within higher density c orridors could pose a challenge for fire access, especially if these areas have on-street parklets that would limit fire access to the building. Increased traffic congestion as a result of development under the alternatives would lower SMCFD’s response time. Areas at the edge of the city with medium and high -density development, such as Study Area 10, would make emergency response more challenging if there is constrained transportation infrastructure, so new development should be required to install traffic preemption devices on existing or new traffic signals to improve access for SMCFD vehicles.
CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE C
In addition, the idea in Circulation Alternative C of a pedestrian focused, car-light space downtown modeled on Barcelona’s “superblock s” would require careful planning to maintain emergency access for first responders.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
There are 19 public elementary, middle, and high schools in San Mateo.
These schools are managed by school districts, not by the City. Figure 23 shows the locations of the schools in San Mateo. There are two school districts within the City of San Mateo, the San Mateo-Foster City School District (SMFCSD) and the San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD). Table 16 shows a complete list of schools by its respective school district and the current enrollment of each school, as well as its remaining capacity.
Table 16 2021-2022 Enrollment and Capacity for Schools in San Mateo
Capacity Enrollment Remaining
Capacity
San Mateo-Foster City School District
Baywood Elementary School 670 541 129
Beresford Elementary School 300 253 47
College Park Elementary School 536 436 100
Fiesta Gardens Elementary School 524 429 95
George Hall Elementary School 544 418 126
Highlands Elementary School 592 428 164
Laurel Elementary School 470 551 -81
Lead Elementary School 574 385 189
Meadow Heights Elementary School 358 282 76
San Mateo Park Elementary School 494 327 167
Sunnybrae Elementary School 632 372 260
Bayside Academy - Steam | Stem 720 830 -110
North Shoreview Montessori School 394 259 135
Parkside Montessori School 564 285 279
Abbott Middle School 930 752 178
Borel Middle School 1170 981 189
San Mateo Union High School District
San Mateo High School 1,941 1,625 316
Hillsdale High School 1,851 1,610 241
Aragon High School 2,002 1,750 252
Source: San Mateo-Foster City School District, 2021
229 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 78
Figure 23. Schools
230 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 79 Table 17 shows the number of net new students for each alternative based on the San Mateo -Foster City School District’s and the San Mateo Union High School District’s student generation rate. The number of new units proposed for all alternatives are primarily multifamily units, with some accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in each alternative, so this analysis uses the SMFCSD student generation rate of .04 for apartments and the SMUHSD student generation rate of 0. 04 students for apartments and condos . Since both school districts do not have a student generation rate for ADUs, we used the same .04 student generation rate for ADUs as a conservative estimate.
The schools within the San Mateo -Foster City School District currently have a remaining capacity of 1,9 43 students. This means the school district could accommodate additional students from the new population in all alternatives . Although, it is difficult to predict how the enrollment capacity will change from year to year. There is an existing school in th e San Mateo -Foster City School District that is currently closed and in need of improvements. Once the school is modernized, it could provide space for 510 additional students. The San Mateo-Foster City School District is in the process of adding specialized spaces, such as multi-purpose rooms and counselor offices . On July 30, 2020, the district’s board of trustees adopted the Facilities Master Plan for the New Decade which identifies needs across all schools and provides direction for future facility work . According to the Director of Facilities and Construction, there are approximately $900M+ in identified facility improvements needs and the school district currently has $409M in local bonds.
The existing high schools within the San Mateo Union High School District currently have an accumulative remaining student capacity of 809. This means the school district could accommodate additional new students from the new population in Alternative A and B, although it is difficult to predict how the enrollment capacity will change from year to year. The net new students for Alternative C would exceed the remaining student capacity of 809. The San Mateo Union High School District currently has no plans t o build new facilities and there is no lack of funding or deficiencies that pertain to any of the existing facilities. To accommodate new students generated by the housing development under Alternative C, the San Mateo Union High School District would need to expand its facilities . This could happen by expanding student capacity at existing sites or establishing a new school site . Identifying new school sites is challenging because of the low supply and high cost of land available for development in the city. However, the San Mateo Union High School District will continue to collect school impact fees from new housing development , as discussed below. . The school impact fees are described further below.
Table 17 New Students Under Each Alternative
Alternative A
(Net New)
Alternative B
(Net New)
Alternative C
(Net New)
Net New Homes 11,810 16,070 21,080
Number of New Students
SMFCD (0.04 students per
home)
472 643 843
Number of New Students
SMUHSD (0.04 students per
home) 1
472 643 843
Source: San Mateo -Foster City School District, Projected Enrollments San Mateo -Foster City School District, 2020 , PlaceWorks, 2021
1 SMUHSD’s student generation rate is based on projections for “mainly market -rate ” apartment units and condos , as defined in the Projected Enrollments San Mateo -Foster City School District report.
As shown by the above graph, Alternative C would result in the highest number of new students for both school districts when compared to Alternative A and B. Alternative A would result in the fewest new students for both school districts when compared to the other two alternatives.
This is primarily due to the number of housing units estimated for each alternative. Alternative C has the most net new housing unit proposed while Alternative A has the least.
231 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 80
The San Mateo-Foster City School District and San Mateo Union High School District collect school impact fees, also known as developer impact fees, which are charged depending on the type of new development. These fees are used by each school district to construct the facilities that are needed as a result of new development. New development within the Study Areas would be required to pay school impact fees to the school districts.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Park land contributes significantly to quality of life in San Mateo. The City currently oversees more than 420 acres of parks and open space, from neighborhood mini parks to regional destinations like Seal Point as shown on Figure 24. Residents in San Mateo also have access to several r ecreation centers, a boating lagoon, two public swimming pools, and an 18 -hole golf course. Figure 24 shows the location and walkability access of the parks within San Mateo. As shown by the figure, most residences within the study areas are within a quarter to half-mile walking distance from a park. Access to parks within each study area is described in the Access to Parks and Open Space section in Section 5.6 . In addition to parks, the City’s parks and recreation services offers opportunities for people o f all ages to participate in community activities, including youth and family aquatics, children summer camps, adult fitness programs, youth programs for teens, and interactive classes for older adults and seniors. The City also hosts special community eve nts throughout the year, including Eggstravaganza, the Holiday Festival of Dance, National Night Out, and the Central Park Music Series.
Just like police and fire stations and schools, it’s important for cities to provide sufficient green space for residents. The current General Plan 2030 sets a goal of providing six acres of parkland per 1,000 people to ensure community members have sufficient parks and open space. In addition to the General Plan, the City has developed other park planning documents that help support efforts to provide parks and recreational facilities in the city. Several of the park planning documents are listed below; however, this is not a comprehensive list of all park plans that exist in the city:
– Central Park Master Plan
– Recreation Facilities Strategic Plan
– Shoreline Parks Master Plan
– Laurelwood/Sugarloaf Management Plan
– Beresford Park Master Plan
232 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 81 Figure 24. Parks and Park Walkability
233 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 82
As mentioned above, San Mateo currently has a goal of providing six acres of park land for every 1,000 residents. Including County-owned Coyote Point, the City currently provides 5.35 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. This acreage will rise slightly when the 1.1-acre Borel Park is constructed which will include amenities such as a playground, oak glades, and grass lawns. Although the City’s public park lands do not c urrently meet the park land goal, it will be important that future development does not further exacerbate the existing deficiency. One obstacle to providing additional parkland is the lack of vacant land that could accommodate large new park sites in the city.
According to the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department, there is a need to upgrade a number of parks, recreational facilities and aging playgrounds throughout the city. There are a few upgrades planned in the immediate future for East Hillsdale Park, and future upgrades are planned for Sunnybrae Park, Shoreview Park, and King Park. However, there is a lack of funding for park improvements which have only been funded through park in -lieu fees at this time. The most critical infrastructure priority is to ensure that the City’s aging system of recreation centers and pools is updated and enhanced to meet the goals of safety, accessibility and equity, and meet the diverse recreational and programmatic needs of the community.
The City Council recently reviewed all of the city’s impact fees and expressed support for expanding park in -lieu fees to commercial development as well as residential with the goal of enhancing revenue.
Recent residential development has contributed to the City’s park in-lieu fees; however, these fees have been used to upgrade existing recreational park facilities and are not being used to increase park acreage.
Below is an analysis of how the alternatives would impact parks and recreational facilities:
– Since the current park acreage in the city is already deficient, all alternatives would further exacerbate the park land deficiency since each alternative introduces new population that would require additional park land. Therefore, a ll three land use alternatives would need to provide additional publicly owned park land. Alternative A proposes the lowest number of new residents; however, the park land deficiency would still worsen under this alternative since it introduces new population.
Alternative C would have the greatest impact on parks since it has the highest number of net new people.
– In addition to park land demand, greater population growth would require more recreational facilities and expanded programs to meet the needs of the residents.
The City of San Mateo’s Park and Recreation Department recently completed an update of the Central Park Master Plan (2018) that incorporates retention of the historic characters of Central Park and provides opportunities for new additions to improve community gathering and recreation spaces. Future development in Study Area 4 under any alternative should support the goals of the Central Park Master Plan to create a pedestrian connection to downtown, increased space for flexible community use and events, and a g reater emphasis on the park’s role as the City’s gathering place.
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PRIVATELY-OWNED OPEN
SPACE
The City of San Mateo’s Zoning Code establishes standards for private usable open space and common usable open space within residential and commercial areas. In residential areas, common open space are areas that can be accessed by all occupants within the residential complex; however, these areas are not accessible to the public.
Common open space in commercial areas is an area that is accessible to the public. This area could be a plaza, square, court, or other urban 234 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 83 space which is at least 75 percent open to the sky and free from automotive traffic. Private open space areas in residential projects and commercial developments are reserved for the use of the dwelling unit occupants or employees/guest of the project only. Private open space areas are not accessible to the public.
There are a number of existing open space areas in the City , including regional and community parks, neighborhood parks , and small mini parks. Developments within the City also provide publicly accessible open space areas. The Bay Meadows Phase I development provided approximately 4.6 acres of privately owned and maintained park space.
Bay Meadows Phase II is currently in the process of being developed.
Phase II of Bay Meadows includes approximately 15 acres of public park land and about 3 acres of publicly accessible open space that will be within walking distance from the Hillsdale station area, as outlined in the Hillsdale Station Area Plan.
One obstacle to providing additional open space area is the lack of vacant land that could accommodate large new open space sites .
Some of the Study Areas, such as Study Area 10 at Bridgepointe, have large parcels that may enable the clustering of buildings, leaving substantial room for a new park or new privately-owned open space that is accessible to the public. This idea is represented by the green P in the following Study Areas in all of the alternatives: Study Area 3, Study Area 4, Study Area 6, and Study Area 8.
For areas like Study Area 4, Downtown, or Study Area 1, along El Camino Real, where most parcels are small, the General Plan Update will explore potential strategies to generate new privately maintained open spaces, parks, plazas, and other recreational facilities. The General Plan Update could help encourage incentives for developers to build publicly accessible open space areas within their projects . It should be noted that SMPD has expressed challenge s with providing law enforcement service to existing privately-owned public open spaces since jurisdiction over these spaces is not always clear.
Among all alternatives, Alternative A would result in the least demand for new publicly accessible open space area since it results in the lowest number of net new population. Because it has the lowest amount of new residential and mixed -use development, i t would also offer fewer opportunities for larger projects that are more likely to include new publicly accessible open space. Alternative C results in the highest demand for new open space area since it has the highest number of net new population; it wo uld also allow more large projects that would be more likely to include new publicly accessible open space.
LIBRARY
The San Mateo Public Library consists of the Main Library and two branches, the Hillsdale Library and Marina Library. The library offers a vast collection of books and programs that are available for teens , adults, and children in the city. These programs include a writing groups, book discussion groups, crafts and makerspace events, music concerts, story times, and cultural events. The library also has rotating art exhibits at the Main Library and five special collections:
Biotechnology Learning Center , t he California Collection , Franklin Templeton Business Resource Center , Funding Information Network , and the Leon S. Benson Holocaust Studies Collection. The Main Library also incorporates sustainable practices and an energy efficient design.
The City does not maintain a spatial ratio of square feet of library space per number of population as a service target but takes a holistic approach to assessing the viability of current or future library locations.
There are currently no expansion plans for the library, but the San Mateo Public Library hopes to replace the Marina Library branch with a new or remodeled library in the future once a funding source has been identified and to add staffing at all three libraries.
All alternatives would result in a higher population which means the San Mateo Public Library would need to consider if the current library locations will provide the sufficient space necessary to serve a higher number of residents for all three alternatives. Among the three alternatives, Alternative C results in the highest population amount 235 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 84
adding about 53,507 new residents by 2040. Alternative A has the lowest number of new residen ts at 29,498, in addition to the existing population. Since Alternative C adds the most new people, it would have the greatest impact on the San Mateo Public Library when compared to Alternative A and B.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The General Plan Update should consider the following plans and policy directions on community services:
– Planning for fire protection services and evacuation in Study Areas 6 and 10 and other areas of the City that are most challenging for SMFD to access and/or are subject to increased risk from wildfires.
– Providing buffers around new research and development facilities to minimize risks of fire or explosion from hazardous materials and reduce impacts on adjacent sensitive uses. – Designing site plans, equipment, and landscaping that enable visibility and access for first responders.
– Supporting close communication and co llaboration with both local school districts on population projections and facilities planning, as well as issues such as transportation to and from school sites and needed infrastructure upgrades.
– Increasing the number of parks and/or parkland acreage in the city and generating new privately maintained , publicly accessible open spaces, parks, plazas, and other recreational facilities.
92020 Urban Water Management Plan, San Mateo, CA. (2020). California Water Service. – Upgrading and enhancing the aging system of recreation facilities and pools to ensure they meet or exceed safety, accessibility and health codes, facilitate the provision of desired recreation programs and services while conserving surrounding open space.
– Supporting the library’s effort to enhance facilities, promoting libraries as welcoming places and resources for everyo ne, and providing resources that will help the library adapt to new technologies.
5.4 UTILITIES
This section describes the potential impacts of the three land use alternatives to w ater supply, wastewater services, and stormwater services.
WATER9
This section analyzes the projected supply and demand for the impacts of projected growth of each alternative relating to water services. The City of San Mateo has two water providers: Cal Water’s Bayshore District covers much of San Carlos and San Mateo, including St udy Areas 1 through 9; and the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) serves bayside portions of San Mateo, including Study Area 10, Bridgepointe.
Cal Water’s current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) reflects the State’s recent amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay- Delta (Bay-Delta Plan), which decreased the percent of projected future flows that will be available for consumption by urban communities.
Given these limitations, the current UWMP projects to have sufficient supplies to meet future demand within the service area that includes San Mateo for normal water supply years, but not for multiple dry year scenarios.
236 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 85 The UWMP was completed prior to San Mateo’s current General Plan Update effort and is based on ABAG’s Projections 2019, which do not reflect the current RHNA issued to the City by ABAG . In all of the alternatives, based on the projections in Cal Water’s UWMP, Cal Water would not have sufficient supply to meet the projected demand. This is primarily because all alternatives contemplate population increases that exceed the 2040 population projection used for Cal Water’s UWMP.
Moreover, Cal Water’s population projection covers their service area as a whole (most of San Mateo and most of San Carlos) while the alternatives only focus in the 10 specific study areas. The alternatives do not account for growth outside of the study areas. Table 18 provides a summary of the population increase comparison.
Table 18 Projected Population Comparison (202 0 Cal Water UWMP vs. Alternatives)
Population
Projection
Source
2020
(Total)
2025 (Net
Increase
From
2020)
2030 (Net
Increase
From
2020)
2035 (Net
Increase
From
2020)
2040
(Net
Increase
From
2020)
2020 Cal
Water UWMP
(Entire
Service
Area*)
137,486 1,656 4,652 7,427 10,316
Alternative A - - - - 24,577
Alternative B - - - - 35,338
Alternative C - - - - 48,586
* Cal Water’s Service Area includes areas outside the Study Areas, including most of San Mateo and San Carlos. Source: California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
In Table 15, average water usage per capita was used to estimate the projected Cal W ater water usage for Study Areas 1 through 9 under each of the alternatives. These numbers were then compared with what Cal Water had computed per their projected demand forecasts for their service area in the Cal Water 2020 UWMP.
To estima te the projected demand from the land use alternatives, a water consumption per capita number was developed based on the amount of water used from Cal Water in 2020 divided by the population of the service area. This equates to approximately 34,500 gallons per year or 94.5 gallons per day per capita for San Mateo. Note that this demand per capita figure does not account for future water conservation and efficiency improvements and is therefore likely an overestimate. Estimated water conservation savings are added in Table
19. The increased demand due to the alternative growths was added to the baseline 2020 demand value of 14,563 acre-feet (ac-ft).
Table 19 Water Usage – Cal Water - Normal Year Projected Demand & Supply
Alternative
Growth
Projected
Demand +
2020 Cal Water
Demand (ac-ft)
Cal Water
Projected
Supply
2040
Normal
Year
(ac-ft)
Difference
(ac-ft)
Difference
Including
Estimated
Water
Conservation
Savings by
2040*
(ac-ft)
Alternative A 17,165 14,977 (2,188) (821)
Alternative B 18,304 14,977 (3,327) (1,870)
Alternative C 19,706 14,977 (4,729) (3,159)
*Water conservation savings were computed based off of conversion of UWMP total savings at 2040 to a savings per capita rate. This per capita rate is then multiplied by total population estimated per each alternative scenario. Estimated 2, 749 gallons savings per capita per year.
Source: California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan . 237 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 86
In dry years, the deficit between water supply and demand is greater than in normal years. Table 20 provides Cal Water projected supply for 2040 single dry year. Multiple dry years results in an even greater supply deficit.
Table 20 Water Usage – Cal Water - Dry Year Projected
Demand & Supply
Alternative
Growth
Projected
Demand +
2020 Cal
Water Demand
(ac-ft)
Cal Water
Projected
Supply
2040
Single
Dry Year
(ac-ft)
Difference
(ac-ft)
Difference
Including
Estimated Water
Conservation
Savings by 2040
(ac-ft)*
Alternative A 17,165 9,676 (7,489) (6,122)
Alternative B 18,304 9,676 (8,628) (7,170)
Alternative C 19,706 9,676 (10,030) (8,460)
*Assumes same savings per capita used in Table 20 and does not reflect speculative water conservation measures that may be imposed under drought conditions.
Source: California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan .
Although the current projection comparison shows that there is insufficient supply, the demand on the water supply per capita should decrease over time. According to the Cal Water UWMP, the implementation of new laws, ordinances and regulations, for example, requiring replacement of older water fixtures with more efficient fixtures, should help reduce demand per capita. In addition, recent research into regional water supply and capacity for future development has indicated that it is theoretically possible to offset water use from future residential and job growth by continuing to improve indoor and outdoor water use
10 Laura Feinstein and Anne Thebo, Water for a Growing Bay Area: How the region can grow without increasing water demand, SPUR Regional Strategy, October 2021. Accessed online at https://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2021-10-21/water-growing-bay-area, October 21,2021. 11 SFPUC, Alternative Water Supply Program, Quarterly Report, June 2021 , page 5. https://www.sfpuc.org/sites/default/files/programs/0_Alt%20Water%20Supply%20Planning%20Quarterly%20Report_June2021_FINAL.pdf, accessed online December 17, 2021. efficiency and by focusing on infill development in urbanized areas rather than developing raw land elsewhere in the Bay Area.10 The UWMP is one tool in a larger system of water supply planning. For example, SFPUC’s ongoing Alternative Water Supply Program is evaluating new water supply projects that will meet future water supply needs by looking beyond the traditional surface water and groundwater sources and considers “alternative” water supply options such as expanding surface water storage, groundwater banking, transfers, purified water (potable reuse), desalination and technological innovations and other tools that can increase supply or reduce demand in the future. 11 Cal Water is also considering a range of possible approaches that include requiring net-zero demand increase from new development, further regulations on water use, and a suite of other demand mitigation measures to help respond to potentially reduced supplies due to the State’s adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan.
Cal Water has indicated that they calibrate water supply closely to demand so as not to put ratepayers in the position of paying for supplies years or decades before they are actually needed. The next update of the UWMP, which will happen in 2025, will be created with reference to the projected development allowed under San Mateo’s updated General Plan 2040. The preferred scenario and updated General Plan will be an important input for Cal Water into ongoing future supply planning efforts.
As the UWMP is updated in future years, this may become more apparent as new data is collected. However, based on current data, adequate water supply is a significant concern for any of the alternatives in Study Areas 1 through 9. Projected deficits are greatest under 238 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 87 Alternative C because this per capita calculation is based on residential population, and Alternative C would add the most population.
A similar analysis was performed for study area number 10 of the alternatives based on the 2020 EMID UWMP. EMID’s entire service area includes the entire boundary of Foster City and a small portion of San Mateo. Table 21 shows the comparison between the projected population increase in the EMID UWMP and the alternative study. The population increase in Stud y Area 10 under the alternatives would be greater than the population increase EMID estimates for the whole service area in the 2020 UWMP.
Table 21 Projected Population Comparison (2020 EMID UWMP vs. Alternatives (Area 10))
Population
Projection
Source
2020
(Total)
2025
(Net
Increase
From
2020)
2030
(Net
Increase
From
2020)
2035
(Net
Increase
From
2020)
2040
(Net
Increase
From
2020)
2010-2015
EMID (Whole
Service Area)
36,516 416 1,086 2,332 3,591
Alternative A
(Area 10) - - - - 4,921
Alternative B
(Area 10) - - - - 4,921
Alternative C
(Area 10) - - - - 4,921
Source: Estero Municipal Improvement District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan .
Utilizing a similar demand per capita analysis that was used for the Cal Water analysis, water use in EMID averages about 118 gallons per capita. Table 22 shows the projected demand comparison. The 2020 EMID demand shown is the water delivered in 2020, 5,882 ac-ft.
Table 22 Water Usage – EMID - Projected Demand
Comparison
Alternative
Growth
Projected
Demand +
2020 EMID
Demand
(ac-ft)
EMID
Demand
Projection
2040 Normal
Year
(ac-ft)
Difference
(ac-ft)
Difference
Including
Estimated
Water
Conservation
Savings by
2040
(ac-ft)*
Alternative A
(Area 10) 6,663 6,350 313 +661
Alternative B
(Area 10) 6,663 6,350 313 +661
Alternative C
(Area 10) 6,663 6,350 313 +661
*Estimated water savings per capita of 6,383 gallons which includes both passive and active conservation per the UWMP.
Source: Estero Municipal Improvement District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
The 2020 EMID UWMP demand projections appear to be greater than the demand estimate when the alternative growth is added to the 2020 EMID demands and water conversation is accounted for. This analysis does not account for other growth within the EMID service area outside of Study Area 10.
For Study Area 10, when water conservation is accounted for, it appears that EMID’s supply projections exc eed estimated demand, and there would be adequate supply to serve new development under any of the three alternatives (which are the same in Study Area 10).
As part of the future EIR, a more detailed water service analysis will be conducted, including c onsultation with both water agencies, to refine demand values and potential conservation measures.
239 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 88
WASTEWATER12,13,14
The City of San Mateo maintains its own sanitary sewer conveyance system. San Mateo’s Wastewater Treatment Plant is jointly owned by the C ity of San Mateo and the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID). This section analyzes the existing and proposed sanitary sewer demands and capacities for the impacts of projected growth of each of the alternatives relating to was tewater conveyance and treatment.
In 1989, the City of San Mateo and EMID entered into a Joint Powers Agreement for construction, operation and maintenance of the treatment plant. Table 23 provides a summary of capacity limits each municipality is able to discharge into the treatment plant.
Table 23 Sewer Capacity – Joint Powers Agreement
Flow San Mateo
(mgd)
EMID
(mgd)
Total
(mgd)
Average Dry Weather Flow 11.4 4.3 15.7
Maximum Day Dry Weather 16.0 6.0 22.0
Maximum Day Wet Weather 32.3 7.0 39.3
Peak Hour Dry Weather 27.37 12.13 39.5
Peak Hour Wet Weather 47.8 12.2 60.0
Max. Month Dry Weather 13.0 4.9 17.9
Max. Month Wet Weather 20.0 5.6 25.6
Mgd = Million gallons per day.
Source: Joint Powers Agreement “Exhibit A”
12 Sewer System Management Plan, San Mateo, CA. (2015). City of San Mateo. 13 Integrated Wastewater Master Plan, San Mateo, CA. (2014). City of San Mateo. 14 Joint Powers Agreement Between City of San Mateo and The Estero Municipal Improvement District for Construction and Operation of the Water Quality Control Plant (1989) Future increases in sewer flows will be directly tied to increases in water use and water supply. As explained in the prior section, Cal Water has not currently identified future water supplies to fully serve the amount of development considered in any of the three land use alternatives. If future water s upplies are constrained, and/or future development is required to include extreme water conservation or water reuse, future sewage flows will be correspondingly lower.
The projected increase in sanitary se wer discharge by each of the alternatives was computed using sewage coefficients provided in the 2014 Integrated Wastewater Master Plan (IWMP). Although the IWMP was created in 2014, it provided a wastewater flow rate per capita projections for 2020 which includes water conservation. A wastewater flow rate of 75 gallons per capita per day was utilized in this analysis.
Table 24 provides an estimate of sewer demand increase for each land use alternative.
Table 24 Sewer Usage - Projected Demand Based on Use
Coefficients
Average Dry Weather (ADW) Sewage Generation
(Net Increase)
(mgd)
Alternative A 2.21
Alternative B 3.02
Alternative C 4.01
Table 25 presents average flow data provided by City staff, additional flows from the alternatives and current sewage capacities for the treatment plant based on the Joint Powers Agreement between the City and EMID.
240 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 89 Table 25 Sewer Usage – Projected Effluent Flows -
Total Historical Influent
Average Dry Weather Flow
2019-2020* (mgd)
Projected Alternatives
Average Dry Weather Flow
(mgd)
Total Historical Influent
Average Dry Weather Flow +
Alternatives Flow (mgd)
Allowed Wastewater
Treatment Plant Average Dry
Weather Flow 2014**(mgd)
Alternative A
10.76 2.21 12.97 11.40
Alternative B 3.02 13.78 11.40
Alternative C 4.01 14.77 11.40
*This includes data provided by City staff and includes flow from City of San Mateo, associated minor parties and excludes City of Foster City/EMID flows. **This is the agreed upon capacity for City of San Mateo and associated minor parties as part of the Joint Powers Agreement w ith EMID.
Source: City of San Mateo
Based on Table 25, it appears that the allowed average dry weather flow for San Mateo under the current Joint Powers Agreement would be exceeded by the additional flow from any of the three alternatives. The upgraded wastewater treatment plan will have adequate capacity to accommodate the projected average dry weather flows under any of the alternatives. However, increasing the allowed average dry weather flow for the City would require renegotiation of the limits in the Joint Powers Agreement with the other parties.
In addition to the average dry weather flow capacity, the 2014 Integrated Wastewater Master Plan noted that wet weather flow in the past has exceeded existing capacity and caused backups and sanitary sewer overflows during peak wet weather events. 15 As a result, the City of San Mateo is currently under a Cease -and-Desist Order to eliminate sewer overflows.16 Construction on a significant WWTP upgrade, modernization, and expansion project bega n in 2019 and is currently
15 Integrated Wastewater Master Plan, San Mateo, CA. (2014). City of San Mateo. 16 https://cleanwaterprogramsanmateo.org/wwtp/, accessed October 15, 2021. 17 https://cleanwaterprogramsanmateo.org/wwtp/, accessed October 15, 2021. 18 C.3 Regulated Projects Guide (January 2020). San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program 19 San Mateo County Guidelines For Drainage Review. San Mateo County underway, scheduled for completion in 2024. This project will increase the WWTP’s peak wet weather flow capacity to 78 mgd.17
The upgrade and expansion to the WWTP that is currently underway will significantly increase its capac ity to handle peak wet weather flows.
Renegotiation of the Joint Powers Agreement governing the wastewater treatment plant would likely be needed over the next 20 years to increase allowance for average dry weather flows to accommodate any of the alternatives.
STORMWATER SERVICES18,19
The City of San Mateo maintains storm drain systems citywide. The system comprises 80 miles of storm drain lines that typically direct flow to the nearest creek before reaching San Francisco Bay. This section analyzes how the buildout of the alternatives may affect the storm drainage systems maintained by the City.
241 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 90
The alternative study areas are in general located in highly developed areas of the City. The alternatives would generally be a redevelopment of existing pa rcels, many which contain a significant amount of impervious areas and no stormwater treatment measures as the land was developed prior to additional rules and regulations were required.
This means much of the existing parcels likely drain directly into th e City’s storm drainage system without any required infi ltration or detention of water. Projects in San Mateo County are subject to federal and State requirements to protect water quality, as well as City drainage requirements.
If development projects create and/or replace impervious surface, they may be subject to regulations that require developments to incorporate stormwater treatment measures . These regulations require developments to incorporate stormwater treatment measures which may support holding s tormwater on the site and giving it time to sink into the ground. This in turn reduces the stormwater runoff amount and velocities.
The City drainage requirements specify that:
– Post-development peak flow (runoff) and velocity must be less than or equal to pre-development peak flow and velocity in areas where there are no existing down stream storm drain systems. – In areas where there are existing storm drain systems, those systems must be of adequate size to accept the increased runoff, or mitigatio n procedures must be taken. Mitigation procedures may include on-site storm drain detention or off-site storm drain improvements.
20 City of San Mateo, August 2019, Green Infrastructure Plan In general, the stormwater requirements are usually incorporated in the conditions of approval for developments. This includes the possible use of detention basins, stormwater treatment, improvements to the City drainage system that the development may be utilizing or impacting, and much more.
The Green Infrastructure Plan (GI P), a document that includes goals, policies and pro grams to address land use with relation to green infrastructure, will also influence the design considerations needed for development within the land use alternatives .20 The policies and programs in the GIP are intended to prevent of water pollution, minimize stormwater runoff , encourage the use of low -impact design features such as bioswales and pervious pavements, require street tree planting as a requirement of all new development, and preserve topography and minimize impacts to natural resources.
The stormwater improvements needed for each development project are determined on a case-by-case basis because each project may vary widely with regard to the amount of stormw ater runoff produced and allowed mitigations.
Water quality rules and regulations and City drainage requirements help aid in reducing runoff rates and velocities. The stormwater requirements outlined in each development’s condition of approval helps ensure that the City’s stormwater infrastructure is able to support the specific development as individual projects are proposed over time.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The General Plan must address infrastructure and there are a number of policies in the existing Ge neral Plan regarding water and sewer service. Policy approaches to addressing water supply and wastewater treatment include:
242 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 91 – Supporting efforts by Cal Water and EMID to develop
supplemental water sources.
– Requiring new major multifamily and commercial developments to evaluate the sewer capacity and make any improvements necessary to convey additional sewage flows from the project. – Coordinating future planning of the sewer collection and Wastewater Treatment Plan with other users, including EMID, the Crystal Springs County Sanitation District, the T own of Hillsborough, and the City of Belmont.
5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Environmental sustainability can be measured several ways, one of which assesses how sustainable a community is in the face of climate- related hazards such as sea level rise, flooding, and wildfire. These climate-related hazards differ from natural hazards (e.g. earthquakes) in that they are caused by human activities that contribute to the changing climate. As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in their Sixth Assessment Report released August 2021, “human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe”21 and some impacts from climate change are now considered unavoidable, such as sea level rise, increasing temperatures, and variable weather patterns.
California’s Fourth Cli mate Change Assessment, released in 2018, outlines global climate change risks to California, some of which are likely realities in the city of San Mateo, either now or in the future. Such impacts include, but are not limited to:22
21 IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.
K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press. 22 Bedsworth, Louise, Dan Cayan, Guido Franco, Leah Fisher, Sonya Ziaja. (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission). 2018. Statewide Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: SUMCCCA4-2018-013. – Increased property damage/destruction, injury, and loss of life. – Economic impacts from increased insurance and reconstruction costs.
– Higher stress and mental trauma from extreme events,
economic disruption, and residential displacement.
– Damage to infrastructure systems from climate hazards.
As shown on Figure 25, there are three primary climate-related hazards in San Mateo: sea level rise in the northern and eastern portions of the city, flooding along the eastern shoreline and along Marina Lagoon, and wildfire in the western and southern portions of the city. Several local planning efforts address these hazards, including the Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), the Climate Action Plan (CAP), and the General Plan, among others. These documents outline policy decisions and directions that will ensure growth in the San Mateo community is environmentally sustainable. Development in each of the Study Areas will be impacted by climate -related hazards in a different way, outlined in further detail below.
SEA LEVEL RISE
Sea level rise is attributed to the increase of average ocean temperatures and the resulting thermal expansion and the melting of snow and ice contributing to the volume of water held in the oceans.
While many effects of climate change will impact the regi on, sea level rise is one specific impact that has been extensively studied and quantified, and its effects mapped. The speed and amount of sea level rise will be influenced by the increase in average temperatures and rate 243 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 92
of melting of glacial ice. While there is a degree of uncertainty in projections, the actual rate of sea level rise is occurring more quickly than many previous projections had estimated.23
The California Natural Resources Agency, in partnership with the California Ocean Protection Council, issued the State of California Sea- Level Rise Guidance, which states that sea levels in the San Francisco Bay Area may rise 22 inches by mid -century and 82 inches by the end of the century. Because it is in a low -lying coastal area, San Mateo is highly vulnerable to this threat. A sea level rise of 22 inches could inundate areas near Seal Point. If the level of San Francisco Bay rises 82 inches, water is projected to inundate all parts of San Mateo east of Highway 101, as well as areas west of Highway 101 including the area north of downtown and large sections of the Hayward Park, Bay Meadows, and Laurie Meadows neighborhoods.24
23 City of San Mateo, April 2020, 2020 Climate Action Plan, https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/80652/2020-Climate-Action-Plan?bidId=, page 19, accessed on September 21, 2021.
24 City of San Mateo, April 2020, 2020 Climate Action Plan, https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/80652/2020-Climate-Action-Plan?bidId=, page 19, accessed on September 21, 2021.
244 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 93 Figure 25. Combined Hazards
245 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 94
All Study Areas located to the east of Highway 101 are at severe risk of inundation by sea level rise at both 18 feet and 55 feet, as illustrated on Figure 25. The Study Areas located in these areas are listed below:
– Select portions of Study Area 2, largely east of State Route 82, are susceptible to sea level rise under the 18 - and 55 -foot scenarios. All three alternatives include Residential Medium land uses, the most of which is anticipated in Alternative B. All three alternatives also include Residential Low uses, the least amount in Alternative B. Alternative A includes Commercial
Neighborhood uses while Alternative B includes Mixed-Use Low and Alternative C includes Mixed -Use Medium. Alternative B would include the most homes and population growth, followed by Alternative C then A. Each alternative assumes that the amount of jobs declines, the most with Alternative B, followed by Alternative C and then A.
– Approximately half of Study Area 3 is susceptible to sea level rise under the 18- and 55-foot scenarios. These areas largely lie to the east of the railroad tracks. However, this portion of Study Area 3 is largely similar in each alternative except for select commercial parcels. Therefore, none of the alternatives would introduce a significant differing amount of development in an area su sceptible to sea level rise. The major differences between alternatives in the areas susceptible to sea level rise are between Alternatives A and B with Alternative C, where Alternatives A and B designate several parcels as Mixed -Use Medium while these parcels are designated as Mixed-Use Low in Alternative C. Therefore, Alternatives A and B anticipate more development in areas east of Pacific that are susceptible to sea level rise inundation.
– The far eastern portions of Study Area 4 are susceptible to sea level rise under the 55-foot scenario. Alternatives A and B would designate most of this area as Residential Medium while Alternative C would designate that same area as Residential Low.
– The entirety of Study Area 7 is susceptible to sea level rise. The majority is susceptible to sea level rise under the 18 -foot scenario while the southern portion is susceptible to only the 55- foot scenario.
– The entirety of Study Area 8 is susceptible to sea level rise under the 18-foot scenario.
– The entirety of Study Area 9 is susceptible to sea level rise under the 18-foot scenario.
– The entirety of Study Area 10 is susceptible to sea level rise under the 18-foot scenario. All alternatives anticipate the same residential and job growth.
Although the alternatives anticipate different levels of development, the flooding impacts would be the same amongst the alternatives because impacts would be localized to the first floor of the structure.
FLOODING
Flooding events, and the ir severity, are predicted to become more intense as a result of the changing climate. Forecasts indicate that more intense rainfall events will occur more frequently, increasing localized flooding events that impact infrastructure , buildings, and people.
According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, and as restated in the 2020 CAP, the state’s water system is structured and operated to balance between water storage for dry months and flood protection during rainy months. Although climate change is likely to lead to a drier climate overall, risks from regular, more intense rainfall events can generate more frequent and/or more severe flooding that upsets this managed balance between storage and protection. Additionally, 246 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 95 erosion may increase, and water quality may decrease as a result of increased rainfall.25
As shown on Figure 25, several study areas are located within areas at risk of a FEMA 100 -year flood, and several are within areas at risk of both a FEMA 100 -year flood to of sea level rise i nundation. The study areas located in these susceptible areas of San Mateo are listed below, along with the implications for each given development potential under the three alternatives.
– Small portions of Study Area 3 are susceptible to flooding as reported by FEMA. These areas include south of State Route 92 and west of the railroad tracks.
– Some portions of Study Area 4 are susceptible to FEMA 100 - year flooding and some areas are susceptible to both FEMA 100-year flooding and sea level rise. Areas susce ptible to only the FEMA 100-year floods are located directly north of the San Mateo Caltrain Station. Alternatives A and B designate these areas as Residential Medium while Alternative C designates this area as Residential Low.
– The vast majority of Study Area 7 is located in both a FEMA 100- year flood zone and an area susceptible to sea level rise. The alternatives for Study Area 7 include a mix of densifying land uses. Refer to Section 5.5 for more information on land uses that may be impacted from flooding in this Study Area.
– Study Area 8 is susceptible to both FEMA 100-year flood zones and sea level rise only on the far eastern portion. The alternatives in this portion of Study Area 8 are all similar.
25 City of San Mateo, April 2020, 2020 Climate Act ion Plan, https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/80652/2020 -Climate-Action-Plan?bidId=, page 1 8, accessed on September 21, 2021.
26 City of San Mateo, April 2020, 2020 Climate Action Plan, https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/80652/2020 -Climate-Action-Plan?bidId=, page 21, accessed on September 21, 2021.
– The southeast portion of Study Area 9 is susceptible to both the FEMA 100 -year flood zone and sea level rise. All three alternatives include office medium land uses and residential low in this portion of Study Area 9. Alternatives A and C also include commercial neighborhood.
– A small portion of Study Area 10, on the northwestern border, is susceptible to both the FEMA 100 -year flood zone and to sea level rise. All three alternatives anticipate the same residential medium development in this area.
Although the alternatives anticipate different levels of development, the sea level rise impacts would be the same amongst the alternatives because impacts would be localized to the first floor of the structure.
WILDFIRE RISK
Wildfire risk is based on a combination of factors including rainfall, winds, temperature, and vegetation. According to California Fourth Climate Change Assessment, higher temperatures, longer dry periods, and increased frequency of high velocity winds over a longer fire season will directly increase wildfire risk. Indirectly, wildfire risk will also be influenced by potential climate -related changes in vegetation and ignition potential from lightning. Historically, the annual average area burned in San Mateo was 50 acres. According to CalAdapt, under higher emissions scenario, this could increas e to an average annual burn area of 73 acres by 2050 and 133 acres by 2100. The hills behind San Mateo are also expected to see an increase in wildfire frequency, and fires in this area could cause damage in the community or impact local air quality.26
247 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 96
Areas in San Mateo that are at risk of wildfire are located to the west of State Route 92. There are no Study Areas located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones as currently mapped by CAL FIRE. 27 However, Study Area 6 is located within the Wildland Urban Interface 28. The Interface zone covers places that have dense housing next to vegetation that can burn in a wildfire.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The City could consider policies and actions in the General Plan Update to reduce the impacts of sea level rise, flooding, and wildfire hazards:
– Work with regional partners like the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and
BayAdapt to develop coordinated sea level rise adaptation measures and programs.
– Seek nature -based sea level rise mitigation and adaptation strategies where possible.
– Require sea level rise projections and analyses as part of City development and environmental review processes in areas subject to sea level rise. Incorporate sea level rise mapping into the City’s geographic information system so it can be accessed by City staff, applicants, and the community.
– Work with neighborhood associations, realtors, community - based organizations, and propert y owners to provide
information about potential property risks and mitigation options for increased flooding due to sea level rise.
27 According to the City’s Fire Marshal, State maps are expected to increase the hazard level in certain areas in San Mateo from a high hazard wildland fire severity zone to a very high hazard severity zone. This section is based on the data currently publicly available. 28 CalFire, 2019, Wildland-Urban Interface, https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=d45bf08448354073a26675776f2d09cb, accessed on December 12, 2021. – Incentivize low impact development in the City in order to reduce stormwater runoff that can cause flooding.
– Require all dev elopment in and adjacent to designated wildlands fire areas to provide access and defensible space in accordance with California Codes and local ordinances.
– Maintain the City’s emergency readiness and response
capabilities, especially regarding hazardous materials spills, natural gas pipeline ruptures, fire hazards, wildland fire risk, earthquakes, pandemics, and flooding.
– Maintain the City’s Continuity of Ope rations / Continuity of Government Plan to e nsure that the City government can operate during and after hazard events to provide resources and guidance for recovery and reconstruction.
5.6 EQUITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Low-income residents, communities of color, in digenous peoples and tribal nations, and immigrant communities have disproportionately experienced greater environmental burdens and related health problems throughout the history of California. This inequity is the result of many historical factors: inappropriate zoning and negligent land use planning, failure to enforce proper zoning or conduct regular inspections, deed restrictions and other discriminatory housing and lending practices, limited political and economic power among certain demographics, the prioritization of business interests over public health, development patterns that tend to concentrate pollution and environmental hazards in certain communities, and the placement of economic and environmental benefits in more affluent areas. 248 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 97
HOUSING VULNERABILITY AND DISPLACEMENT
Government policies, exclusionary tactics, and disparate treatments have long been key components of the housing system which encouraged developmental inequity based on race. Since the 1930s, systematic redlining, restrictive co venants in private land sales (i.e., prohibiting sale of property to a particular group of people, usually people of color), and residential segregation restricted many nonwhite groups from accessing socioeconomic opportunity and meaningful fair housing choice. Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act of 1968 to limit the overt housing discrimination as mentioned previously; however, residential segregation has persisted through hidden discriminatory practices that reinforce patters of segregation in Californi a. AB 686, Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, amends the Government Code to alleviate these subtle patterns of discrimination.
AB 686 amended Housing Element law to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) by creating additional new requirements that ad dress:
community outreach, assessment of fair housing, sites inventory, identification and prioritization of contributing factors, and goals and actions to further fair housing. The Housing Element update, being conducted in parallel with the General Plan Update, will be required to respond to the requirements of AB 686.
The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) is a research and action initiative of UC Berkeley seeking to understand and describe the nature of gentrification, displacement, and exclusion, and to generate knowledge on how policy interventions and investment can respond and support more equitable development .29 Urban Displacement Project researchers have created interactive maps of gentrification and displacement potential at the census tract level. Table 26 describes the
29 Berkeley, University of California, accessed October 1st, 2021, “Urban Displacement Landing Page,” urbandisplacement.org. 30 Berkeley, U niversity of California, accessed October 1st, 2021, “Urban Displacement San Francisco Bay Area gentrification and Displacement ,” urbandisplacement.org. , https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement 31 Zuk, M., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Chapple, K. (2019). Safeguarding against Displacement: Stabilizing Transit Neighborhoods. In K. Chapple & A. L oukaitou-Sideris (Ed.), Transit -Oriented Displacement or Community Dividends? Understanding the Effects of Smarter Growth on Communities (pp. 243-266). Cambridge: MIT Press current methodology and the criteria used identify a census tract as a certain type. The map for the City of San Mateo is shown on Figure 26.
These maps are intended to frame conversations around issues of gentrification, displacement, and exclusion and to inform strategies to mitigate the negative impacts of housing instability. 30 To read more about this methodology, please go to Urban Displacement’s website at https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-area- gentrification-and-displacement
Displacement as a result of gentrification is a concern in neighborhoods that are densifying in order to prov ide efficient, sustainable infill development close to transit. Displacement can take many forms. In some cases, residents of existing buildings are physically displaced when the building is demolished to be replaced with new construction.
Displacement can also happen generationally, when parents or grandparents sell a family home and younger generations cannot afford to rent or buy in the same community. Over time, the neighborhood sees a less diverse mix of low - and moderate-income households as only high-income households can afford housing. Data on the effects of upzoning and of increasing housing construction on displacement in the Bay Area is inconclusive. Research has found that while “transit - induced” gentrification is not “pervasive,” it is estimate d that “ 11.5 percent of transit neighborhoods in the Bay Area … experienced residential gentrification between 1990 and 2000 and/or 2000 and 2013.”31 All three alternatives contemplate some amount of infill redevelopment, especially in areas close to transi t, so all three alternatives would have the potential to increase displacement and to replace existing units that are affordable or less expensive with new units that would be more expensive.
249 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 98
It is important to note that preventing any physical change at all does not by itself prevent displacement. Housing cost is a key factor driving displacement. When no new homes or commercial spaces are available, the prices of the finite supply of existing homes and commercial spaces increases rapidly, which often pu ts extreme pressure on existing residents and businesses.
Table 26 Urban Displacement Typologies
Modified Types Criteria
Low-income /
Susceptible to
Displacement
Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018
Ongoing
Displacement of
Low-income
Households
Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018
Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018
At Risk of
Gentrification
Low-income or mixed low-income tract in 2018
Housing affordable to low or mixed low-income households in 2018
Didn’t gentrify 1990-2000 OR 2000-2018
Marginal change in housing costs OR Zillow home or rental value increases in the 90th percentile between 2012-2018 Local and nearby increases in rent were greater than the regional median between 2012-2018 OR the 2018 rent gaps greater than the regional median rent gap
Early / Ongoing
Gentrification
Low-income or mixed low-income tract in 2018
Housing affordable to moderate or mixed moderate-income households in 2018
Increase or rapid increase in housing costs OR above regional median change in Zillow home or rental values between
2012-2018
Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018
Advanced
Gentrification
Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high -income
tract in 2018
Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high-income households in 2018
Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018
Modified Types Criteria
Stable Moderate /
Mixed Income
Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high -income
tract in 2018
At Risk of Becoming
Exclusive
Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high -income
tract in 2018
Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high-income households in 2018
Marginal change or increase in housing costs
Becoming Exclusive
Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high -income
tract in 2018
Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high-income households in 2018
Rapid increase in housing costs
Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018
Declining low-income in-migration rate, 2012-2018
Median income higher in 2018 than in 2000
Stable / Advanced
Exclusive
High-income tract in 2000 and 2018
Affordable to high or mixed high-income households in 2018 Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs 250 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 99 Figure 26. Gentrification and Displacement Typologies in San Mateo 251 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 100
To mitigate displacement, proactive and reactive policies and programs intended to keep housing costs affordable and to offer residents housing security are likely to make a bigger difference than the specific amount or type of land use changes allowed by the General Plan .
Researchers with the Urban Displacement Project have studied the effectiveness of anti-displacement policies in four broad categories:32 – Building new affordable housing. The City has many tools in place already to support new affordable housing, including inclusionary zoning that requires 15 percent of units in new multifamily housing construction to be affordable, density bonuses allowed for new development that includes a minimum number of affordable units, providing City -owned sites for construction of affordab le housing, and fees on commercial development to fund new affordable housing. In 2021, 388 affordable units are approved or under construction in San Mateo.
– Preserving existing units that are affordable , including through programs like the ones the City has in place to extend
affordability covenants of existing affordable units and to provide grants and loans to low -income homeowners for
rehabilitation.
– Stabilizing neighborhoods. The City provides down payment assistance through the First Time Homebuye r program ;
enforces City and State codes to improve homes and
neighborhoods and provides tenant relocation assistance to tenants displaced due to code enforcement actions; funds HIP (Human Investment Project) Housing, a local non -profit matching home seeke rs with those offering space for home sharing; and contracts with Project Sentinel to provide tenant counseling, Fair Housing services, monitoring and investigation.
32 Zuk, M., Loukaitou -Sideris, A., & Chapple, K. (2019). Safeguarding against Displacement: Stabilizing Transit Neighborhoods. In K. Chapple & A. L oukaitou-Sideris (Ed.), Transit -Oriented Displacement or Community Dividends? Understanding the Effects of Smarter Growth on Communities (pp. 243-266). Cambridge: MIT Press – Minimizing commercial displacement by helping businesses stay open or relocate during con struction and by offering technical support to attract and retain local businesses as redevelopment occurs.
Overall, Alternative A represents the least change throughout the Study Areas. On one hand, the least change may lead to the least physical displacement through redevelopment. However, Alternative A will also include the least amount of new housing, including less affordable housing, as shown in Table 27. Limiting the construction of new housing could result in continued increases in rental and for-sale housing prices.
In general, Alternative B spreads medium -density, medium -height development throughout the Study Areas, in contrast to Alternative C that concentrates higher densities and heights in central San Mateo along El Camino Real and near the Caltrain stations. The footprint of development and the location and number of individual sites subject to redevelopment, and therefore displacement, could be similar under Alternative B as Alternative C; the difference would be that Alternative B would place a lower amount of new development on those sites than would Alternative C.
Alternative C allows the greatest amount of new development and new housing. While redevelopment would be more intensive in some Study Areas than others, all Study Areas woul d see the greatest amount of change and redevelopment under Alternative C. Because of San Mateo’s inclusionary housing requirements, the highest amount of new affordable housing would be added under Alternative C.
252 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 101 Table 27 Inclusionary Units under Each Alternative
Alternative
Total
Housing
Units
Minus
ADUs
Multifamily
Housing
Units
Affordable Housing Units
(15% of multifamily
based on inclusionary
Requirement)
A +11,810 1,000 10,810 1,622
B +16,070 1,250 14,820 2,223
C +21,080 1,000 20,080 3,012
The pressures of displacement, gentrification, and exclusion are not isolated in the study areas. Future changes within the study areas will affect other neighborhoods in San Mateo. During the alternatives creation process, community members express ed particular concern about potential gentrification and displacement within the North Central neighborhood, influenced by development in Study Areas 4, 5, and 7 which surround it. Because sites in North Central are not considered for change under any alte rnatives, none of the alternatives would directly displace residents through redevelopment. Alternative C may have the most potential benefit to low-income families in North Central (and other San Mateo neighborhoods) since it would provide the greatest amount of new affordable housing. However, as with land use changes within the Study Areas, it is probable that policies and programs to prevent and mitigate displacement will have a stronger effect on outcomes in North Central than the differences in land u se among the three alternatives.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Overall outcomes under each alternative for people who walk and ride bikes are discussed in section 5.2, Traffic and Multimodal Circulation, above. Bicycle and p edestrian safety is also addressed here as an equity issue because all San Mateo residents should have safe and convenient opportunities to bike and walk for transportation, exercise, or pleasure. SB 1000, the 2016 law that requires General Plans to address environmental justice, calls for the City to reduce health risks in disadvantaged neighborhoods by improving air quality and promoting physical activity. For households without access to a car, it is critical to be able to bike or walk safely to school, work, shopping, and transit.
Bicycle and pedestrian collisions in San Mateo between 2015 and 2020 are shown in Figures 27 and 28 respectively. There was one fatal bicycle collision in this period at South Norfolk Street and SR 92. There were 115 bicycle injury collisions. T he most reoccurring bicycle collision factors were automobile right of way ( 15 percent), unsafe speed ( 15 percent), wrong side of road (25 percent), improper turning (9 percent), and traffic signal and signs ( 8 percent). Injury collisions were concentrated on El Camino Real south of SR 92, in the Downtown core, and on Hillsdale Boulevard near US Highway 101.
From 2015 to 20 20 there were eight pedestrian fatalities and a total of 197 injury collisions. The most frequent collision factor was violation of pedestrian right-of-way (65 percent), which means the other party in the collision did not yield to a pede strian or intruded on the pedestrian’s space to cause the collision. The fatalities occurred on streets with high speeds and vehicle volumes: three on El Camino Real (in Study Area 3), three in Study Area 7, two at US Highway 101, and one at Norfolk Street (Study Area 7). The map of collision locations reveals high collision concentration areas: San Mateo’s Downtown (Study Area 4), the North Central part of the City near San Mateo High School, along San Mateo Drive (Study Area 5), and along El Camino Real f rom Downtown San Mateo to Hillsdale Boulevard (Study Areas 1 and 3). The concentration of pedestrian collisions in Study Area 4 is most likely due to a high rate of walking combined with high volumes of auto traffic. These clusters of collisions highlight the need for infrastructure improvements in their respective areas. The City’s adopted Pedestrian Master Plan , the upcoming Complete Streets Plan, and the General Plan Update could add further policy guidance to help improve pedestrian safety.
253 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 102
Many factors affect bicycle and pedestrian safety, including how many vehicles there are in an area, street design, street lighting, and speed limits. Speed is the single most significant factor that determines the severity of a collision. Research into the relationship between land use and traffic safety has not demonstrated clear links between specific land uses, densities, or heights and traffic safety outcomes. In studies of pedestrian safety, some find that increased population density is correlated with increased traffic collisions, others find that increased population density is correlated with decreased traffic collisions, some find mixed results, and some find population density statistical ly insignificant.33 On one hand, adding more development to a study area by allowing higher-density development would bring more people to the area, increasing the chances for a collision to occur. On the other hand, adding mixed-use development, especially near transit, can reduce the need to drive, getting more people out of their cars and reducing the risk of collision. In areas such as Downtown where biking and walkability is prioritized, measures to reduce vehicle speed, reduce conflicts between cars , bicycle, and pedestrians. Improving bicycle and pedestrian comfort would have a much stronger effect on bicycle and pedestrian safety than would the variations in land use designations and intensities among the alternatives. There is not sufficient data available to support a conclusion that one of the land use alternatives would be significantly more likely to improve or to worsen pedestrian and bicycle safety, because pedestrian and bicycle safety is more directly affected by non -land use factors such as street design, street lighting, and vehicle speeds.
The circulation alternatives provide a more direct connection to influencing pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Out of all three circulation alternatives, Circulation Alterna tive C would have the highest multi - modal benefit because it anticipates the most pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements. Circulation Alternative A would result in the
33 Erick Guerra, Xiaoxia Dong, and Michelle Kondo. 2019. "Do Denser Neighborhoods Have Safer Streets? Population Density and Traffic Safety in the Philadelphia Region." Journal of Planning Education and Research.
second highest amount of pedestrian improvements when compared to the other two c irculation alternatives. Circulation Alternatives A and C include more bicycle improvements than Circulation Alternative B. All circulation alternatives include good bicycle network coverage through the adopted Bike Master Plan , and Circulation Alternative A and Circulation Alternative C have the potential to improve upon that with a future study of an El Camino Real bike lane and other improvements.
Circulation Alternative B performs the lowest in improvement pedestrian safety and connectivity.
254 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 103 Figure 27. Bicycle Collisions
255 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 104
Figure 28. Pedestrian Collisions
256 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 105
POLLUTION BURDEN
This section references CalEnviroScreen 4.0 , California’s primary environmental justice screening tool. CalEnviroScreen calculates the relationship between exposure to pollution, or “pollution burd en,” and population characteristics such as poverty, educational attainment, and age, to arrive at a combined score for every Census tract in California.
In general, the higher the score, the more impacted a community is.
Overall combined scores for Census tracts in San Mateo range from 78 percent in the North Central neighborhood to 1 in the San Mateo Park, Baywood, and Aragon neighborhoods. Figure 29 shows the range of combined scores in Census tracts in San Mateo.
This section will focus on the evaluation of three pollution indicators for which some Census tracts in San Mateo have high scores: traffic density, diesel particulate matter (PM), and groundwater threats.
TRAFFIC DENSITY AND DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER
While California has strict vehicle -emissions standards, exhaust from cars and trucks is the main source of air pollution in much of the state.
Major roads and highways bring air pollutants and noise into nearby neighborhoods. Children who live or go to schools near busy roads have higher rates of asthma than children in areas farther from roads.34 Traffic density percentile scores at or above 75 percent are concentrated along Highway 101 and Highway 92, as shown in Figure
30. Percentile scores above 90 percent are concentrated around the 101 and 92 interchange and in north San Mateo near the Poplar Creek Golf Course. Study Areas 7 and 8 are the most severely affected by traffic emissions, but pollutant emissions from traffic affect Study Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9.
One pollutant of concern is Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), which is in the exhaust from trucks, buses, trains, and other equipment with diesel
34 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard, June 11, 2021, accessed September 30, 2021. “Draft CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Traf fic Indicator for San Mateo,”oehha.ca.gov., https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/draft-calenviroscreen-40 engines. DPM contains many harmful chemicals. Study Areas 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9 all include Census tracts with scores over 75 percent, meaning that exposure to DPM in these Census tracts is higher than 75 percent of the Census tracts in California. In particular, the census tract bounded by Highway 101, Highway 92, and El Camino Real, which is in Study Area 3, has the highest DPM score in San Mateo at 95 percent. Within Study Area 3, Alternative A would add the fewest new residents and Alternative C would add the most.
GROUNDWATER THREATS
Groundwater threats are dangerous substances, often hazardous chemicals, that can negatively impact the groundwater of a community.
These chemicals include gasoline and diesel fuels at gas stations, chemicals used in dry cleaning, as well as heavy metals, pesticides, and solvents. Even though most of these hazardous chemicals are typically stored in containers, and the threat is that leaks from tank can lead to soil and groundwater contamination. Leaking tanks can affect drinking water and expose people to contaminated soil and air. The level of threat in San Mateo indicates that there is potential for leaks to occur but is not a measure of contamination that has already happened.
Contamination that has occurred in the past is captured in a different CalEnviroScreen indicator that looks at the number and weight of toxic cleanup sites in or near a Census tract. Clea nup site scores in San Mateo range from a high of 61 percent in North Central, meaning the number and type of cleanup sites is higher than 61 percent of the census tracts in California, to a low of 0 in San Mateo Park and Baywood Census tracts.
257 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 106
Figure 29. CalEnviroScreen Combined Scores
258 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 107 Figure 30. Traffic Density and Pollutant Exposure
259 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 108
As shown on Figure 31, Study Areas 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 include Census tracts with percentile scores at or above 90 percent for groundwater threats, indicating that the number and type of groundwater threats in these areas are higher than approximately 90 percent of the other Census tracts in California. It is important to understand that San Mateo does not use groundwater for drinking water. San Mateo’s drinking water is surface water imported from other parts of California, and San Mateo’s drinking water is very clean.
Therefore, there is no risk to human health from drinking potentially contaminated groundwater in San Mateo. Instead, human health could be at risk if groundwater were to first be contaminated and then exposed through excavation or construction of new development. There are a number of well -established practices for protecting workers and residents from groundwater and groundwater vapor both during construction and after a building is occupied, such as vapor barriers.
Assuming that regulations and best practices for preventing groundwater and vapor intrusion are followed, the risks to human health from potential groundwater contamination would not differ among the alternatives and all alternatives would have similar risks.
ACCESS TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Parks and Open Spaces are important natural resources, providing approximately 420 acres of parks and open space within the City and many miles of paths and trails. Even though San Mateo parks and open space are free and accessible, they are not equi tably accessible for everyone. Park and open space access is an important environmental justice issue because proximity to park and open space has been linked in increase inactive behaviors, and positive impacts on health outcomes such as lower rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity.35 Figure 24, in the previous Public Services section, illustrates park access in San Mateo. Areas that are within a ¼ mile walking distance of
35 Maroko, A.R., Maantay, J.A., Sohler, N.L. et al. The complexities of measuring access to parks and physical activity sites in New York City: a quantitative and qualitative approach. Int J Health Geogr 8, 34 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-8-34 an existing park are shown in light green, areas between ¼ mile and ½ mile are in light gold, and areas beyond ½ mile walking distance to a park are in dark gold. Note that Figure 2 4 focuses on walking distance via existing streets. So, for example, although parts of Study Area 8 are close to Fiesta Meadows Park or Connie Park, there are no existing connections that would allow future residents in Study Area 8 to walk less than ½ mile to reach either park.
As shown in Figure 24, areas at the outskirts of the City and along the Highway 101 corridor have to walk the farthest to reach existing parks.
While parks are an important amenity for both residents and workers in San Mateo, this equity analysis focuses on those who live in San Mateo. – Study Areas 1-C, 3, and 4 near the center of San Mateo have the best walkable access to existing parks. Alternative C would add the most new residents in Study Areas 3 and 4; Alternative B would add the most new residents in 1-N.
– Although it is on the periphery, the northern edge of Study Area 10 has good access to Mariners Island Park. All alternatives add the same number of residents in Study Area 10.
– About half of Study Areas 5, 7, 8, and 9 are within a ½ mile of a park, and the remainder is outside the ½ mile walking distance.
Alternative C adds the most new residents in Study Areas 5 and 7, while Alternative B adds the most new residents in Study Areas 8 and 9.
– Study Areas 1-N, 1-S, 2, and 6 are almost entirely outside of a ½-mile walking distance from any existing park. In these low - access areas, Alternative B adds the most new residents in Study Areas 1-N, 1-S, and 2. Alternative C adds the most new residents in Study Area 6.
260 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 109 Figure 31. Groundwater Threats
261 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 110
– Alternative A would add the fewest new residents in Study Areas 1 through 9 and therefore the fewest new residents in both Study Areas with high walkable park access and Study Areas with low walkable park access.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
– Maintain City policies that protect against displacement, including building new affordable housing units, preserving existing affordable units, providing support to tenants and landlords, and supporting local businesses.
– Continue to improve t he safety of San Mateo streets and sidewalks, including through improvements called for in the adopted Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan and Bicycle Master Plan.
– Consider requirements for health risk assessment s, including consideration of diesel particulat e matter and other air pollutants, when a project potentially affects sensitive receptors. – Requiring the cleanup of contaminated sites when the site is developed or redeveloped.
– When planning for future development in areas that are more than ½ mile wal king distance from a park, the City should consider ways to improve connections to existing parks and work with applicants to include publicly accessible private open space as part of their projects.
– Explore opportunities for joint use agreements with local School Districts to increase access to playgrounds and fields.
36 More detailed interviews with City staff, specifically the Fire Department and the Public Works Department are needed.
5.7 FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY
In the context of the City’s General Plan update, the primary goal of the fiscal impact analysis is to quantify the impact of the three alternatives on the City’s long -term fiscal health to help formulate policies, growth patterns, and public service standards that are fiscally sustainable over the General Plan buildout.
METHODOLOGY
The fiscal impact analysis is focused on the City’s General Fund budget, comparing the costs of providing public services and maintaining public facilities with the primary revenue sources available to cover these expenditures. The fiscal impact analysis is based on a review of the current Fiscal Year 2021/22 budget as well as correspondence with City staff.36 As noted, this analysis is designed to inform key planning and policy parameters associated with the General Plan Update. The information will be used to craft a preferred General Plan alternative that is fiscally sustainable over the long-term.
It is important to stress that this analysis is being provided to compare the relative fiscal implications of the three General Plan alternatives and not for actual budgeting purposes. Thus, the results will not and should not be used as a basis for making actual, department level staffing decisions or annual revenue estimates. It should also be noted that the fiscal results (annual surpluses or deficits) are simply indicators of fiscal performance; they do not mean that the City will automatically have surplus revenues or deficits because the City must have a balanced budget each year. Persistent shortfalls shown in a fiscal analysis may indicate the need to reduce service levels or obtain additional revenues; persistent surpluses will provide the City with resourc es to reduce liabilities such as deferred maintenance, improve service levels, or build up reserves.
262 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 111 In addition, the findings are based on a set of “baseline” conditions and assumptions related to the key factors that affect General Fund costs and revenues, such as property assessed value, sales tax levels, state and federal budget and tax policy, and other factors. To the degree that these conditions change, the fiscal performance of new growth will differ from the estimates provided herein.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Over time, and assuming full buildout, all three of the General Plan alternatives are estimated to generate more General Fund revenues than expenditures under the City’s current cost structure and service levels. Alternatives A and B reflect the mo st fiscally advantageous outcome for the City’s General Fund while Alternative C is relatively less fiscally favorable. These additional annual General Fund net surpluses range from $ 5.2 million to $ 8.1 million, as illustrated in Table 2 8, representing a 4 to 6 percent increase over the existing budget. Thus, implementation of any of the General Plan alternatives may allow the City to improve its service levels and standard by varying degrees over time.37
The improved fiscal performance projected to result from the implementation of each of the General Plan alternatives stems, in varying degrees, from (1) an increasing orientation towards higher-value development and (2) economies of scale in the provision of public services. Accordingly, for each of the alt ernatives, the highest revenue sources are related to Property Tax. Simply put, newer and larger buildings tend to be worth more than older and smaller buildings and, therefore, generate more property tax revenue. In terms of department- level costs, Police and Fire make up the majority of General Fund costs (approximately 60 percent of total expenditures), followed by Parks, Public Works, and general government functions.
37 The fiscal impact analysis indicates that each alternative will generate net positive fiscal revenue each year at General Plan Buildout. If economic or regulatory conditions change or if development does not materialize as planned, the City may need to consider fiscal mitigation strategies. Such strategies coul d include Community Facilities Districts or other public financing mechanisms.
As noted in the previous Public Services section, most City departments indicate the potential need for new public facilities and additional staff to serve new development under each alternative. This analysis assumes current staffing service standards (i.e., sworn officers per resident equivalent) and operating cost ratios are maintained as the number of residents and employees increase in response to the growth in the service population. However, this analysis does not estimate one- time capital costs associated with new facilities.
Table 28 Fiscal Impact Summary of General Plan Alternatives Item
Annual Fiscal Impact
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax - Secured $22,140,000 $26,760,000 $31,880,000 Sales Tax – Local 1% $2,710,000 $3,450,000 $4,300,000
Sales Tax – 1/4 % Measure S1 $710,000 $910,000 $1,130,000 Property Transfer Tax $2,530,000 $3,440,000 $4,510,000
Business License Tax $1,810,000 $1,810,000 $1,760,000
Franchises $910,000 $1,140,000 $1,410,000
Recreation Service Charges $610,000 $830,000 $1,110,000 Permits, Fees, and Fines $1,480,000 $1,930,000 $2,460,000 Total Revenues $32,900,000 $40,270,000 $48,560,000
263 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 112
Item
Annual Fiscal Impact
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
General Fund Expenditures
City Attorney $80,000 $100,000 $130,000
City Clerk $60,000 $70,000 $90,000
City Council $20,000 $30,000 $40,000
City Manager $170,000 $220,000 $280,000
Community Development $260,000 $330,000 $430,000
Finance $280,000 $360,000 $460,000
Human Resources $160,000 $210,000 $270,000
Information Technology $290,000 $370,000 $470,000
Library $1,770,000 $2,420,000 $3,220,000
Parks and Recreation $4,100,000 $5,590,000 $7,430,000
Police $8,750,000 $11,350,000 $14,510,000
Public Works $2,780,000 $3,800,000 $5.050,000
San Mateo Consolidated Fire
Dept. Contribution $6,060,000 $8,280,000 $11,000,000
Total Expenditures $24,780,000 $33,130,000 $43,380,000
Net Annual Fiscal Impact $8,120,000 $7,140,000 $5,180,000 Note: Property Tax in -Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fee (VLF) is estimated to generate between $3.8 million and $5.4 million at General Plan buildout. However, it is not included in this analysis due to current concerns regarding the certainty of the revenue source. 1 Although Measure S Sales Tax revenues are treated separately from the Local 1% Tax, they are included in this analysis to facili tate full evaluation General Fund resources Analysis by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
The relative performance of various General Plan alternatives is driven by a variety of complex factors, the most notable of which is the type and amount of developme nt envisioned in each and the resulting service populations. Given the current profile of General Fund expenditures in the City, nonresidential development perform s better than residential development because residents and residential uses generate higher demand for public services than do businesses and their employees. However, high residential real estate valu es in San Mateo result in higher -than-typical property tax -related revenue that partially offsets the public service expenditures. Given these and other factors, Alternative C is expected to generate the highest revenues as well as the highest public service costs. Alternative B generates the second highest revenues and the second highest costs. Alternative A reflects the lowest population and employ ment growth and generates the lowest revenues and the lowest costs.
Retail development can generate sales tax revenue, however, for this analysis, EPS forecasted the sales tax to the City’s General Fund based on demand from population and employment gr owth rather than new retail development. This is a conservative approach in order to ensure that the analysis is based on internal growth dynamics rather than an assumption that “supply creates demand ,” particularly given ongoing trends towards online retail. Depending on the performance of regional retail developments and each retailer’s ability to capture regional demand, there could be positive sales tax revenue associated with each alternative that is not estimated in this analysis.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The key General Plan related policies and issues that may be informed by the Fiscal Impact Analysis include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
– Public service levels and standards: The level of service provided by various departments is often quantified based on standards or ratios (i.e., sworn police officers per 1,000 service population for police, park acres per 1,000 population, etc.) related to either articulated goals or actual conditions. The fiscal analysis can be used to highlight the fiscal implications of “business as usual” relative to alternative ways of providing services.
264 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 113 – T ax and fee rates: The General Plan can also articulate various goals or standards related to finan cing mechanisms and requirements to ensure fiscal sustainability, promote economic development, and other objectives.
5.8 MARKET FEASIBILITY
This financial feasibility analysis provides a planning -level assessment of development feasibility for a range of residential, office, and retail commercial development prototypes at varying densities. T hese uses will be the essential drivers of the new residential and employment capacity supported by the General Plan Update. Table 29 summarizes the results of the financial feasibility analysis.
Mixed-use development, a unique land use category, is a significant component of each alternative. However, it allows so much flexibility that it is difficult to evaluate a single prototype project that adequately represents all o f “mixed use” . Rather, the feasibility of mixed -use development is better evaluated as “residential” or “office.” For current planning purposes, ground-floor retail contained within residential and office projects has a negligible effect on financial feasibility. It likely can be integrated into mi xed-use projects as a revenue -neutral amenity.
Other types of potential development not considered here include public and cultural amenities.
Solving for residual land value, the financial feasibility analysis o ffers a static perspective on whether revenues from a completed, fully - occupied project are sufficient to justify development costs. “Residual land value,” the key determinant of feasibility, is the difference between a project’s value and estimated development costs and represents the amount a project developer could pay a landowner for the project site.
Land acquisition is a critical component of the development process.
The residual land value must be sufficiently positive that the developer can pay to p urchase the land. In cases where a current landowner is contemplating redevelopment, the residual land value must be sufficient to warrant the costs of redevelopment (e.g., buying out existing leases, demolition, etc.).
While land values will fluctuate ove r time and based on parcel -specific circumstances, for purposes of this analysis, feasibility requires a threshold residual land value of $5 million per acre or greater. A residual per acre land value of between $3 million and $5 million is considered potentially feasible, while a residual land value below $3 million per acre means the project is not feasible.
Development cost assumptions vary by prototype based on land use type, density, height, parking requirements, etc. Direct construction costs are rel ated to construction types based on fire -resistance rating requirements codified by the California Building Code. Type V buildings are relatively simple, inexpensive, and uncomplicated to evacuate in case of fire. They are made of exterior and interior wood construction Table 29 Near-T erm Development Feasibility
Land Use and Density
Prototype
Residual Land Value
(per Acre) Feasibility Indicator
Residential
Low
Medium
High
$3,400,000
$12,100,000
$1,300,000
Maybe
Yes
Not Now1
Office
Low
Medium
High
$5,150,000
$30,400,000
($42,930,000)
Yes
Yes
Not Now
Commercial
Neighborhood
Service
Regional
$3,180,000
$5,200,000
($410,000)
Maybe
Maybe
Not Now
Note: A feasibility indicator of “Yes” occurs with a residual land value of $5 million per acre or higher. An indicator of “Maybe” occurs with a residual land value of between $3 million and $5 million per acre. An indicator of “Not Now” means the residual land value is negative or too low to acquire land and/or overcome the redevelopment barrier. 1 Str uctured rather than subterranean parking would push the high -density residential prototype toward feasibility.
Analysis by Economics & Planning Systems, Inc.
265 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 114
and can reach 60 feet in height . Type III buildings, typically wooden structures situated atop concrete podiums, allow for more height and density. They can reach 65 to 85 feet in height. Type I buildings are significantly taller and accommodate more occupants than Type III and Type V b uildings. Therefore, they require more fire -resistant and more expensive material than wood. They are made of concrete and steel and can exceed 75 feet in height.
Parking is another important development cost factor, with costs ranging from about $5,000 per space for surface parking to $65,000 per space for belowground parking. Surface parking is at-grade and paved, typical for neighborhood and service commercial retail. Surface parking is the least expensive to provide but requires sufficient land to accommodate the parking. Parking s tructures are situated above ground, sometimes as stand -alone parking garages and sometimes with residential or office uses above. They are generally expensive to construct but may make more efficient use of the land than surf ace parking. Subterranean, or belowground, parking is expensive to build because it requires site excavation.
This feasibility analysis reflects that the alternatives will build out over a 20-year horizon, so it does not consider potential development tim ing, market absorption, or the current regulatory context. For example, higher-density development may not be feasible today, both in light of current real estate market conditions and Measure Y height and density limits, but likely is a longer -term opport unity that will become more feasible between now and 2040.
There are a number of additional analytical caveats that affect financial feasibility in this analysis:
– The 10 General Plan Study Areas will require public realm investments to achieve their full potential. The development costs considered in the analysis include unique costs
associated with new streets and infrastructure connections, though estimates are highly preliminary.
– The analysis focuses on individual prototype projects . T he timing of rev enues and timing of costs for infrastructure are beyond the scope of this analysis.
– The analysis does not seek to analyze prototype development on any particular site. Unique and challenging redevelopment projects such as those contemplated on key sites in San Mateo will require strategic execution. T o achieve financial feasibility, successful redevelopment projects will require expert market positioning, branding, promotion, and operations.
This alternatives evaluation was prepared as the nation and world continue to address the coronavirus pandemic, an unprecedented public health crisis. Research for this memorandum was completed as the Bay Area, generally, appears to be emerging from the worst of it.
However, given that the length and severity of the coronavirus pandemic may still not be fully known, economic implications will depend fundamentally on how the crisis unfolds. The current consensus is that negative economic impacts are likely to dissipate gradually, although the exact pace and timeframe for full economic recovery remain unclear.
This analysis assumes that the General Plan buildout may take several decades. In this time, the recent effects of the coronavirus pandemic , which accelerated trends relating to the demand for office and commercial uses (e.g., gig economy, remote work, online shopping, etc.), likely will be superseded by other social and economic trends that are difficult or impossible to predict.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on current market rents and current development costs, the mix of land use and density designations suggest Alternative B offers the greatest potential for near -term development feasibility due to the current feasibility of most midrange -height developments, followed by Alternative C and then Alternative A.
266 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 115 The medium -density residential and low - and medium -density office prototypes appear feasible under current market conditions. The low - density residential and the neighborhood and service retail commercial prototypes may be feasible depending on the cost of the land. Currently, residual land values for high-density residential and high-density office are negative or barely positive, so these development types are currently not feasible. However, a less expensive structured parking solution rather than costlier subterranean parking would push the high- density residential prototype toward feasibility.
– For residential developers, medium -density development appears feasible, while lower -density development may be feasible depending on l and costs. High -density residential development is not feasible at this time but could be with a more cost-effective parking solution (e.g., structured rather than subterranean).
– The medium-density residential prototype (four to seven stories) maximizes residential real estate feasibility under current market conditions. The analysis shows that residential towers (8+ stories) likely are currently financially infeasible; however, additional height allowances could be desirable in the future, should values increase relative to costs. The medium- and high- density prototypes support nearly identical rental income per square foot, but high -density development costs are
significantly higher as the construction type transitions from T ype V to T ype I. For low-density residential development (defined as one to three stories), the residual land value is positive but may not be sufficient given current land values.
– Current market conditions support low - and medium -density office development but do not yet support high-density office of more than eight stories.
– Revenue potential and current development costs support the near-term feasibility of low - and medium -density office development. In contrast, the rent premium for high -density office in San Mateo is insufficien t to justify the much higher development costs associated with T ype I office construction, the parking ratio requirement, and the subterranean parking that likely would be necessary.
– The neighborhood and service retail commercial development prototypes generate positive residual land values under current market values, which may support redevelopment of an existing property but do not justify land/property acquisition.
– Neighborhood and service retail commercial may be feasible, depending on the specific circumstances of the developer. If the developer is also the landowner, redevelopment of the site may be feasible, but if a developer needs to purchase the land, the residual land value may not be enough to incentivize the current landowner to sell. Region al retail development faces the additional barrier of high structured parking costs. Providing parking is expensive in general, and the amount needed for large regional shopping centers limits financial feasibility.
Structured parking comprises 28 percent of total construction costs for the Regional commercial prototype, while s urface parking comprises just 5 percent of total construction costs for the neighborhood and service retail commercial prototypes, making these prototypes relatively more feasible.
– For those prototypes that face feasibility challenges under current market conditions, improving real estate economics will require shifts in the relative costs and revenues during the next 20 years to push these development prototypes towards
feasibility.
267 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 116
– Historically h igh development costs are creating feasibility challenges for the higher -density office and residential prototypes under current market conditions because
construction costs have outpaced rent growth and revenue potential. While this trend is not new ( rent growth has not outpaced construction costs for at least the past 10 years38), the dynamic worsened during COVID . While construction costs (labor and materials) are expected to moderate post COVID, creative approaches to reducing costs are needed. More
specifically, subterranean parking significantly increases development costs and is not a realistic option in many ca ses.
Planning parameters established for higher-density uses should contemplate above-ground, cost-effective parking solutions that multiple properties can share. Reducing parking requirements near transit and taking measures to reduce parking demand are alternative options for reducing costs. Lastly, alternative construction technologies, such as green construction, could maximize resource efficiency and reduce overall costs.
– Overall, Alternative B appears to be more feasible under current conditions because it includes more midrange, medium-density prototypes across the 10 study areas relative to Alternatives A and C.
– However, developing many sites with midrange heights and at medium densities in the near term would make it less likely that those sites would redevelop with higher -density development later on, even if high -density development becomes more feasible betwee n now and 2040 due to changes in market conditions.
38 Determined using cost trends from the California Construction Cost Index from the California Department of General Services, and CoStar Group.
5.9 COMMUNITY BENEFITS
California cities have a long history of obtaining community benefits from real estate development through a variety of mechanisms, including fees, conditions of approval, and Developm ent Agreements (DAs). Today, throughout California, new community benefits programs are establishing defined approaches to ensuring community benefits from real estate development projects.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS DEFINED
Community Benefits as defined here are contributions to the broader community, including but not limited to on-site benefits (e.g., affordable housing, day care facilities, community rooms) and off -site benefits (e.g., parks, transportation improvements). Projects may seek to deliver these com munity benefits directly. Alternatively, community benefit obligations also may be satisfied through monetary contributions to the City which accrue to a “Community Fund” to be dispersed as appropriate for the provision of community benefits within the Cit y of San Mateo.
Community benefits typically are achieved through an exchange in which municipalities offer optional increases in development potential in return for public assets (or funds) desired by the community. The incentive for the private sector to provide community benefits comes from the value that is created when a local jurisdiction entitles increased development density or provides other entitlement enhancements that increase the economic potential of a project. In order for extraordinary community benefits to be viable, entitlement enhancements must be above what normally would be allowed (i.e., a “bonus,” amendment, variance, or vested rights). The magnitude of the community benefit required by the local jurisdiction must be equal to or less than the value of the incentive offered, otherwise developers will not seek entitlement enhancement.
268 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 117 The current City of San Mateo General Plan provides a high -level framework for the provision of community benefits. For multifamily residential development, the Plan allows “a range of densities from 9 to 50 units net per acre, with the higher end of the density range to be used only for projects which provide substantial public benefits or amenities.” For non-residential uses, a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range of 0.5 to 3.0 and height range of 25 to 90 feet is permitted, with the higher ends of both ranges “only for projects which provide public benefits or amenities substantially greater than code requirements.” 39 The Plan also allows specific areas of the Downtown and Mariner’s Island densities of up to 75 units per acre and heights up to 75 feet for projects which provide public benefits or amenities substantially greater than code requirements.
39 Note that Measure Y limits development heights to 55 feet, with certain exceptions. Exceptions include development within the Hillsdale Shopping Center (Study Area 10) and some specific areas of Downtown (Study Area 4) where building heights of up to 60 feet and 75 feet may be allowed, respectively.
While the General Plan provides this direction concerning projec ts that require community benefits, specific threshold triggers have not been established and the City lacks a standardized process for determining community benefits requirements.
THE CONCEPT OF VALUE CAPTURE
Cities and government agencies create real es tate value with investments in public facilities and services (e.g., transit and utilities upgrades) as well as through changes to zoning code that increase the value of land. Typically, when the public sector creates value in these ways, landowners enjoy a financial gain in the form of higher land value, which is realized when they sell or develop their land. This increase in land value is an unearned financial benefit that accrues to the private sector, though it is generated (and commonly paid for) by ta x-payer funded public entities. The term “value capture” reflects the situation in which the public sector recovers some of this unearned value created for the private sector through public sector activities.
Zoning modifications and other entitlement enha ncements require a healthy real estate market with sufficient market value to support the incentives. In order for a city to capture value from a density incentive or other incentive, there must be market demand to support the real estate products (typical ly higher -density, higher -cost) that are provided for through the zoning modification. If the public sector seeks to collect more value than is created it is unlikely that project proponents will move forward. Since the value of development incentives vari es with market conditions, development incentives may be very valuable in a strong market but of lesser or no value in a weak market. Some community benefits programs seek to be highly responsive to changing market conditions.
Community Benefits
Value Capture
Land Value Creation
Government Actions
269 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 118
Community benefit requirements should be calculated to reflect the value of zoning modifications made available by the public sector. A pro forma financial analysis that estimates value creation resulting from zoning changes, over and above what zoning allows by right, offers a defensible approach to quantifying required community benefit contributions. To accurately estimate value creation, the analysis should reflect development challenges that may exist (e.g., site constraints, infrastructure shortcomings, required mitigations). Also, projects with a relatively high land cost may be financially unable to compensate the City for the full value increase generated by the desired zoning modification. In these circumstances, the City may choose to scale community benefits obligations in order to maintain the financial viability of the project as proposed.
The magnitude of the public benefit sought must be equal to or less than the value of the incentive or entitlement enhancement offered. In order for community benefits programs to work financially, the public sector must create value through the provision of increased development potential, commonly provided as increased project density and/or height. If the public sector seeks to extract more value than is created, it is unlikely that project applicants will pursue a zoning modification. Since the value of development incentives varies with temporal market conditions, development incentives may be valuable in a strong market but of lesser value or without value in a weak market.
Community benefits programs that rely on project -specific financial analysis to determine benefits requirements are responsive to changing market conditions, but it remains likely that these programs will not be used during periods of market weakness.
As noted above, the type, amount, and value of community benefit that the City can extract from private development will vary dramatically based on the type of project, specific site conditions, and market conditions at the time of development. While Alternatives A and B may leave more development potential (i.e., height and density) to negotiate community benefits than Alternative C, it is not possible to make an accurate prediction of how community benefits will play out under each alternative over the 20-year timeframe of the General Plan.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
In the past, zoning modifications and benefits have been negotiated on a project-by-project basis, which has proved to be an opaque and time- consuming course. The updated General Pl an may want to provide further direction.
270 of 509
Alternatives Evaluation Report | City of San Mateo 119
6. Next Steps
The goal of this alternatives evaluation is to help inform community input on what characteristics the preferred land use and circulation scenario should ultimately include. The results of the alternatives evaluation will be shared with the community at two virtual workshops on the morning of Saturday, January 22, 2022 and evening of Thursday, January 27, 2022. This will be the same workshop, held twice to offer convenient options for participants. Community input will also be collected through an online activity. To register for the workshops or participate in the online activity visit www.StriveSanMateo.org.
Following the community workshops, the Gene ral Plan Subcommittee will meet virtually in February and March 2022 to review the outcomes of the draft alternatives evaluation, receive and review community input on the preferred land use and circulation scenario , and provide feedback on the preferred land use and circulation scenario.
Following the General Plan Subcommittee meeting , the Planning Commission will review community and General Plan Subcommittee feedback and make a recommendation on the preferred land use and circulation scenario to the City Council.
The City Council will review community and General Plan Subcommittee input and the Planning Commission recommendation and provide final direction on the preferred land use and circulation scenario.
Once the Council provides direction on the pre ferred land use and circulation scenario, the General Plan team will analyze the potential environmental impacts of the preferred scenario. The results of this analysis will be shared in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which will be published in Fall 2023.
From Summer 2022 through Winter 2023 (prior to the publication of the Draft EIR), the General Plan team will work with the community, General Plan Subcommittee, Planning Commission, and City Council to develop goals, policies, and actions for the range of topics covered by the General Plan . These topics include climate change, environmental justice, equity, urban design, historic resources, biological and natural resources, public services and infrastructure, parks, community health and safety, noise, land use, and circulation. The goals, policies, and actions will need to be consistent with the preferred land use and circulation scenario.
To follow the progress of the General Plan Update throughout the project, or to reach City staff with a qu estion or comment at any time, visit:
www.StriveSanMateo.org
271 of 509
City of San Mateo | Alternatives Evaluation Report 120
This page intentionally left blank.
272 of 509
MEMORANDUM
DATEMarch 31, 2022
TOCity Council
FROMJoanna Jansen and Carey Stone, PlaceWorks
SUBJECTSummary of Community Engagement and Public Input on the Preferred Land Use and Circulation Scenario
This memorandum summarizes the community input received on the preferred land use and circulation scenario from the recent Preferred Scenario workshop series and online survey, as well as feedback received to date on the preferred land use and circulation alternatives from pop-up events and past outreach events. These events are listed below.
Date Outreach Event Number of
Participants
Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Draft Alternatives Open House 29 Thursday, April 17, 2021 Draft Alternatives Virtual Workshop #1 95 Saturday, April 17, 2021 Draft Alternatives Virtual Workshop #2 50 Tuesday, May 18, 2021 Draft Alternatives Virtual Workshop #3 40 Tuesday, April 14, 2021 –
Monday, May 31, 2021
Draft Alternatives Online Survey 507
Sunday, January 22, 2022 Preferred Scenario Virtual Workshop #1 47 Thursday, January 27, 2022 Preferred Scenario Virtual Workshop #2 46 Thursday, February 24, 2022 Spanish-language General Plan Workshop 5 Thursday, February 24, 2022 Pop-up near Mi Rancho Market 10 Friday, February 25, 2022 Pop-up at Chavez Market 10
Monday, March 7, 2022 Food Distribution Event at Rogell Bayshore 7 Monday, March 7, 2022 College of San Mateo Pop-up 10
Friday, January 21, 2022 –
Tuesday, March 8, 2022
Preferred Scenario Online Survey 404
273 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 2
About the Workshops, Pop-Ups, and Online Survey
The draft alternatives workshop series occurred in spring of 2021. The goal of the draft alternatives workshops and online survey was to confirm we are considering a sufficient range of alternatives before the General Plan team conducts an in-depth evaluation to compare the pros, cons, and outcomes of each alternative on housing, character, traffic, public services, health and equity, environmental sustainability, City’s fiscal health, conformance with applicable state laws, and other topics. Feedback that expresses support or dislike for a given alternative from this outreach effort is included in this meeting summary.
After listening to the community’s input and receiving direction from the City Council on the three alternative plans for land use and circulation in fall of 2021, the project team completed the alternatives evaluation and published the evaluation on January 14, 2022. The alternatives evaluation was presented to the community at two virtual workshops . During the workshops, community members were able to share ideas on their preferred alternative and raise important issues they believe the General Plan should address related to land use and circulation. The feedback received during these workshops is included in the summary below.
An online survey was also available on www.strivesanmateo.org from January 21, 2022 to March 8, 2022 to allow community members an opportunity to share which land use and circulation alternative they prefer. Respondents can provide feedback on the land use alternatives at a citywide level or by study area. It also includes questions about the tradeoffs implied by different alternatives to better understand the community’s preferences. The settings of the survey restrict the number of responses to one per person and track web browser cookies to help ensure that each participant only completes the survey once. All feedback received to date from the online survey is summarized below. It is important to note that this online survey is not considered statistically significant.
To help engage Spanish-speaking community members, a virtual workshop was held entirely in Spanish on February 24, 2022. The workshop included Zoom polls that asked participants to answer tradeoff questions and demographic information. The responses received in the Zoom polls are incorporated into the survey analysis below. The project team also prepared a paper survey that was translated into Spanish which included the demographic and tradeoff questions from the online survey. The paper survey was distributed at four pop-up events in the North Central and Shoreview neighborhoods. The Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center also distributed the survey to other community members in San Mateo. A total of 27 survey responses were collected as of March 30, 2022. The responses from the paper survey are incorporated in the survey analysis below.
Lastly, this summary includes feedback from recent Housing Element outreach conducted by the City’s housing team to ensure we are listening to all the feedback that applies to land use or circulation. This summary documents community input whether mentioned by one person or many people.
Community input submitted directly to the City outside of the workshops and online survey can be viewed at: https://strivesanmateo.org/documents/publiccomments/. 274 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 3
Preferred Scenario Outreach Demographics
A total of 103 participants attended the preferred scenario workshops and 5 participants attended the Spanish general plan workshop. During each workshop, the project team asked the following two questions to understand who was participating in the process and how to improve communication about the project moving forward. Responses received are also listed below.
Is this your first time joining us for a General Plan event? Number of Respondents: 69
51 percent of the workshop participants were new.
49 percent had participated in a pervious General Plan meeting.
What kind of stakeholder are you?
Number of Respondents: 69
1%
4%
7%
7%
12%
14%
14%
42%
48%
I am a representative of a homeowners association
I...
I own a business here
I am a representative of another organization/group
I am a renter
I work here
I am a visitor or patronize San Mateo businesses
I am a resident
I own property here
A total of 495 participants answered voluntary demographic questions as part of the online survey, virtual workshops, and pop-up events. The demographic data helps the project team to determine if the outreach program is reaching the full range of San Mateo’s demographics. This data indicates that the outreach program should be adjusted to increase involvement of renters, younger residents, and residents who identify as Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander, and mixed race. A summary of the demographics of the outreach participants is presented below. Participants in the online survey, virtual workshops and pop-up events were asked about their age, ethnicity, and current housing situation. Workshop participants were also asked about their household income and length of residents. Participants in the Spanish speaking workshops were asked about length of residence only.
275 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 4
How long have you lived in San Mateo?
Number of Respondents: 472
Note: The 11 to 15 years response was inadvertently left out as a response option when the online survey was originally published on January 21, 2022. This response was added as a survey choice on January 27, 2022.
How are you affiliated with San Mateo?
Number of Respondents: 393
9%
2%
10%
12%
7%
60%
I do not live in San Mateo
Less than 1 year
1 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
More than 15 years
62%
28%
5% 3% 2%
I live in San Mateo I live and work in
San Mateo
Other I visit San Mateo
to shop or dine
I work in San
Mateo
276 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 5
Which best describes your current housing situation?
Number of Respondents: 491
Own my home,
78%
Pay rent for my
home, 19%
Live with others,
and do not own or
pay rent, 3%
Owner Occupied
54%
Renter Occupied
46%
City of San Mateo, 2019
277 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 6
What is your age group?
Number of Respondents: 495
0.2%
11%
29% 30% 30%
0-20 years 20-35 years 35-50 years 50-65 years 65+ years 27%
17%
15%
13% 12%
15%
0-25 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65+ years City of San Mateo, 2019
278 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 7
What is your race or ethnicity? (Check all that apply).
Number of Respondents: 462
0%
26%
2%
25%
6%
41%
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latinx
Other Race or Multiple
White, Non-Hispanic
City of San Mateo, 2019
1%
1%
1%
11%
11%
12%
68%
Native American
Black/African American
Pacific Islander
Latino/Hispanic
Mixed or other
Asian
White
279 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 8
Which best describes your household annual income?
Number of Respondents: 454
2%
6%
10%
10%
6%
33%
33%
Less than $45,000
$45,000-$80,000
$80,000-$115,000
$115,000-$150,000
$150,000-$185,000
Greater than $185,000
Prefer not to say
19%
10%
5%
16%
50%
Less than $50,000
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000-$149,999
$150,000 or more
City of San Mateo, 2019
280 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 9
Feedback on Tradeoffs
The preferred scenario online survey asked participants about circulation and land use tradeoffs to help understand the community’s priorities and guide decision-making. As mentioned above, a total of 404 online surveys were completed between Friday, January 21, 2022 through Tuesday, March 8, 2022. The paper survey also asked participants the tradeoff questions listed below and the responses received are incorporated into the results. Attendees of the Spanish general plan workshop were asked the same tradeoff questions, except a few of the questions were reworded to “top choice” instead of “rank” and “pick top three”. The responses received from the Spanish general plan workshop are incorporated into the graph when the question was the same as the surveys. Notes are added wherever the questions differed.
Rank how you would allocate City budget spending on transportation improvements.
Number of Respondents: 411
Responses ranked as follows:
1. Pedestrian improvements
2. Improving bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle connections to transit
3. Improvements to make driving a vehicle easier
4. New and improved bicycle lanes and bicycle parking
5. Studying future transportation technologies
Attendees of the Spanish general plan workshop were asked to pick the top transportation improvement they would like the City to spend budget on. A total of four attendees responded to the question and all four selected pedestrian improvements as their top choice.
Because there is limited space in the public right of way on City streets, there are tradeoffs to the improvements that can be constructed. Knowing this, what top three transportation options would you prioritize for each type of street listed below? 281 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 10
El Camino Real
Number of Respondents: 420
7%
37%
37%
46%
46%
54%
60%
Other (please specify)
Preserve or add parking spaces
Add bicycle lanes
Maintain or add vehicle travel lanes
Enhance public transit (i.e. bus rapid transit)
Maintain or add landscaping, lighting, and street
trees
Add or improve pedestrian sidewalks
Attendees of the Spanish General Plan workshop were asked to pick the top transportation improvement they would like to see on El Camino Real. A total of two attendees responded to the question. One selected adding or improving pedestrian sidewalks and the other chose maintain or add landscaping, lighting, and street trees.
Other responses submitted by participants:
No left turns during peak traffic times and only allow left turns where there is a designated left turn lane. Do not allow left turns at the intersections of El Cerrito Avenue/El Camino Real and Baywood Avenue/Baldwin Avenue/El Camino Real.
More efficient Iight synchronization to improve traffic flow, especially on El Camino Real. Increase frequency of bus service everywhere.
Safer intersections that include crosswalk markings and speed control. Create more pocket parks at perimeters of large developments instead of just center of these large developments. Also prohibit automotive repair businesses from using public parking spaces, public alleys and dead end streets to park cars they are fixing. Add light rail with shuttles that connect to businesses. Make 3 rd and 4th Avenue one way in Downtown.
282 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 11
Add protected bicycle and scooter lanes.
Slow speeds on residential streets near schools.
Eliminate parking in congested areas, for example between 3 rd Avenue and Baldwin. Provide more places where U turns are permitted South of Highway 92. More protected left turn lanes are needed North of Highway 92.
Remove parklets that take up parking spaces.
Add bicycle and pedestrian bridges over El Camino Real, especially at 28 th Avenue. Repave El Camino Real.
Replace Eucalyptus trees with less damaging trees.
Main Corridors (e.g. Hillsdale Boulevard, Alameda De Las Pulgas, Delaware Street) Number of Respondents: 417
5%
30%
41%
44%
47%
53%
60%
Other (please specify)
Preserve or add parking spaces
Enhance public transit (i.e. bus rapid transit)
Maintain or add vehicle travel lanes
Add bicycle lanes
Maintain or add landscaping, lighting, and street trees Add or improve pedestrian sidewalks
Attendees of the Spanish General Plan workshop were asked to pick the top transportation improvement they would like to see on main corridors. A total of two attendees responded to the question and both selected adding or improving pedestrian sidewalks. 283 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 12
Other responses submitted by participants:
Traffic signals in high foot traffic areas (Barneson and Hillsdale High School). Convert either Sunnybrae or Fiesta Gardens to a K-8 School to reduce the number of cars needing to get west of El Camino.
Study how the expected population will impact traffic. Connect shuttles with light rail along El Camino Real. Provide better avenues to Foster City.
Make 3 rd and 4th Avenues one way in Downtown.
Slow traffic speeds on residential streets near schools. Increase police presence on the streets.
Provide alternative modes of transportation for high school students. Restore turn lanes at Alameda De Las Pulgas and Parrott Drive. Clean the streets.
Add parklets in front of stores and restaurants.
Add traffic lights on Alameda de Pulgas. Add speed bumps on Hillsdale Boulevard. Synchronize lights to improve traffic flow.
Neighborhood Streets
Number of Respondents: 419
11%
21%
26%
39%
43%
68%
68%
Other (please specify)
Enhance public transit (i.e. bus rapid transit)
Maintain or add vehicle travel lanes
Add bicycle lanes
Preserve or add parking spaces
Maintain or add landscaping, lighting, and street trees Add or improve pedestrian sidewalks
284 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 13
Attendees of the Spanish General Plan workshop were asked to pick the top transportation improvement they would like to see on main corridors. A total of two attendees responded to the question. One chose add bicycle lanes and the other participant selected maintain or add landscaping, lighting, and street trees.
Other responses submitted by participants:
Streets are too narrow in north Shoreview. Remove parking from one side of the street. Many corners do not have ramps which makes it challenging to walk with kids. Develop mitigation measures to combat ride sharing and delivery services that have made our streets more dangerous through the monetization of public infrastructure. Add more curb extensions that are dual purpose stormwater capture and safety. Add more green bike lanes in high traffic roads.
Duplicate San Mateo Drive pedestrian improvements in more places. Convert lighting to motion sensor or bio-friendly lights. Fix potholes and maintain streets. Improve signage.
Improve public transit connection to major thoroughfares using smaller transit vehicles. Restrict or eliminate parking on narrow streets and close to turns/intersections. Require property owners to maintain landscaping that impedes views for vehicles driving. Add stop signs along Maple Street to slow the speeders. Provide adequate and updated storm drains to handle winter storms. Create dedicated pedestrian “green streets” for safe access across the city. Divert traffic on neighborhood streets with families and young children during the weekends. All residential streets should have sidewalks.
Reduce speed limits.
Add traffic calming measures, including speed bumps and stop signs on Norfolk, Kehoe Avenue, Delaware Street, and Roberta Drive. Increase police presence and traffic violations. Add sidewalks at every intersection within one mile of a school or park. Provide free school buses for students.
285 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 14
Understanding the Preferred Land Use Scenario should plan for the next two and a half (2.5) housing cycles (RHNA) over the next 20 years, which could be 15,000 to 20,000 units, how should those new housing units be accommodated? Number of Respondents: 414
12%
13%
16%
25%
35%
Other (Please specify)
Maintain current height limits, but explore increased
densities (housing units per acre)
Explore growth beyond the study areas and increases
to height limits and densities (beyond what’s currently allowed under Measure Y)
Focus growth within the study areas by exploring
increases to height limits and densities (beyond what’s currently allowed under Measure Y)
Maintain current height limits and densities, but
explore growth opportunities beyond the study areas
Other responses submitted by participants:
Lower priced single family dwellings. Build more affordable housing. Couple growth to increased public mass transit capacities. Stop building because we are overpopulated and overtaxed. None of these seem reasonable, should redevelop older apartments with 10 units or less into more dense buildings. Tie density to lot size versus a blanket zoning designation. Do not build 10 story buildings next to single family or small apartment units. Preserve setbacks for small parks, sidewalks and overshadowing of small homes and apartments. 286 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 15
Explore re-zoning some commercial areas as mixed use and/or repurposing office complexes into residential or mixed-use instead.
Maintain current height and density limits.
Limit growth, maintain Measure Y and do not add more housing. Preserve single-family neighborhoods.
Retrofit vacant buildings, old offices and commercial areas for new housing. Review the validity of the City’s RHNA.
Where should new multi-family housing be located (select all that apply)? Number of Respondents: 409
24%
56%
62%
71%
Spread around throughout the City, including
single-family neighborhoods
Downtown or near downtown
Aging shopping centers and commercial areas
Near transit and along transit corridors
287 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 16
What’s the most critical risk from climate change that the General Plan should minimize?
Number of Respondents: 417
28%
25%
52%
9%
Sea level rise Increased wildfire
hazard
Prolonged drought High heat days
Attendees of the preferred scenario workshop series also responded to this question using an interactive word online survey on Social Pinpoint.
Many identified sea level rise and flooding as a major risk. Some identified potential wildfires as a threat to the city, although one participant does not identify wildfires as a threat to San Mateo.
Some identified sustainability and water shortage as a major risk the city should help minimize. Warming temperatures and lack of tree canopies was a concern. Pandemics, not having adequate housing, loss of historic resources, artificial intelligence, earthquakes, and high winds were also mentioned as a critical concerns.
Other comments about climate change risk included:
Flash flooding during high rain days.
Traffic, congestion, noise, and air pollution.
All of these are critical risks that are a byproduct of climate change. Increase housing density to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transit and logistics. Start planning and funding for desalinization to deal with chronic drought. Keep the power grid up and running with clean natural gas. 288 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 17
Forest management that the governor cut back on.
All climate risks need to be mitigated, we cannot focus on two only. Availability of utilities and waste treatment capacity. None, the Peninsula will not be affected.
Base the decision on data, not what the public believes. Increase capture of water via new reservoirs.
Strive for zero population growth since people cause climate change. Climate change does not exist.
Work towards getting cars off the roads to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. More dense infill housing can combat climate change and hopefully mitigate sea level rise. We need to improve biking and walking infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions from transit. All this planning is taking away our freedoms.
Concern we are turning our wonderful city into a cesspool like San Francisco. Skepticism about whether the city can make a difference in combatting climate change. Concern there is not sufficient water for all alternatives. Developers should contribute to funding this mitigation for sea level rise, rather than raising taxes on residents that live in the city.
Keep the height of buildings and street size accessible for the fire department. Concern the City will go bankrupt.
Preferred Circulation Alternative
Most important circulation issue the General Plan should help the City improve.
This section summarizes the issues that community members raised either in the workshop or in the online survey.
Alternate Modes of Travel
Safer walking and biking options.
Active transportation strategies to enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Enable bike access as much as possible, especially east west access. Offer choices for people to travel on foot, bike, scooter, train and make these spaces safe. Incorporate different modes of travel with Green Streets principles. Do not provide bike sharrows, install protected biking lanes. Locate bicycle improvements on streets without loss of street parking. Better crossings for pedestrians, especially near schools. Improve people’s ability to meet their daily needs without a car. Support for low and zero carbon transportation alternatives. Create options for people who live more than 1/2 mile from transit and cannot walk or bike. New bike paths should connect with transit and rest of the bike network. Provide protected walking lanes for pedestrian safety. Do not focus improvements in only one area of the city. 289 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 18
Less dependance on cars.
Transit
More frequent and reliable transit service, with service later in the evening. There is a need for east to west public transit access. Allow residents to share job shuttles or other shared transit. Bus-only lanes and more bus frequency, especially on El Camino Real. For regional transit to work buses need to run late into the evening. Provide transit access to BART and Caltrain stations and adjoining counties. Sam Trans needs more convenient routes that cover more of the city. Educate and promote the use of public transportation and biking aimed at kids. Partner with Foster City to build public transportation to FC-Hillsdale that way Foster City residents do not have to drive to Caltrain or the Hillsdale Mall. Accessibility for people who do not live near main corridors, including transit and bicycle paths. Increase connections to transit.
More accessible routes to downtown.
Vehicles and Roadways
Vehicle driving, road care and improvements. Add more vehicle lanes. Address traffic congestion, in particular along major corridors, near Hillsdale mall and Hillsdale/101 entrance and traffic flowing east to west. Recognize most people need their cars to shop, travel to work and school. Size of the street width that allows driving, parking and bicycle lanes both ways. Increased policing of traffic violators.
Synchronized traffic lights that prioritize public transit and bicycles. Maintain peak hour travel times in major corridors.
In north central, traffic congestion makes it impossible to maneuver for all modes of transit. Maintain flow and speeds of main thoroughfares such as El Camino Real, Delaware Street, Hillsdale Boulevard, and on/off ramps for Highway 101, 92, and 280. Enhance the pedestrian crossings on El Camino Real.
Need grade separation on all train crossings.
3 rd and 4th Avenues should be one-way through Downtown. Improve Hillsdale Boulevard heading to Foster City.
Lower speed limits.
Parking
Provide sufficient parking, especially in downtown.
Charge for parking garages in downtown to entice alternative modes of travel to downtown. Maintain on-street parking in areas that do not have on-site parking. Transform parking spaces into parks.
Provide ample parking in new developments.
290 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 19
Other
Focus on the needs of our senior population. Provide the ability for seniors to use private vehicles to access downtown if they are unable to use pedestrian or bike alternatives. Keep the East Bay commuters from cutting through the neighborhoods. Micro-communities need to be deeply involved in circulation changes to their community. Phase development to real transit improvements.
Accessibility accommodations.
Vision zero to help reduce pedestrian and bicycle accidents. Fine cars with loud noise.
Preserve height limits and single family neighborhoods. More housing in areas that are near amenities.
Keep the city clean.
Good lighting.
Flood zones.
Police presence.
Scooter accessibility.
Running trails and paths.
More greenery.
Ideas from the circulation alternatives that should be part of the adopted General Plan.
Attendees of the preferred scenario workshops were able to share ideas from the circulation alternatives they believe should be a part of the General Plan. The responses are summarized below. Pedestrian and bicycle only streets and paths.
Better transit connections, especially from the east to west. More streets that are closed to cars in downtown.
High frequency bus access on El Camino Real.
Autonomous vehicles that provide free shuttles to pedestrian only B Street activities. Pedestrian-friendly downtown and El Camino Real.
Bike share and e-bike incentive programs.
Address transit access for people that live in the hills of San Mateo. Make modal filters standard on side neighborhood streets. Expand the pedestrian mall on B street one block west between 1st and 2nd avenues. Support for a hyperloop or self-driving vehicles in lieu of public transit. Reduce the number of lanes on El Camino Real and prioritize bike and/or bus lanes. Support for on-demand rides, especially for seniors.
New residents should not be able to own cars.
Employers should provide shuttles to ease congestion.
Do not plan for more congestion.
Incorporate traffic calming measures.
Streets around schools should not be accessible by cars. Line transit corridors with trees.
291 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 20
Preferred circulation alternative input from the workshops and online surveys.
The support received for each circulation alternative during the draft alternatives range workshops, preferred scenario workshops, and preferred scenario online survey is listed below. 16 workshop participants and 178 online survey respondents prefer Circulation Alternative C. 6 workshop participants and 159 online survey respondents prefer Circulation Alternative A. 2 workshop participants and 51 online survey respondents prefer Circulation Alternative B.
Key words or sentences used to describe the preferred circulation alternative.
The preferred scenario online survey asks participants to identify a key word or sentence to describe their preferred circulation alternative. The responses submitted are summarized below. Enhance all modes of public transit, including bus, BART, Caltrain. More clean alternatives like walking and bicycling.
Prioritize road and bridge repair and build new roads when needed. Protect the Downtown's character of small and medium sized businesses. Maintain character of historical housing previously zoned for single family only. Encourage higher density to encourage non-automotive transit. Make it convenient for people to get out of their cars. Minimize new traffic but still meet the Fair Share requirements. Encourage non-vehicle transportation.
Prioritize bicycle infrastructure.
Support multi-modal transportation.
Beautify the city.
Provide a network of multiple circulation modes.
Prioritize vehicle and motorcycle use.
Support emerging mobility solutions.
More lanes to reduce congestion.
Build as much as possible.
Improve regional connections.
Maintain sidewalks.
Reduce traffic flow and congestion. Minimize growth.
Provide a walkable and bikeable city. Plan a walkable downtown. Provide strong links to public transit.
Support public transportation.
Reduce car dependency.
Enhance safety.
Provide access for all residents.
Add one way streets in Downtown.
292 of 509
March 31, 2022| Page 21
Changes suggested to the preferred circulation alternative.
Alternative A
Less cars and parking; add more bike lanes.
More vehicle lanes. Do not remove parking for bicycle lanes. Less development.
More protected bike lanes and bike treatments at intersections. Add light rail along El Camino Real with transfer shuttles that connect to BART. Expand improvements to all walkable areas of the city. Allow scooters on sidewalks.
No bike lanes on S B Street in the Hayward Park area.
Fix the streets and sidewalks.
Add regional connections to airport, BART and San Francisco Transit Center. Add more connections for people walking and biking across freeways, train tracks and other physical dividers.
Maintain flow and speeds of main thoroughfares such as El Camino, Delaware, Hillsdale, and on/off ramps for 101, 92, 280.
Safe alternatives for elderly.
Keep the connection at Campus Dr and 26th fire access only. Provide enough parking access for those who want or need to drive downtown. Alameda de Pulgas should have one car lane and one safe bicycle lane. Plan for lateral small autonomous transportation vehicles. See Netherlands traffic engineering model: reduce the number of times any road user will cross path with one another.
Bikeway on El Camino Real, extend pedestrian mall on B street to 5th Avenue, more parklets in Downtown, more traffic calming in residential neighborhoods, pedestrian and lighting improvements near highway on-ramps.
Restrict commute traffic that cuts through neighborhoods. Consider adding bicycle lockers.
Remove bikeways up Hillsdale Boulevard, 28 th Avenue, and Fernwood Street.