Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Mateo City Council, June 20, 2022 (part 3 of 4)

3. A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN ORIGINAL INDEBTEDNESS OF $137,740.00 RECORDED MARCH 31, 1980 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 33608AP IN REEL 7948, IMAGE 2127 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

DATED: MARCH 01, 1980
TRUSTOR: WARD D. ANDERSON III, A MARRIED MANTRUSTEE: TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION BENEFICIARY: WILLIAM WATSON
(AFFECTS PARCEL TWO)

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

4. THE FACT THAT THE LAND LIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SAN MATEO CITY DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AS DISCLOSED BY THE DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 10, 1981 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 65717AS OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (AFFECTS BOTH PARCELS)

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

5. A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN ORIGINAL INDEBTEDNESS OF $500,000.00 RECORDED JULY 24, 2013 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2013-108059 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

DATED: JULY 12, 2013
TRUSTOR: LOWIN ENTERPRISES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYTRUSTEE: FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY BENEFICIARY: FIRST REPUBLIC BANK WHICH IS ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF CALIFORNIA (AFFECTS BOTH PARCELS)
DOCUMENT STATES THAT IT IS FOR CROSS-DEFAULT/CROSS-COLLATERALIZATION.

THE ABOVE DEED OF TRUST STATES THAT IT SECURES AN EQUITY LINE/REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT. PRIOR TO THE PAYMENT

AND SUSPENSION OF THE EQUITY LINE/REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT, AN INSTRUCTION TO SUSPEND AND CLOSE THE EQUITY LINE/REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT PURSUANT TO CA CIVIL CODE SECTION 2943.1 MUST BE EXECUTED BY THE BORROWER.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

6. THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "CITY OF SAN MATEO PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL" RECORDED AUGUST 23, 2017 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2017-074032 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (AFFECTS BOTH PARCELS)

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

7. THIS TRANSACTION MAY BE SUBJECT TO A GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING ORDER ("GTO") ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE BANK SECRECY ACT. INFORMATION NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE GTO MUST BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE CLOSING. THIS TRANSACTION WILL NOT BE INSURED UNTIL THIS INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE COMPLETE. (AFFECTS PARCEL ONE)

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

8. WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

9. RIGHTS OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER
EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE - PTR 81. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022, A LIEN NOT YET DUE OR PAYABLE.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

2. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, IF ANY, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.5 COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

3. THE FACT THAT THE LAND LIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SAN MATEO CITY DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AS DISCLOSED BY THE DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 10, 1981 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 65717AS OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

4. WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

5. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY DELETED.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

6. WE FIND NO OUTSTANDING VOLUNTARY LIENS OF RECORD AFFECTING SUBJECT PROPERTY. AN INQUIRY SHOULD BE MADE

CONCERNING THE EXISTENCE OF ANY UNRECORDED LIEN OR OTHER INDEBTEDNESS WHICH COULD GIVE RISE TO ANY SECURITY INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

7. RIGHTS OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER
EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE - PTR 91. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022, A LIEN NOT YET DUE OR PAYABLE.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER
1A. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021.

FIRST INSTALLMENT: $10,375.62, PAIDPENALTY: $0.00
SECOND INSTALLMENT: $10,375.62, OPEN
PENALTY: $0.00
TAX RATE AREA: 12-023
A. P. NO.: 034-185-120

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

2. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, IF ANY, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.5 COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

4. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY DELETED.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

5. WE FIND NO OUTSTANDING VOLUNTARY LIENS OF RECORD AFFECTING SUBJECT PROPERTY. AN INQUIRY SHOULD BE MADE

CONCERNING THE EXISTENCE OF ANY UNRECORDED LIEN OR OTHER INDEBTEDNESS WHICH COULD GIVE RISE TO ANY SECURITY INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

6. ANY CLAIM THAT THE TITLE IS SUBJECT TO A TRUST OR LIEN CREATED UNDER THE PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1930 (7 U.S.C. •••••• •••••••• ET SEQ.) OR THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT (7 U.S.C. •••••••••• ET SEQ.) OR UNDER SIMILAR STATE LAWS.

CONSIDERATION FOR THE DELETION OF THIS EXCEPTION IS HIGHLY FACT INTENSIVE. PLEASE CONTACT THE UNDERWRITER ASSIGNED TO YOUR FILE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO DISCUSS.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

7. WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

8. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY DELETED.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

9. RIGHTS OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION.

NOT A SURVEY MATTER

ALTA SURVEY NOTES

1. THE BOLDTYPE COMMENTS ARE ADDED BY THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR.

2. ALL DISTANCES AND DIMENSIONS ARE IN U.S. SURVEY FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.

3. • •• •• • •• • • ••• ••• •• • ••• • • • • •• •• • • •• • ••• • ••• • •• • ••• • • • •• • • •••• ••• ••• • •• • • •• • • • • • •• • •• • • • • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

4. "IN" AND "OUT" AS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY INDICATE THE DISTANCE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, RESPECTIVELY.

5. THE DATES OF THE FIELD SURVEY ARE AS FOLLOWS: OCTOBER 21, 2020, OCTOBER 23, 2020, AND MARCH 31, 2021.

6. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES HAVE DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO AND FROM SOUTH CLAREMONT STREET, EAST 3RD AVENUE, SOUTH DELAWARE STREET, AND/OR EAST 4TH AVENUE, PUBLICLY DEDICATED RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY HEREON WHERE INDICATED BY ARROW LABELED "SITE ACCESS."

7. IN REFERENCE TO ITEM 2 OF TABLE "A", THE ADDRESSES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE AS SHOWN ON SHEET 1 OF THIS SURVEY.

8. IN REFERENCE TO ITEM 3 OF TABLE "A", THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE WITHIN FLOOD ZONE "X", AS STATED ON SHEET 1 OF THIS SURVEY.

9. IN REFERENCE TO ITEM 4 OF TABLE "A", THE GROSS LAND AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE AS SHOWN ON SHEET 3 OF THIS SURVEY.

10. IN REFERENCE TO ITEM 8 OF TABLE "A", AS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY HEREON.11. IN REFERENCE TO ITEM 13 OF TABLE "A", AS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY HEREON.12. IN REFERENCE TO ITEM 14 OF TABLE "A", THE SUBJECT BLOCK IS BOUNDED BY SOUTH CLAREMONT STREET, EAST 3RD AVENUE, SOUTH DELAWARE STREET AND EAST 4TH AVENUE.

13. IN REFERENCE TO ITEM 16 OF TABLE "A", NO EVIDENCE OF RECENT EARTH MOVING WORK OR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WAS OBSERVED IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING THE FIELD WORK.

14. IN REFERENCE TO ITEM 17 OF TABLE "A", NO EVIDENCE OF RECENT OR PROPOSED STREET RIGHT OF WAY CHANGES WERE OBSERVED IN THE PROCESS OF COMPLETING THE FIELD SURVEY, NOR PROVIDED TO THE UNDERSIGNED SURVEYOR.

UTILITY STATEMENT
UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE BASED UPON SURFACE OBSERVATIONS. NO WARRANTIES ARE EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED

CONCERNING THE EXISTENCE, SIZE, DEPTH, CONDITION, CAPACITY, OR LOCATION OF ANY UTILITY EXISTING ON THE SITE, WHETHER PRIVATE, MUNICIPAL, OR PUBLIC OWNED. CONTRACTOR(S) SHALL VERIFY ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY AND ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BEARING OF NORTH • • •• • •• • •••••••••• WEST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH DELAWARE STREET, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP 469 RECORDED DECEMBER 26, 2019 IN BOOK 85 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 21-22, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY.

SURVEYORS STATEMENT
TO: WINDY HILL PROPERTY VENTURESTO: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANYTHIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT IS BASED WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2021 MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYS, JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS, AND INCLUDES OPTIONAL ITEMS 2, 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 16, AND 17 OF TABLE A THEREOF.

THE FIELD WORK WAS COMPLETED ON MARCH 31, 2021.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • •• • •• • • • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• DAVID C. JUNGMANN, P.L.S. 9267 DATE
 365 of 846
A.L.T.A./N.S.P.S. LAND TITLE SURVEY OF
BLOCK 21
1 RSM 45
ALTA
33  366 of 846
PROJECT NO:

DATE DESCRIPTION
K:\2021\211618_Block 21_San Mateo\ENG\S D\C1.0 TITLE SHEET.dwg - Mar 25, 2022, 3:49pm - jaca The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.
• ••• ••••••••••• • • •• • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• In Association with:
www.arctecinc.com
Arizona
2960 East Northern Avenue, Building C
Phoenix, AZ 85028 602.953.2355
California
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 750
San Jose, CA 95113 408.496.1121
10/01/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
205207
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR:

WINDY HILL PROPERTY VENTURES
BLOCK 21
SAN MATEO, CA 94401
12/22/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL II
03/29/2022 4TH FORMAL

PLANNING SUBMITTAL

TITLE SHEET
C1.01
 367 of 846
PROJECT NO:

DATE DESCRIPTION
K:\2021\211618_Block 21_San Mateo\ENG\S D\C1.0 TITLE SHEET.dwg - Mar 25, 2022, 3:24pm - jaca The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.
• ••• ••••••••••• • • •• • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• In Association with:
www.arctecinc.com
Arizona
2960 East Northern Avenue, Building C
Phoenix, AZ 85028 602.953.2355
California
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 750
San Jose, CA 95113 408.496.1121
10/01/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
205207
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR:

WINDY HILL PROPERTY VENTURES
BLOCK 21
SAN MATEO, CA 94401
12/22/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL II
03/29/2022 4TH FORMAL

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
NOTES,
C1.02

LEGEND &

ABBREVIATIONS
 368 of 846
PROJECT NO:

DATE DESCRIPTION
K:\2021\211618_Block 21_San Mateo\ENG\S D\C2.0 EXISTIG CONDITIONS.dwg - Mar 25, 2022, 3:24pm - jaca The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.
• ••• ••••••••••• • • •• • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• In Association with:
www.arctecinc.com
Arizona
2960 East Northern Avenue, Building C
Phoenix, AZ 85028 602.953.2355
California
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 750
San Jose, CA 95113 408.496.1121
10/01/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
205207
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR:

WINDY HILL PROPERTY VENTURES
BLOCK 21
SAN MATEO, CA 94401
12/22/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL II
03/29/2022 4TH FORMAL

PLANNING SUBMITTAL

EXISTING
C2.01

CONDITIONS
 369 of 846
PROJECT NO:

DATE DESCRIPTION
K:\2021\211618_Block 21_San Mateo\ENG\S D\C2.02 PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP.dwg - Mar 25, 2022, 3:24pm - jaca The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.
• ••• ••••••••••• • • •• • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• In Association with:
www.arctecinc.com
Arizona
2960 East Northern Avenue, Building C
Phoenix, AZ 85028 602.953.2355
California
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 750
San Jose, CA 95113 408.496.1121
10/01/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
205207
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR:

WINDY HILL PROPERTY VENTURES
BLOCK 21
SAN MATEO, CA 94401
12/22/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL II
03/29/2022 4TH FORMAL

PLANNING SUBMITTAL

PRELIMINARY
C2.02

PARCEL MAP
 370 of 846
PROJECT NO:

DATE DESCRIPTION
K:\2021\211618_Block 21_San Mateo\ENG\S D\C3.0 PRELIMINARY HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN.dwg - Mar 25, 2022, 3:25pm - jaca The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.
• ••• ••••••••••• • • •• • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• In Association with:
www.arctecinc.com
Arizona
2960 East Northern Avenue, Building C
Phoenix, AZ 85028 602.953.2355
California
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 750
San Jose, CA 95113 408.496.1121
10/01/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
205207
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR:

WINDY HILL PROPERTY VENTURES
BLOCK 21
SAN MATEO, CA 94401
12/22/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL II
03/29/2022 4TH FORMAL

PLANNING SUBMITTAL

PRELIMINARY
C3.01

HORIZONTAL

CONTROL PLAN
 371 of 846
PROJECT NO:

DATE DESCRIPTION
K:\2021\211618_Block 21_San Mateo\ENG\S D\C4.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN.dwg - Mar 25, 2022, 3:26pm - jaca The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.
• ••• ••••••••••• • • •• • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• In Association with:
www.arctecinc.com
Arizona
2960 East Northern Avenue, Building C
Phoenix, AZ 85028 602.953.2355
California
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 750
San Jose, CA 95113 408.496.1121
10/01/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
205207
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR:

WINDY HILL PROPERTY VENTURES
BLOCK 21
SAN MATEO, CA 94401
12/22/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL II
03/29/2022 4TH FORMAL

PLANNING SUBMITTAL

PRELIMINARY
C4.01

GRADING
PLAN
 372 of 846
PROJECT NO:

DATE DESCRIPTION
K:\2021\211618_Block 21_San Mateo\ENG\S D\C5.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN.dwg - Mar 25, 2022, 3:26pm - jaca The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.
• ••• ••••••••••• • • •• • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• In Association with:
www.arctecinc.com
Arizona
2960 East Northern Avenue, Building C
Phoenix, AZ 85028 602.953.2355
California
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 750
San Jose, CA 95113 408.496.1121
10/01/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
205207
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR:

WINDY HILL PROPERTY VENTURES
BLOCK 21
SAN MATEO, CA 94401
12/22/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL II
03/29/2022 4TH FORMAL

PLANNING SUBMITTAL

PRELIMINARY
C5.01

UTILITY
PLAN
 373 of 846
PROJECT NO:

DATE DESCRIPTION
K:\2021\211618_Block 21_San Mateo\ENG\S D\C6.0 PRELIMINARY SWCP.dwg - Mar 25, 2022, 3:27pm - jaca The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.
• ••• ••••••••••• • • •• • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• In Association with:
www.arctecinc.com
Arizona
2960 East Northern Avenue, Building C
Phoenix, AZ 85028 602.953.2355
California
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 750
San Jose, CA 95113 408.496.1121
10/01/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
205207
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR:

WINDY HILL PROPERTY VENTURES
BLOCK 21
SAN MATEO, CA 94401
12/22/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL II
03/29/2022 4TH FORMAL

PLANNING SUBMITTAL

PRELIMINARY
C6.01

STORMWATER

CONTROL PLAN
 374 of 846
PROJECT NO:

WINDY HILL PROPERTY VENTURES
BLOCK 21
SAN MATEO, CA 94401
12/22/2021 PLANNING SUBMITTAL II
03/29/2022 4TH FORMAL

PLANNING SUBMITTAL

PRELIMINARY
C6.02

STORMWATER

CONTROL NOTES
 375 of 846
 
376 of 846
 
377 of 846
 
378 of 846
 
379 of 846
 
380 of 846
 
381 of 846
 
382 of 846
 
383 of 846
E1.1

ELECTRICAL

SITE LIGHTING - PHOTOMETRIC

CALCULATIONS
1 SITE PLAN - PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATIONS SCALE: N.T.S
California
1731 Technolody Drive, Suite 750
San Jose, California 95110
P 408.496.0676
Arizona
2960 East Northern Avenue, Building C
Phoenix, Arizona 85028
P 602.953.2355 F 602.953.2988
www.arctecinc.com

A R C T E C

ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGIES
in Association with:

DATE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NO:
© Copyright ARC TEC, Inc. 2017
The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TEC and ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of such documentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall not sue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service. Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.
00000
Warm Shell Office Building, Residential and Site for:

WINDY HILL PROPERTY VENTURES
3RD AVENUE AND DELAWARE AVENUE
San Mateo, CA 94401

W I N D Y H I L L
property ventures
 384 of 846

MIXED-USE DATA FORM
PA NAME: Block 21 PA: PA-2021-063 ADDRESSES:
500 E. 3rd Ave.
300, 312, 318, 320 S. Delaware St.
511, 525 E. 4th Ave.
307, 311, 315, 373 S. Claremont St.

LAND AREA:
65,888 sq. ft. (1.51 acres)
ZONING: CBD/S
LAND USE: Downtown Retail Core
Support
APNs:
034-185-030, -040, -050, -110, -120,
-140, -150, -160, -170, -190, -200
PROPOSED: MAXIMUM ALLOWED:

FLOOR AREA:

Office 179,560 sq. ft. -
Residential 89,378 sq. ft. --
-
-
TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 268,938 sq. ft. 1 197,664
Basement Level 128,692 sq. ft. 2-
FLOOR AREA RATIO: 4.1
1 3.00
RESIDENTIAL UNITS:

Base Density
Density Bonus
TOTAL
Below-Market-Rate
76 35
111 Units
12 Units (15% Very Low)
76 units (50 units/acre)
38 units (50% Density Bonus)
114 Units
-
RESIDENTIAL UNIT MIX:

Studios
1 Bedroom
2 or more Bedrooms
53 Units
58 Units
-
-
-
-
BUILDING HEIGHT: 74’-2”
3 55’-0”
STORIES:

Below Grade
Above Grade
2 6
-
-
SETBACKS:

S. Claremont St. 0’-6” 10’-0”
E. 3rd Ave. 3’-5” 10’-0”
S. Delaware St. 5’-11” 10’-0”
E. 4th Ave. 0’-6” 10’-0”
PROPOSED: MINIMUM REQUIRED:

PARKING:

Office:

Residential:

TOTAL PARKING:
346 Spaces
56 Spaces
402 Spaces
354 Spaces (1.94/1000 sq. ft.)
56 Spaces (0.5/Unit)
410 Spaces
LOADING: (2) 10’x25’ (S. Claremont St.) (2) 10’x 25’
BICYCLE PARKING:

Office:

Residential:

TOTAL BICYCLE PARKING:

Short-Term
22 Spaces
Long-Term
129 Spaces
Short-Term
9 (1/20,000 sq. ft.)
6 (0.05/unit)
15 Spaces
Long-Term
18 (1/10,000 sq. ft.)
111 (1.0/unit)
129 Spaces
OPEN SPACE:

Commercial:

Residential:

Private (Proposed for 57 Units):

Common (Proposed for 54 Units):
5,713 sq. ft.
72-346 sq. ft./unit 4
4,615 sq. ft.
1,796 sq. ft. (1% of commercial floor area)
80 sq. ft./unit
6,840 sq. ft. (150% of Private Open Space)
1 The project requests a Concession to exceed floor area limits pursuant to State Density Bonus law. 2 The proposed parking garage is in a below-grade, basement level. In accordance with SMMC 27.04.055, the basement level is excluded from floor area.
3 The project requests a Concession for building height pursuant to State Density Bonus law. 4 SMMC 27.38.130 allows projects to provide 80 sq. ft. per unit as private usable open space, common usable open space of at least 150% of the private usable open space requirement, or a combination of both. The project has requested a Waiver through State Density Bonus Law to reduce the Private Open Space requirement.
385 of 846
345 California Street | Suite 450 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com
June 1, 2022
Rendell Bustos
Senior Planner
City of San Mateo | Community Development Department
Submitted to: [email protected]
Subject: San Mateo Block 21 and 435 E. 3rd Avenue Parking Requirements – Addendum This letter serves as an addendum to the “San Mateo Block 21 and 435 E. 3rd Avenue Parking Requirements” memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers for the City of San Mateo on April 20, 2022. On May 16, 2022, the applicant’s transportation consultant, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., provided a letter of response detailing reasoning for a lower parking ratio. Fehr & Peers finds Hexagon’s lower parking ratio reasonable and methodology approach appropriate.

The remainder of this letter recaps Fehr & Peers’ and Hexagon’s methodology and assumptions as context for why a lower parking ratio is justifiable.

Summary of Fehr & Peers’ Methodology
This study used the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Mixed-Use Development (MXD) travel demand methodology to determine the automobile mode share and the correlated reduction in parking demand compared to industry standard rates. The results are compared to available local parking and mode share data and vehicle trip counts. Based on this approach, the office parking requirement would be calculated on a rate of 2.06 stalls per 1,000 gross square feet. This rate includes 0.14 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet for visitor parking and 1.92 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet for employee parking. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Fehr & Peers was unable to collect current parking counts and thus used the MXD approach, which relies on built environment variables to measure the degree of interactivity within the site and the accessibility of the site location for non-automobile trips, then adjusts the conventional Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data outputs to produce more accurate trip generation forecast.

Summary of Hexagon’s Methodology
This applicant’s study estimated parking demand based on parking count data collected in 2016 at three different office buildings in San Mateo, comparable in size and location to Block 21 and 435 E. 3rd Avenue. The parking demand ratios ranged from 1.56 to 2.28 occupied spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area, with an average of 1.82 occupied spaces. These demand surveys included both employees and visitors.
386 of 846
Rendell Bustos
June 1, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

Conclusion
The two studies produced similar estimates of parking demand within 10 percent of each other.

The Hexagon study relies on actual 2016 parking counts from comparable project sites, while the Fehr & Peers study relies on the MXD methodology along with parking and mode share data along the Peninsula. Both studies are ultimately estimates with different assumptions and appropriate, data-driven methodologies; their differences are within a typical range of outcomes that are seen on a project-by-project basis. Given the trend of reduced office commuting due to remote and hybrid work schedules and the expectations for more frequent Caltrain service after its electrification project, a lower parking ratio appears reasonable for Block 21 and 435 E. 3rd Avenue. Thus, given that the parking ratio acceptably ranges between 1.82 and 2.06 spaces per 1,000 square feet, we recommend taking an average of the two for a parking ratio of 1.94 spaces per 1,000 square feet.

Sincerely,

FEHR & PEERS
Ashley Hong
Transportation Planner
SF21-1188.00
Attachment:

Attachment A: Fehr & Peers’ “San Mateo Block 21 and 435 E. 3rd Avenue Parking Requirements” Memorandum
Attachment B: Hexagon Transportation Consultant’s Inc., “San Mateo Office Parking Counts” Memorandum
387 of 846
Attachment A
Fehr & Peers’ “San Mateo
Block 21 and 435 E. 3rd
Avenue Parking
Requirements” Memorandum
388 of 846
345 California Street | Suite 450 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: April 25, 2022
To: Rendell Bustos, City of San Mateo
From: Ashley Hong & Matt Goyne, Fehr & Peers
Subject: San Mateo Block 21 and 435 E. 3rd Avenue Parking Requirements SF21-1188
This memorandum summarizes the locally appropriate parking requirements for the two mixeduse office/residential projects in downtown San Mateo’s Central Parking and Improvement District (CPID): Block 21 (500 E 3rd Avenue) and 435 E. 3rd Avenue, herein referred to as the “projects.” The City of San Mateo Municipal Code (Section 27.64.100) currently requires general offices in the CPID to provide a minimum of 2.4 stalls per 1,000 gross square feet of floor area. An additional

0.2 stalls per 1,000 gross square feet is required for visitor parking. This memo serves to inform the City on locally appropriate parking requirements in lieu of these standard CPID ratios based on a review of national parking research and local parking data. Project applicants may request to pay parking in-lieu fees for any parking not provided on site in the CPID per City of San Mateo Municipal Code Section 27.64.100(3)(A). The developer for Block 21 and 435 E. 3rd Avenue is proposing on-site parking on Block 21 and has proposed to pay fees in-lieu of providing on-site parking at 435 E 3rd Avenue.

As previously established with City staff, the residential parking ratios match the parking requirements of 0.5 spaces per unit as required by project’s that comply with the State density bonus law. Therefore, no in-lieu fee will be required for the residential component of the Block 21 development and the in-lieu fee for the 435 E. 3rd Avenue project will be based on the 0.5 spaces per unit parking ratio unless reduced further via a State Density Bonus law incentive/concession or waiver. The remainder of the memorandum presents a review of expected office parking demand to inform the requirements.

Summary
Trip generation and parking demand are primarily determined based on two factors for employment uses: employee density and automobile mode share. The proposed projects are both assumed to be traditional office spaces and therefore the employee density match industry 389 of 846
Rendell Bustos
April 25, 2022

Page 2 of 6 ends

standard rates for trip generation and parking demand. Unlike residential land uses, where people may store parked vehicles for occasional use, the vehicle trip generation, automobile mode share, and the demand for parking spaces are all correlated for employment land uses.1 This study uses the Mixed-Use Development (MXD) travel demand methodology to determine the automobile mode share and the correlated reduction in parking demand compared to industry standard rates. The results are compared to available local parking and mode share data and vehicle trip counts. Based on this approach, the office parking requirement should be calculated on a rate of

2.06 stalls per 1,000 gross square feet. This rate includes 0.14 spaces for visitor parking per 1,000 gross square feet.

Parking Research
National Parking Trends
Most cities in the United States require new developments or buildings undergoing land use changes to provide a certain number of off-street parking spaces. These requirements are known as “parking minimums” and are calculated according to a building’s zoning district, land use, and size. In the City of San Mateo, projects within the CPID are allowed to request payment of an inlieu fee.

Parking minimums often require developers to provide more parking than would be utilized, especially in transit-oriented locations.2 Effectively, the minimum amount of parking required is often set high enough to provide at least the maximum amount of parking that could conservatively be used. This may result in excess parking supply and underutilized parking lots and garages, which then increases costs as owners and consumers subsidize the unused space.

Additionally, unconstrained or abundant parking influences people’s transportation choices by encouraging driving; the belief that parking will be available and free at one’s origin and destination makes driving a more attractive, convenient transportation option.

The two primary national data sources, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Manual, estimate an office parking demand rate of 2.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet, including 0.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet for visitors and the remaining for employees. However, these sources are primarily based on data collected at auto-oriented suburban sites prior to 2008 with near unlimited, abundant free parking and do not capture the effect of high-quality transit service nor robust transportation 1 Parking demand decreases faster in locations with higher-than-average use of taxis or transportation network companies (i.e., Uber and Lyft), such as San Francisco. Taxis or TNCs continue to make up a very small percentage of commute trips in San Mateo County as indicated in the County's latest commute data from 2017: https://sustainablesanmateo.org/home/indicators/transportation/ 2 Shoup, Donald. 2005. The High Cost of Free Parking. American Planning Association. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235359727_The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking 390 of 846
Rendell Bustos
April 25, 2022

Page 3 of 6 ends

demand management (TDM) programs.3 In these settings, greater than 75 percent of employees commute by single occupancy vehicle. 4 In situations where parking supply is lower (i.e. provided at lower rates) or there is high-quality transit available, people are likely to change how they travel and parking demand could be lower.5 Given the proximity of the projects to the San Mateo Caltrain station, Downtown San Mateo, and the presence of TDM requirements, local parking data is desired to support more accurate parking ratios for the projects.

Local Data
Existing parking demand studies for general office space in similar transit-oriented locations is limited. One study conducted in 2018 indicated that the average parking rate for three office buildings in Downtown San Mateo was 1.82 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet.6 However, this study does not account for visitor parking demand as the sites include separate employee and public parking garages that provide parking for nearby retail uses. Therefore, additional parking counts are desired to establish an office parking ratio that incorporates visitors and employees for required parking as described in the following section. Given the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on reducing office parking demand for the foreseeable future, Fehr & Peers prepared estimates of parking demand based on factors that influence parking demand and single occupancy vehicle share (SOV), such as the location of the project and TDM measures.

Given the location of the projects adjacent to the San Mateo Caltrain station, Downtown San Mateo, and the presence of TDM requirements, more people would commute by non-automobile modes than a traditional suburban office. Mixed-use development (MXD) in transit-oriented locations is widely considered an effective means of reducing traffic impacts by incentivizing the use of non-automobile modes and reducing single-occupancy vehicles. The MXD trip generation approach relies on built environment variables to measure the degree of interactivity within the 3 Shoup, Donald. 2003. Truth in Transportation Planning. Journal of Transportation and Statistics. Available at:
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/TruthInTransportationPlanning.pdf 4 The average US drive alone rate was 76.4 percent in 2013, with higher rates for people who live and work outside of each metro’s principal cities.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/acs/acs-32.pdf 5 Willson, Richard. 2005. Parking Policy for Transit-Oriented Development: Lessons for Cities, Transit Agencies, and Developers. Journal of Public Transportation, 8 (5): 79-94. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.8.5.5.

Available at: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/jpt/vol8/iss5/5 6 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2018. Parking Study for Bay Meadows II SPAR #1 STA 1 & 5 Modification. Available at: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/65941/HexagonMemorandums 391 of 846
Rendell Bustos
April 25, 2022

Page 4 of 6 ends

site and the accessibility of the site location for non-automobile trips, then adjusts the conventional ITE outputs accordingly to produce more accurate trip generation forecast.7 Parking demand for employment uses are primarily associated with employees who drive to work, with approximately five to 10 percent of demand due to visitors. Therefore, parking demand decreases as employees shift to non-automobile modes. Accounting for the mix of nearby land uses (e.g., employees who live within walking distance or shopping/restaurant trips that are made by walking) and the access to transit including Caltrain and SamTrans, the MXD method estimates a 28% reduction in drive alone8 mode share and parking demand compared to a traditional suburban office. This results in a 55% drive alone mode share compared to the 76% U.S. average mode share. MXD results include the number of visitor trips, and therefore this reduction can be applied to both employee and visitor trips. This analysis does not account for a robust transportation demand management (TDM) program for conservative purposes because the TDM plan and monitoring measures are not yet defined. This program could further reduce the automobile mode share, vehicle trips, and parking demand.

The MXD results can be compared to available mode share data and vehicle trip counts in nearby communities to assess how reasonable these results are. Recent studies of travel behavior in Downtown Redwood City and Downtown Palo Alto found that approximately 45 percent and 52 percent of employees drive alone in the two cities, respectively.9 These mode shares are 30 to 40 percent lower than the average U.S. drive alone rate. The Palo Alto study segmented the mode share by type of employment use, with the two uses most likely to have robust TDM programs (technology and government) achieving an approximately 40 percent drive alone mode share.

Other comparable data sources indicate similar mode shares in transit oriented locations, including automobile trip generation rates in San Francisco for offices outside of Downtown SF10 7 For more information, visit https://www.fehrandpeers.com/mxd/. MXD methodologies were developed in tandem with the EPA as documented in the American Planning Association PAS Memo “Getting Trip Generation Right: Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development” by Jerry Walters, Brian Bochner, and Reid Ewing (May 2013). This paper can be accessed here: https://www.fehrandpeers.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/11/APA_PAS_May2013_GettingTripGenRight-2.pdf. These methodologies were revalidated as documented in the November/December 2020 issue of the APA’s PAS Memo, entitled “Still Getting Trip Generation Right: Revalidating MXD+”.
8 Fehr & Peers. Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment. 2022. . 9 City of Redwood City. July 2018. Redwood City Moves. Page 8 presents a summary of the existing mode share for downtown Redwood City compared to suburban neighborhoods: http://rwcmoves.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/RWCmoves-Transportation-Plan_July16.pdf City of Palo Alto, 2019 Palo Alto TMA Annual Report, May 2020. Appendix A presents the survey results by year and by sector: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutesreports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020/id-11307-tma-annual-report.pdf 10 SF Planning Department. October 2019. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. See Appendix F, Travel Demand for Urban-Medium Density neighborhoods, such as Mission Bay. Accessed at https://sfplanning.org/project/transportation-impact-analysis-guidelines-environmental-reviewupdate#impact-analysis-guidelines. 392 of 846
Rendell Bustos
April 25, 2022

Page 5 of 6 ends

and recent vehicle counts collected at office buildings in the San Mateo Rail Corridor Transportation Management Agency (TMA)11. Therefore, the MXD results may in fact be overestimating the amount of vehicle trips and parking demand; however, they are presented below for conservative purposes.

Table 1 compares the U.S. average mode share and parking demand ratio to the mode share results using the MXD method and estimates the parking demand rate based on the mode shares.12 This indicates that the parking ratio of 2.06 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet, including

1.92 spaces for employees and 0.14 spaces for visitors,13 is appropriate for the Block 21 and 435 E. 3rd Avenue projects. This ratio is comparable to the employee parking demand of 1.82 spaces per 1,000 square feet calculated in the Parking Study for Bay Meadows II SPAR #1 STA 1 & 5 Modification study (Hexagon, 2018) presented above, indicating that this ratio adequately represents a reasonable conservative estimate for this TOD location.

Table 1: Drive Alone and Parking Demand Rates
U.S. MXD Method
Employee Commute Mode Share 76% 55% 2
Parking Demand Rate per 1,000 square
feet 2.84 1 2.06 2
Notes:

1. Office parking demand rate per Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation.

2. Based on 28% reduction in daily and PM peak hour vehicle trips based on MXD methodology as presented in Block 21 TIA prepared by Fehr & Peers, February 2022
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, US Census
Recommendation
The parking requirement for both the Block 21 and 435 E. 3rd Avenue projects should be calculated based on a rate of 2.06 stalls per 1,000 gross square feet. The applicant may request to pay parking in-lieu fees for any parking not provided on site in keeping with the City’s Zoning Code provisions.
11 San Mateo Rail Corridor Transportation Management Agency. January 2018. 2017 Annual Report. This study included recently completed office buildings in Bay Meadows, which 40 to 50 percent lower than traditional suburban buildings.
12 The only location with available mode share and parking demand data on the peninsula is from a mixeduse office and retail building in Redwood City. VTA cites a parking demand ratio of 1.22 spaces per 1,000 square feet for this Redwood City building; however, this parking ratio includes retail and office employee demand. This parking demand rate is from page 2 of the memorandum "Place Types, Ridership Potential Development Scenarios, and Parking/TDM Recommendations – Draft” by Nelson/Nygaard, June 2019. This study can be accessed at: https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/K%20- %20TOC%20Parking%20and%20TDM%20Strategies.pdf
13 28 percent reduction to 0.2 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet for suburban office space is 0.14 spaces. 393 of 846
Rendell Bustos
April 25, 2022

Page 6 of 6 ends

Future Office Parking Data Collection
Additional data collection of office parking would provide more site-specific context and data to support parking in-lieu fees for future projects. Fehr & Peers consulted a traffic count vendor whether there was historical parking demand count data that identifies employee and visitor parking available for TOD office developments along the West Coast and were informed that most parking studies conducted for public agencies are limited to on-street and public parking garages while studies conducted for private developments are generally confidential. This presents an opportunity to collect future data to fill this industry gap. Three potential sites within one half mile of the projects and the three San Mateo Caltrain stations are listed in Table 2. These sites are a similar size to the proposed projects and have parking areas solely for their use and parking in open areas. Information on occupancy levels and types of TDM incentives will need to be requested from property owners or managers. Additional study sites could include other Bay Meadows office buildings or offices to the east of the Hayward Park Caltrain station, pending further review with the City of San Mateo and property managers to confirm occupancy levels.

Table 2: Potential Parking Data Collection Sites
Proposed Data Collection Site Sq. Ft. Parking Ratio
405 E. 4th Avenue14 62,338 1.28
406 E. 3rd Avenue15 103,731 2.6
Bay Meadows Office Station 316 174,445 2.5

14 https://images1.loopnet.com/d2/-
0jta_0Ztwr2IO4TwBfLEMyXHKVbyu8uVnyckpz3Go/4th%20Avenue%20405Sublease%20070319.pdf 15 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/3875/406-E-3rd-Avenue 16 https://baymeadows.com/station3/mobile/features.html. This building has 22ksf listed as available. Other Bay Meadows office locations may be appropriate as well, pending further review with the city of the proposed sites.
394 of 846
Attachment B
Hexagon Transportation
Consultant’s Inc., “San Mateo
Office Parking Counts”
Memorandum
395 of 846
Memorandum
Date: May 16, 2022
To: Ms. Lisa Ring, LOR Planning
From: Gary Black
Subject: San Mateo Office Parking Counts
In conjunction with analyzing a proposed office building at 405 E. 4th Avenue in San Mateo, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. conducted parking counts at three office buildings in downtown San Mateo in October 2016. The purpose of the counts was to determine an appropriate parking ratio for buildings that are in downtown San Mateo and a reasonable walking distance from the Caltrain station. It was believed that buildings in this setting would have lower parking demand than the typical ratios elsewhere in San Mateo.

The three buildings were chosen for the parking counts because they all have their own parking garages, so they don’t need to rely on the public parking lots and garages in downtown San Mateo.

Each building has a garage that allows visitor parking. Therefore, the counts can be assumed to include both employees of the buildings and visitors although the visitor parking was not counted separately. The employee and visitor parking areas were lumped together for the counts.

Table 1 shows the addresses of the three office buildings that were counted and the resulting parking demand ratios. The ratios ranged from 1.56 to 2.28 occupied spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area, with an average of 1.82 occupied spaces. This is including employees and visitors.

The detailed parking count results are attached.

Table 1
Office Parking Counts
Building Size Unit
Parking
Supply 2
Parking
Demand
Parking Demand
Ratio
101 S Ellsworth 98.3 ksf 219 181 1.84
181 2nd Ave 1 76.3 ksf 299 174 2.28
400 S. El Camino Real 141.4 ksf 253 221 1.56
Average 1.82
Notes:

1. The building size for 181 2nd Avenue is estimated based on Google Earth.

2. Parking supply at all three buildings counted all parking spaces on-site. 396 of 846
Attachments
397 of 846
Red Building 101 S Ellsworth Ave
Garage - Entrance on Ellsworth Ave
Classification ADA General EV Carshare Reserved 20 min
parking
Motorcycle United
American
Bank
Compact Total
Supply : Ground level 8 0 2 0 0 8 2 5 0 25
Supply : Underground 1 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 62
Supply : Underground 2 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 66
Supply : Underground 3 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 66
Total 219
Occupancy :

Ground level: 10:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 5
Underground 1: 10:00 AM 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 59
Underground 2: 10:00 AM 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 66
Underground 3: 10:00 AM 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 36
Total 166
Ground level: 11:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3
Underground 1: 11:15 AM 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 62
Underground 2: 11:15 AM 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 63
Underground 3: 11:15 AM 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 53
Total 181
Ground level: 12:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 4
Underground 1: 12:30 PM 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 60
Underground 2: 12:30 PM 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 63
Underground 3: 12:30 PM 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 45
Total 172
398 of 846
*There are three levels underground. "Underground 1" is directly under the Ground level,"Underground 2" is below "Underground 1", and "Underground 3" is below "Underground 2"
399 of 846
Green Building 123 San Mateo Dr
Ground Lot - Access on San Mateo Dr
Classification ADA General EV Carshare Reserved Reserved GO

ANIMATE
Reserved

COLDWEL
L
Reserved
Medical
Reserved

CHINZILLA
Small
cars/compac
t
Total
Supply : 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 7 0 0 0 15
Occupancy : 10:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 7
Occupancy : 11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 8
Occupancy : 12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 8
400 of 846
Green Building 123 San Mateo Dr
Above Grade Lot - Access on San Mateo Dr
Classification ADA General EV Carshare Reserved Reserved GO

ANIMATE
Reserved

COLDWEL
L
Reserved
Medical
Reserved

CHINZILLA
Small
cars/compac
t
Illegal
Motorcycle
Total
Supply : 5 0 0 0 18 2 15 0 3 20 0 63
Occupancy : 10:15 AM 0 0 0 0 10 0 6 0 0 6 0 22
Occupancy : 11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 10 0 9 0 3 6 0 28
Occupancy : 12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 10 0 9 0 3 9 0 31
401 of 846
Green Building 123 San Mateo Dr
Underground Garage - Access on San Mateo Dr and on Ellsworth Ave Classification ADA General EV Carshare Reserved Reserved GO
Reserved

COLDWELL
Reserved
Medical
Reserved

CHINZILLA
Small
cars/compact
Customer Total
Supply : Underground 1 0 2 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 16 103
Supply : Underground 2 0 0 0 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 118
Total 221
Occupancy :

Underground 1 - 10:15 AM 0 1 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 7 50
Underground 2 - 10:15 AM 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 71
Total 121
Underground 1 - 11:30 AM 0 1 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 7 56
Underground 2 - 11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 79
Total 135
Underground 1 - 12:45 PM 0 1 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 6 52
Underground 2 - 12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 77
Total 129
402 of 846
*There are two levels underground. "Underground 1" is directly under the Ground lot and "Underground 2" is under "Underground 403 of 846
Yellow Building
Garage - Entrance on 4th Ave
Classification ADA General EV Carshare Reserved Small
cars/compact
Motorcycle Total
Supply : Above Ground 2 162 1 0 9 48 1 223
Supply : Below Ground 2 23 1 0 4 0 0 30
Total 253
Occupancy :

Above Ground: 10:45 AM 0 144 1 0 1 47 1 194
Below Ground: 10:45 AM 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 24
Total 218
Above Ground: 12:00 PM 0 151 1 0 1 47 1 201
Below Ground: 12:00 PM 1 18 1 0 0 0 0 20
Total 221
Above Ground: 1:15 PM 0 145 0 0 1 45 1 192
Below Ground: 1:15 PM 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 15
Total 207
404 of 846
WI LLIA M L. M c C L URE
JOH N L. FLEGEL
DA N K. SIE GEL
JENN IFE R H. F R IED M AN
M IN DIE S. R OM A NOWSK Y
LEIGH F. PRINCE
DA VI D L. A C H
GREGORY K. K LI NGSPORN
NI COL A S A. FLEGEL
KR ISTIN A A. FENT ON
CA RA E. SILVER
KIMBERLY J. BRUMMER
CAMAS J. STEINMETZ
____________
BR ITT N EY L. ST A ND LEY
JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 1 00 A L M A ST R EET, SU ITE 2 1 0
M EN LO P A RK, C A LI FORN IA 9 4 02 5 - 33 9 2
( 6 50 ) 3 2 4 -9 3 0 0
F AC SI M ILE ( 65 0 ) 3 2 4 -0 2 2 7
www. js mf. com
April 11, 2022

OF C OU NSEL

KENT MITCHELL
____________

RETIR ED
JOH N D. JORGEN SON
MARGARET A. SLOAN
DI AN E S. GREE NB ERG
____________

DE CEA SED
M AR VI N S. SIEGEL
( 1 93 6 - 2 0 1 2 )
JOH N R. COSGR OVE
( 1 93 2 - 2 0 1 7 )

Sent via email: [email protected]
Rendell Bustos, Senior Planner
City of San Mateo
Community Development Department – Planning Division
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
Re: State Density Bonus Law Concession and Waiver Request Dear Mr. Bustos,
This letter is written on behalf of Windy Hill Property Ventures (“Windy Hill”) with regard to the proposed mixed-use project generally referred to as the Block 21 project which encompasses 3rd and 4th Avenues, South Claremont and South Delaware Streets in San Mateo (“Project”). The Project includes 111 rental units, which is inclusive of 76 base density units and 35 bonus density units. Of the 76 base density units, 15 percent or 12 units would be set aside as affordable to very-low income households. As a result, pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, the Project is entitled to a 50 percent density bonus, three concessions and an unlimited number of waivers. Government Code Sections 65915(d)(2)(C), 65915(e) and 65915(f)(2). This letter will discuss the requested concessions and waivers.

Previously, Windy Hill was requesting three concessions. Although the Project is still entitled to three concessions, Windy Hill is now only requesting two concessions as a reduction in residential parking, discussed below, is no longer needed. The two concessions Windy Hill is requesting are an increase in the building height and an increase in the maximum floor area ratio. Additionally, Windy Hill is requesting five waivers for an increase in the number of permissible compact stalls, an increase in the maximum parking ramp slope, a reduction in private open space, an increase in bulk, and a reduction in wall area. Each of these will be discussed in more detail below. 405 of 846
Rendell Bustos, Senior Planner
Re: State Density Bonus Law Concession and Waiver Request

Page 2 ends

Parking and Turning Radii
State Density Bonus Law provides in Government Code Section 65915(p) specific parking ratios inclusive of parking for persons with disabilities and guests. In addition, subsection (5) allows the use of tandem parking for the entire development. Previously, in addition to these by-right parking reductions/modifications, Windy Hill was requesting a reduction in residential parking. However, in reviewing the plans, Windy Hill has confirmed that the required number of parking spaces for both residential and office uses is available on-site and no reduction in residential spaces is necessary.

In addition, Windy Hill is no longer requesting a waiver of Municipal Code Section

27.64.130 regarding the turning radii and turnaround requirements. Including additional residential units required a redesign of the parking layout to increase the number of parking stalls. As a result, the layout now provides the required turning radii and turnaround requirements.

Concession 1: Increase in building height.

Windy Hill is requesting a concession to increase building height to 74 feet-2 inches, which is 19 feet-2 inches above the 55-foot maximum identified in Municipal Code Chapter 27.40 and the City’s Building Height Plan. A concession is defined as a reduction in a site development standard or a modification of a zoning code requirement or architectural design requirement that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs. Government Code Section 65915(k). Concessions are intended to assist in lowering the cost to build a project that includes affordable housing and are presumed to result in cost reductions. Bankers Hill v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755. Height is a development standard that can be modified.

Government Code Section 65915(o)(1); see also Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346 where the court upheld the city’s waiver of the height standard.

City staff expressed some concern regarding a concession to modify a design standard adopted by the voters. State law identifies three bases for denial of a proposed concession, including that the concession (1) does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, (2) would have a specific adverse impact upon public heathy and safety or the physical environment or historic property, or (3) would be contrary to state or federal law. Government Code Section 65915(d)(1).

How the design standard was adopted is not identified as a basis for denial.

Furthermore, affordable housing is an issue of statewide importance and state law occupies the field preempting any inconsistent local laws. See DeVita v. City of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, concluding that laws enacted by initiative are subject to preemption by state law where the state occupied the field in a matter of statewide concern. Thus, pursuant to state law, modification of a voter adopted development standard setting a height limitation may be modified as a concession. The staff report from the City Manager dated January 18, 2022 concurred with this conclusion stating “height concession requests were reviewed by staff (including the City Attorney’s Office), and it was 406 of 846
Rendell Bustos, Senior Planner
Re: State Density Bonus Law Concession and Waiver Request

Page 3 ends

determined that the state density bonus law allowance for additional height through a concession would supersede any general plan or zoning limit, including those enacted by voter initiative (including Measure Y).”
Height is an appropriate concession and results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs. An increase in height allows for an additional 74 units (40 units on the 5th floor and 34 units on the 6th floor) to be included in the Project, which equates to an additional 56,722 square feet. These additional units allow fixed hard and soft costs, including but not limited to land price, construction of underground parking, elevators and other shared spaces, design and engineering fees, and financing costs to be spread across the additional 74 units. This results in an approximately 15 percent savings on each of the 5th and 6th floor units (or approximately $113,000 per unit) making the provision of 12 very-low income units (at a cost of approximately $8,500,000) and a total of 111 residential units feasible.

Concession 2: Increase in maximum floor area ratio.

The Project is requesting a concession to increase in the maximum floor area ratio (“FAR”) from 3.0 as identified in Municipal Code Section 27.38.060 by 1.1 FAR, which equates to an additional 63,370 square feet. As with the height, modification of the FAR is a concession by definition. Also like the increased height, an increase in FAR allows for an additional 74 units (40 units on the 5th floor and 34 units on the 6th floor) to be included in the Project. These additional units allow fixed hard and soft costs, including but not limited to land price, construction of underground parking, elevators and other shared spaces, design and engineering fees, and financing costs to be spread across the additional 74 units. This results in an approximately 15 percent savings on each of the 5th and 6th floor units making the provision of 12 very-low income units and a total of 111 residential units feasible.

The increased height and floor area both make the same number of additional residential units possible. Therefore, Windy Hill has looked at the construction cost savings wholistically and, as described above, together the two concessions result in a 15 percent savings or approximately $113,000 per unit on each of the 5th and 6th floor units. This makes the provision of 12 very-low income units at a loss of approximately $8,500,000 and a total of 111 residential units feasible.

Waiver 1: Increase in the number of permissible compact stalls.

A waiver is a modification of a development standard that would have the effect of physically precluding construction of a project at the density or with the concessions permitted. Government Code Section 65915(e). Windy Hill is requesting a waiver of Municipal Code Section 27.64.265 which requires 40 percent of the parking spaces to be provided pursuant to compact car standards. Instead, Windy Hill is proposing that 60 percent of the parking spaces or 233 of 407 spaces be provided pursuant to compact car standards. A greater percentage of compact stalls allows the Project to meet its on-site 407 of 846
Rendell Bustos, Senior Planner
Re: State Density Bonus Law Concession and Waiver Request

Page 4 ends

parking requirement. Failure to grant this waiver would physically preclude construction of the Project because the Project would not be able to satisfy its parking requirements making the Project infeasible at the density and with the concessions requested.

Waiver 2: Increase in the maximum parking ramp slope.

Windy Hill is requesting a waiver of Municipal Code Section 23.40.050 which provides a maximum driveway grade of 18 percent for private roads, driveways and ramps that have no pedestrian access. To make construction of the Project physically possible, Windy Hill is requesting an increase in the maximum slope on a ramp profile of 20 percent between the upper and lower basement levels. Providing a ramp with a steeper incline allows the length of the ramp to be shortened by 3’-11”. Reducing the length of the ramp allows two additional parking stalls for four units to be provided, which would not be possible with a longer ramp. Without this reduced dimension, the Project would not feasibly be able to meet its parking requirement, precluding the development of the Project at the density and with the concessions requested.

Waiver 3: Reduction in private open space.

Windy Hill is requesting a waiver of Municipal Code Section 27.38.130 regarding the required open space for residential development. The Municipal Code requires residential development to include private usable open space equal to at least 80 square feet per dwelling unit or common usable open space equal to at least 150 percent of the private usable open space requirements, or a combination of both. Private usable open space used to fulfill this requirement must have a usable area of not less than 75 square feet and shall not be less than six feet in any dimension. Windy Hill is requesting a waiver to allow private usable open space equal to at least 57 square feet per dwelling unit. The reduced open space allows for the construction of the additional residential units since there is limited space allocation as part of the building. Without this reduction, the Project would not feasibly be able to provide open space for all the units thus precluding the development of the Project at the density and with concessions requested.

Waiver 4: Increase in bulk.

Windy Hill is requesting a waiver of Municipal Code Section 27.40.030 which provides above 55 feet maximum building dimension of 150 lineal feet and a maximum diagonal dimension of 170 lineal feet. To physically construct the project at the density and with the requested concessions a waiver is required. Windy Hill is requesting a 67 percent increase in both lineal and diagonal length. Meeting the Municipal Code standard would result in the loss of 20 units or 60 percent of the units on the 6th floor. Without this, construction of the Project would be precluded, including the affordable units which would defeat the law’s goal of increasing affordable housing.

Waiver 5: Reduction in wall area.
408 of 846
Rendell Bustos, Senior Planner
Re: State Density Bonus Law Concession and Waiver Request

Page 5 ends

Windy Hill is requesting a waiver of Municipal Code Section 27.42.010, street wall area.

Windy Hill is requesting a 25 percent reduction in the maximum depth of the street wall area. Meeting the Municipal Code standard would result in the loss of 24 units or 70 percent of the units on the 6th floor. Without this, construction of the Project would be precluded, including the affordable units which would defeat the law’s goal of increasing affordable housing.

Based on the foregoing, Windy Hill has established its eligibility for concessions and the waiver of any development standards that would preclude construction of the Project at the density and with the concessions. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Leigh Prince
Leigh F. Prince
Cc: Lisa Ring (via email: [email protected])
Michael Field (via email: [email protected])
Evan Sockalosky (via email: [email protected])
Gabrielle Whelan, Asst. City Attorney (via email: [email protected]) Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney (via email: [email protected]) 409 of 846
November 10, 2021
Mr.. Rendell Bustos
Department of Community Development
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403-1388
RE: BLOCK 21
Dear Rendell:

I reviewed the drawings, and evaluated the site context. My comments on the plans and elevations for this project are as follows:

SITE CONTEXT
The site is one full block adjacent to three recent new developments immediately between it and Downtown San Mateo. Other adjacent development is largely older one story commercial structures while single family homes and large multifamily residential developments are only a block away to the east and north.

Photographs of the site and surroundings are shown on the following page.

ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
410 of 846
Mixed Use development Residential over Office
across South Claremont Street

ADJACENT NEW DEVELOPMENTS
Nearby Office Development entry at East Third
Avenue and South Railroad Avenue
Nearby Residential Development across East Fourth Avenue Mixed Use development Residential over Office
across South Claremont Street
BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 2
411 of 846

PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS AND COMMENTS
The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission
in a Study Session on September 14, 2021.

Comments and concerns expressed by the commissioners included the following.

1. Concerned with the city’s jobs/housing imbalance - Why not add additional building height for more residential units?

2. Would like an additional level of residential
units. Building height concession: Need to see a
worthwhile concession such as more residential
units.

3. Jobs housing balance for this project is 13:1
which is far above the city’s ideal. If the project
has a projected 915 employees based on its commercial area, another 610 residential would be needed to provide a desirable jobs housing balance.

4. Concern with amount of office development that is encroaching on the surrounding neighborhood.

5. Any project here needs to have a positive impact on the whole city - not just about Block 21.

6. A mix of one, two and three bedroom units would be desirable.

7. Would like to see the unit types broadened to allow opportunities for families.

8. The bevel at corners didn’t seem right - need to be reworked.

9. Corner designs are incongruent with the rest of the design.

10. Worry about sight lines for pedestrian safety at the garage entry/exit ramp.

11. Architectural design overall very good, but somehow overbearing.

12. Where are we going here? All modern sleek, and somewhat cold. Better if the design could harken back to the adjacent neighborhood.

13. Liked design, but wondered how this fit in with other new adjacent buildings.

14. Don’t over articulate the building or it will look outdated over time.

15. Simplify the building.

16. Lower level materials tend to look like a new building added around an existing building - lacks unity.

17. Design good, but concerned about the large expanse of glass which are not compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood.

18. Project doesn’t seem very family friendly - no protected courtyard for children.

19. Residential open space very good.

20. Dimension across the residential courtyard seemed small.

Project reviewed at the September 14thStudy Session
BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 3
412 of 846

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed projects consist of 180,950 square feet of office space and 111 studio and one bedroom residential units in a six story structure. Office space and residential units would share the top three floors of the project, an increase of one floor in response to the Planning Commission’s stated desire for more residential units. Underground parking would provide 410 parking spaces with 351 devoted to office use and 58 reserved for the residential units. Office and residential office open space would be provided on the top three floors, and public open
space would be provide in three smaller areas at street level - see ground level landscape plan to the right.

The proposed building is designed in a Contemporary Style that draws from the recently approved design for two other mixed use projects immediately across South Claremont Street - see proposed elevations and sketches below.

PROPOSED EAST THIRD AVENUE ELEVATION

PROPOSED SOUTH DELAWARE STREET ELEVATION

PROPOSED SOUTH CLAREMONT STREET ELEVATION

PROPOSED EAST FOURTH AVENUE ELEVATION
BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 4
413 of 846
BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 5

ADJACENT PROJECTS BUILDING FACADES COMPARISON
414 of 846

EAST FOURTH AVENUE AND SOUTH DELAWARE STREET CORNER

EAST THIRD AVENUE AND SOUTH CLAREMONT STREET CORNER

EAST THIRD AVENUE OFFICE DECKS
E. FOURTH AVENUE AND S. CLAREMONT STREET

RESIDENTIAL DECKS AND BALCONIES
E. FOURTH AVENUE AND S. DELAWARE STREET

RESIDENTIAL DECKS
BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 6
415 of 846

ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The project is well designed with elements included that are intentedto relate this new project with the other adjacent recently approved developments and to the smaller scale commercial and residential areas to the east.

However, there are some substantial massing and other issues that staff and the planning commission may wish to discuss further with the applicant. Issues are as follows:

1. In their study session, several commissioners expressed concern about the large amount of glass on the office portion of the project.

2. The setback between the second and third floors is much less than the two adjacent projects fronting South Claremont Street, and substantially changes the massing of the project relative to them - see comparative wall section and massing diagrams below. That, along with the absence of any pedestrian scale canopies or awnings, would result in a rather monumental feel at the pedestrian level.

BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 7
416 of 846

3.`The landscape plan shows a well landscape corner plaza adjacent to the main office lobby, while the sketches appear to show a more active use.

BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 8
417 of 846

4. Planning commissioners’ initial reaction was that they liked the design, but that it seemed a little overbearing and cold. They also were concerned that the design was lacking in overall design unity, and might not relate well to either the adjacent new developments or the adjacent neighborhood.

5. The project’s residential lobby entry is located on South Claremont Street, adjacent to all of the building’s utilitarian spaces and garage entry. This doesn’t seem like a very pleasant lobby location, and not one to be thought of as a prestigious address.

BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 9
418 of 846

6. The residential balconies are quite deep for this type of project, and add to the lack of visual unity expressed by the commission.

7. The planning commission expressed concern for pedestrian safety related to the garage entry and exit ramp, a condition that might be compounded by the adjacent location of the residential lobby.

8. At least one planning commissioner expressed concern about the width of the open atrium on the residential floors. There is one other issue related to the residential common open space adjacent to the atrium. While the landscape plan shows plantings around the edge of the space to provide some visual buffering of the adjacent residential units, there may still be issues of visual privacy and noise, Note that the plan drawing failed to show the office roof structure that intrudes into the atrium space shown.

9. There is a mixing of residential common open space and private resident patios which may have some visual and noise impacts on the adjacent residential units.

BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 10
419 of 846

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are intended to better relate the project’s design to those immediately across South Claremont Street, provide more simplicity and unity to the design, and address the planning commission’s concerns from the study session.

1. Replace the office building large glass facades with a solid wall with deep window recesses, as shown on the other three building facades.

2. Add a projecting cornice or roof canopy at the second level to emphasize the two story massing along street frontages to better relate to the adjacent new projects and the pedestrian scale of the sidewalks. At the planning commission’s discretion, the third floor could also be setback to reduce its impact on the overall building massing and the human scale of adjacent pedestrians.

BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 11
420 of 846

3. Clarify the intent for use and landscaping for the plaza adjacent to the office entry.

4. Provide street front awnings or canopies to better relate to the adjacent pedestrian areas.

5. Extend the darker wall facade with recessed window up to the sixth floor consistently around all facades.

6. Reduce the depth of the projecting private balconies to better integrate them into the overall design, wherever possible. This is often achieved by insetting the balconies, as shown on the photo below, or adding area to the common residential open space.

7. Add a projecting roof canopy to the residential portion of the structure.

8. Reverse the color tones of the second and third floor masses to give more visual emphasis to the two story mass

9. Consider relocation the residential lobby entry away from the garage entry and adjacent utilitarian frontages.

BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 12
421 of 846

10. Resolve the privacy and landscaping of the spaces adjacent to the open atrium on the fourth floor.

11. Reevaluate the mix of residential common open space and private open spaces. One option would be to move this common open space to the roof, where the code allows, which is becoming quite common on larger residential projects.

12. Consider adding more landscaping at the small plaza at the corner of East Fourth Avenue and South Delaware Street.

13. Some planning commissioners were concerned that the two rounded corners did not relate well to the rest of the design. I personally didn’t find them a problem because rounded corner entries in downtown buildings are common - see photos below of nearby commercial corner one block east of this site and one at Santana Row. I do note that one of the angles corners is labeled as an entry to ground floor office space while the other is not. If staff and the planning commission feel strongly abut this matter, a squaring off of these corners with an inset rectangular landscape space would not be out of character with the the overall design of the building

13. Study the potential pedestrian/vehicle safety conflict at the garage entry.

BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 13
422 of 846
RECOMMENDED CHANGES SHOWN IN THE COMPARATIVE ELEVATIONS BELOW.

BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 14
423 of 846
Rendell, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are specific issues of concern that I did not address.

Sincerely,

CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
BLOCK 21
Design Review Comments
November 10, 2021 Page 15
424 of 846
Block 21 Design Response
In the planning process Block 21 was reviewed by the City's design consultant, Cannon Design Group. The findings and recommendations of the design consultant were provided to the project team in a letter dated November 10, 2021.

In response to staff comments, PC Study session comments, and the comments and recommendations from the design consultant the project evolved and was refined to the currently proposed design. The design team appreciated the input and comments received. We incorporated many of the recommendations directly in the enhancement and refinement of the design. As with any opinions, the design team did not agree with all of the recommendations.

The team worked to develop Block 21 into a successful project responding to the needs of the applicant, the City, and improving the community of San Mateo. We believe the package in front of you reflects a thoughtful consideration of the comments from all parties noted above.

The following pages provide documentation on the recommendations and diagrams received from the Cannon Design Group, the updated design responses and explanation of how the design was refined to respond to the comments.

05.06.2022
425 of 846
Replace the office building large glass facades with a solid wall with deep window recesses, as shown on the other three
building facades.

1. Response: The design includes elements and materials to articulate the mixed-use nature of the project with office and residential. This project encompasses an entire city block at 6-stories and will be looking to attract a single tenant for approximately 180,000 S.F. The glass façade at the corner identifies the office entry and needs to be scaled
appropriately for the overall building. We have refined the design to include a stronger horizontal expression at the floor in the glass. The deep expressed mullions break down the massing of the glass while still maintaining the identity.

INCREASED ARTICULATION

AT EXPRESSED MULLIONS

EXTENDED ROOF OVERHANG

TO MORE STRONGLY EXPRESS

MASSING
426 of 846
Add a projecting cornice or roof canopy at the second level to emphasize the two-story massing along street frontages to better relate to the adjacent new projects and the pedestrian scale of the sidewalks.

At the planning commission’s discretion, the third floor could also be setback to reduce its impact on the overall building massing and the human scale of adjacent pedestrians.

2. Response: We have made significant massing
adjustments to the proportion of the cornice at the second level to create a better scale for the building.

INCREASED MASSING AT
CORNICE OF 2ND FLOOR

CREATING BETTER
PROPORTION FOR 2-STORY

ELEMENT
427 of 846
Clarify the intent for use and landscaping for
the plaza adjacent to the office entry.

3. Response: The intent is a well landscaped passive
space to provide seating and highlight the building entry.

SEATING AND LANDSCAPE

AT MAIN ENTRY PLAZA
428 of 846

4. Provide street front awnings or canopies to better relate to the adjacent pedestrian areas.

Response: The project has been refined to to create a
better pedestrian experience. Pedestrian scale canopies were added at the center bays along the first level.

ADDED PEDESTRIAN SCALE

CANOPY AT CENTER BAYS

ALONG FIRST LEVEL
429 of 846

5. Response: The design uses both
vertical and horizontal articulation
and layering to break up the
massing of the 6-story building.

Extend the darker wall facade with recessed window up to the sixth floor consistently around all facades.

MAINTAINED LAYERING AT

RESIDENTIAL LEVELS TO

BREAK UP THE MASSING
430 of 846

6. Response: The balconies are needed for the open space for the residential with the increased density to 111 units. In addition, further recess into the building would reduce the area for each unit and negatively impact the units.

Reduce the depth of the projecting private balconies to better integrate them into the overall design, wherever possible. This is often achieved by insetting the balconies, as shown on the photo below, or adding area to the common residential open space.

USABLE OPEN SPACE
431 of 846

7. Response: The canopies at the top
of the building both residential and
office have been located to
highlight prominent corners and
create layering within the façade.

Continuous or additional canopies
would make the design overly
complicated.

Add a projecting roof canopy to the residential portion of the structure.

MAINTAINED ROOF CANOPIES

AT PROMINENT CORNERS
432 of 846

8. Response: The hierarchy of the color tones as proposed work well with the architecture. The base tone is used to anchor the building while the lighter tone on the 3-story element accents it.

Reverse the color tones of the second and third floor masses to give more visual emphasis to the two-story mass.

MAINTAINED LOCATION OF COLOR

TONES TO ACCENT MASSING AND

ANCHOR THE BUILDING
433 of 846

9. Response: The relocation of the lobby is not
feasible due to the required vertical circulation
connections, access to residential loading allowed
only on Claremont, and the need for contiguous
office space at the ground level. We understand
and appreciate the comment to create a distinct
residential entry. As a result, we have further
developed the entry at the residential to create
better focus.

Consider relocation the residential lobby entry away from the garage entry and adjacent utilitarian frontages.

ACCENT AT RESIDENTIAL ENTRY

INTEGRATING LOUVER DETAIL TO

HIGHLIGHT RESIDENTIAL ENTRY
434 of 846

10. Response: The privacy and screening is accomplished with a combination of a fireplace wall and landscape planters.

Resolve the privacy and landscaping of the spaces adjacent to the open atrium on the fourth floor.

FIREPLACE WALL AND

LANDSCAPING BUFFER FOR

PRIVACY
435 of 846

11. Response: The private and
shared open space has been
further developed with key areas
with enhanced amenities located
for shared use. The private
open space along the building is
utilized as a buffer between the
shared open space and the
residential units.

Reevaluate the mix of residential common open space and private open spaces. One option would be to move this common open space to the roof, where the code allows, which is becoming quite common on larger residential projects. 436 of 846

12. Response: The planters have been
enlarged to provide additional planting.

The design allows for the landscape
areas in the planters while also
providing the pedestrian circulation
and seating for an active streetscape.

Consider adding more landscaping at the small plaza at the corner of East Fourth Avenue and South Delaware Street.

ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AND

AMENITIES FOR ACTIVE PEDESTRIAN

FRIENDLY CORNER PLAZA
437 of 846

13. Response: We feel that the design feature is important to the overall project. We have further enhanced the angled corners to include specialty lighting. In addition, we have added the louvers at the residential entry on Claremont integrating the design element around the building.

Some planning commissioners were concerned that the two rounded corners did not relate well to the rest of the design. I personally didn’t find them a problem because rounded corner entries in downtown buildings are common - see photos below of nearby commercial corner one block east of this site and one at Santana Row. I do note that one of the angles corners is labeled as an entry to ground floor office space while the other is not. If staff and the planning commission feel strongly about this matter, a squaring off of these corners with an inset rectangular landscape space would not be out of character with the overall design of the building.

ANGLED CORNER WITH LOUVERS

AND LIGHTING INTEGRATED ON

PROJECT ACCENTING CORNERS
AND RESIDENTIAL ENTRY.
438 of 846

14. Response: The garage entry has been further developed to maintain pedestrian safety including adjusting parking to be further away from entrance. During the permitting phase, the development will be further enhanced with the integration of signage, visibility, audible indicators, and other features.

Study the potential pedestrian/vehicle safety conflict at the garage entry. 439 of 846
Final
Block 21 TIA
Prepared for:

City of San Mateo
April 2022
SF21-1188.01
440 of 846
Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 3 Study Area and Scenarios.........................................................................................................................................................3 Block 21 Project Description........................................................................................................ 6 Existing Transportation Conditions............................................................................................. 8 Existing Roadway Network.......................................................................................................................................................8 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ....................................................................................................................................................9 Existing Bicycle Facilities............................................................................................................................................................9 Existing Transit Service.............................................................................................................................................................14 Existing Vehicle Volumes and Lane Configurations .....................................................................................................17 Existing Intersection Level of Service .................................................................................................................................17 Existing Parking Conditions ...................................................................................................................................................20 Opening Year Conditions ........................................................................................................... 21 Opening Year Conditions Intersection Level of Service..............................................................................................24 Project Conditions....................................................................................................................... 25 Project Trip Generation and Distribution .........................................................................................................................25 Trip Generation...................................................................................................................................................................25 Trip Distribution .................................................................................................................................................................27 Plus Project VMT ........................................................................................................................................................................29 VMT Screening....................................................................................................................................................................29 Opening Year Plus Project Vehicle Volumes and Level of Service .........................................................................30 Cumulative Conditions ............................................................................................................... 32 Cumulative Intersection Level of Service..........................................................................................................................35 Additional Transportation Analysis........................................................................................... 37 Vehicle Site Access and Circulation ....................................................................................................................................37 Loading and Curbside Management.........................................................................................................................38 Pedestrian & Bicycle Site Access and Circulation..........................................................................................................38 Pedestrian Access ..............................................................................................................................................................38 Bicycle Access......................................................................................................................................................................41 441 of 846
Transit Access and Circulation ..............................................................................................................................................42 Driveway Sight Distance..........................................................................................................................................................42 Vehicle Queuing .........................................................................................................................................................................43 Vehicle Parking Conditions ....................................................................................................................................................43 Hazards and Emergency Vehicle Access...........................................................................................................................44 Neighborhood Traffic...............................................................................................................................................................44 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 46 Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................................................46 Appendices
Appendix A: LOS Calculation Worksheets
Appendix B: Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets
442 of 846
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location..................................................................................................................................................................5 Figure 2: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 3: Existing Transit Routes.................................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 4: Existing Vehicle Volumes............................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 5: Background Project Sites............................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 6: Opening Year Vehicle Volumes................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 7: Trip Distribution and Assignment of Project Trips ............................................................................................ 28 Figure 8: Opening Year Plus Project Vehicle Volumes........................................................................................................ 31 Figure 9: Cumulative Vehicle Volumes...................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 10: Cumulative Plus Project Vehicle Volumes .......................................................................................................... 34 Figure 11: Project Site Plan............................................................................................................................................................ 45 List of Tables
Table 1: Existing Transit Service................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 2: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria.......................................................................................................................... 19 Table 3: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria .................................................................................................................... 19 Table 4: Existing LOS and Delay Results................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 5: Opening Year LOS and Delay Results ...................................................................................................................... 24 Table 6: Project Vehicle Trip Generation.................................................................................................................................. 26 Table 7: Opening Year Plus Project LOS and Delay Results ............................................................................................. 30 Table 8: Cumulative LOS and Delay Results ........................................................................................................................... 35 Table 9: Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities........................................................................................................... 40 443 of 846
» 4 floors of o
ce space
» 407 parking spaces
*Image is a current representation
of the project
» 1 city block
» 6 stories
» 111 multifamily apartments
» 1 city block
» 6 stories
» 111 multifamily apartmentsS. Claremont Street
S. Delaware Street
E. 3rd Avenue
E. 4th Avenue
E. 5th Avenue
Caltrain tracks
129 long-term bicycle parking
spaces on-site
22 short-term bicycle parking
spaces on-site
No adverse eects to bicycle
circulation created by the project
» 4 pedestrian access points
» Proposed sidewalks range
between 13.5’-25’ and meet ADA
standards
No adverse eects to pedestrian
circulation created by the project
» Project will generate new riders on
Caltrain and SamTrans
No adverse eects to transit created by
the project
» 134 new AM peak hour and 31 new PM
peak hour vehicle trips compared to
existing land uses
» Driveway site distance and parking is
compliant with code, the project will pay
in-lieu fees for 24 o
ce spaces
» No vehicle queuing expected
» No significant VMT impact due to proximity to high quality transit (within a 1/2 mile of San Mateo Caltrain Station)

CEQA IMPACTS

ADDITIONAL

TRANSPORTATION

ANALYSIS
This transportation impact assessment (TIA) reviews transportation conditions at and adjacent to Block 21, in the City of San Mateo. The proposed project will not result in CEQA impacts on VMT, bicycle, pedestrian, or transit circulation, or hazards and emergency access. The addition of project tra c would not result in
unacceptable tra
c operations. The project presents no adverse circulation issues and meets the code of design except for the pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The following recommended changes to the site plan would ensure consistency with San Mateo standards and best planning practices. < 1 second
* Increase in delay due to cumulative 2040 growth, not a project impact ** Acceptable tra
c operations for all scenarios but warrants a signal under cumulative conditions

STUDY INTERSECTIONS
4 seconds
3 seconds 13 seconds*
18 seconds**
Additional delay during commute hours added by the project Acceptable tra
c operations for all scenarios at all intersections
No adverse eects to vehicle circulation or
Level of Service created by the project
Block 21 TIA Executive Summary
» Minimal impact on neighborhood tra
c
» No new hazards or impact to emergency
access
444 of 846
The following recommended changes to the site plan would ensure consistency with San Mateo standards and best planning practices.

Block 21 TIA RECOMMENDATIONS
» The project does not provide o
-street freight
loading or conveniently located passenger loading,
which could result in ine
cient loading patterns.

The project sponsor should designate a freight
loading area within the parking garage conveniently
located next to a package storage room or an area
in the main lobby that can accommodate all
deliveries for residents and employees in the
building. An attendant or property manager should
be available to consolidate freight deliveries and
allow these to occur o
street. The project sponsor
should work with the San Mateo Public Works
department to create a white color curb zone
su
cient to accommodate the anticipated
passenger loading demand.
» The proposed pedestrian facilities are inconsistent
with the San Mateo Pedestrian Master Plan. The
project sponsor should widen the proposed
sidewalks along South Delaware Street and South
Claremont Street, add directional curb ramps when
reconstructing corners, and add advance stop bars
at each intersection in accordance with City of San
Mateo’s Pedestrian Design Guidelines. The project
sponsor should also add high visibility crosswalks at
East 3rd Avenue and South Delaware Street to
address safety concerns raised by community
feedback to enhance access to the SamTrans bus
stops. The City could also consider adding
directional curb ramps to other corners and make
signal timing adjustments, such as placing all signals
on pedestrian recall and installing extinguishable no
right turn on red signs during leading pedestrian
intervals. Additionally, the City’s Municipal Code
SMMC 27.39.090 requires zero-setbacks unless a
setback is provided for landscaping.
» The long-term bicycle parking should restrict access to authorized users and provide lockers to ensure people who ride can securely park bicycles for long periods of time.
» The project driveway in the middle of the block on
South Claremont Street is in a location clear of
existing obstructions, which allows drivers exiting
the driveway to have adequate sight distance. To
further reduce conflicts between drivers and
pedestrians, the project sponsor should install visual
and audio warning devices at the South Claremont
driveway to alert drivers and sidewalk users when
exiting or crossing the driveway.
» The project proposes 61 tandem parking spaces
for o
ce users. The tandem parking spaces should
be managed by valet or property manager to
optimize the use of the spaces.
» A signal is warranted at the East 5th Avenue and
South Claremont Street intersection under
cumulative conditions. The project would add trips
going through this intersection but would not
worsen intersection operations to unacceptable
levels. Installation of a signal could improve the
overall intersection operations, such as improved
delay and LOS for all approaches and improved
safety for pedestrian and bicyclists with dedicated
crossing signals and times. However, this
improvement is not included in the City’s CIP. If the
City decides to install a signal at this location as
part of the CIP, the project should pay its fair share
contribution or tra
c impact fees for this
intersection improvement.
445 of 846
Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment
April 2022
3 Introduction
This transportation impact assessment (TIA) reviews transportation conditions at and adjacent to Block 21 in the City of San Mateo. Conditions are evaluated for the current site without the proposed project, for plus project near-term conditions, and for cumulative 2040 conditions with and without the proposed project. The topics presented herein are based on the City of San Mateo’s Transportation Impact Analysis C (July 2020) and are intended to disclose the transportation related CEQA impacts and local transportation effects of the project. These topics include an assessment of vehicle level of service, vehicle miles traveled, site access and circulation, driveway site distance and vehicle queuing, parking, hazards and emergency vehicle access, and neighborhood traffic.

Study Area and Scenarios
The project is one city block bounded by East 3rd Avenue, East 4th Avenue, South Claremont Street, and South Delaware Street. The study area, as shown in Figure 1 is situated in downtown San Mateo between El Camino Real and U.S. 101. It is located three blocks from the San Mateo Caltrain station.

Five locations were identified as study intersections within the project vicinity:

1. East 3rd Avenue and South Delaware Street

2. East 3rd Avenue and South Claremont Street

3. East 4th Avenue and South Claremont Street

4. East 4th Avenue and South Delaware Street

5. East 5th Avenue and South Claremont Street
Transportation conditions were evaluated for the weekday peak periods of 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM in a manner consistent with the TIA Guidelines. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions: Existing traffic volumes were based on historic 2019 counts collected by the City of San Mateo.
• Opening Year Conditions: Opening year conditions reflect background traffic volumes added by projected volumes from developments that have been approved but not yet completed or occupied near the project site.
• Opening Year Plus Project Conditions: Project generated trips added to opening year traffic volumes.
• Cumulative Conditions: Cumulative conditions reflect estimated future traffic volumes for 2040, approximately 20 years into the future.
• Cumulative Plus Project Conditions: Project generated trips added to cumulative volume forecasts.
446 of 846
Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment
April 2022
4 Due to COVID-19, historic 2019 counts were used in lieu of in-person vehicle counts.

Based on recent changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines with the implementation of SB 743 and guidance from the OPR, VMT is recommended as the appropriate measure of transportation impacts under CEQA. LOS and other similar vehicle delay or capacity metrics can no longer serve as transportation impact metrics for CEQA analysis. As stated in the City’s TIA Guidelines, the City of San Mateo shifted to using VMT for CEQA impact evaluation but continues to evaluate LOS analysis for land use development projects through the non-CEQA local transportation analysis. 447 of 846
N:\Projects\2021_Projects\SF21-1188_San Mateo Block 21_435 E 3rd Ave\Graphics\GIS\Block21_435E3rdAve_Basemap\Block21_435E3rdAve_Basemap.aprx Figure 1
Project Location
Study Area
FIRE

STATION
24 FIRE

STATION
21 CENTRAL PARK

SAN MATEO SUNNYBRAE

ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
MILLS

PENINSULA

HOSPITAL
ST. MATTHEW'S

EPISCOPAL

DAY SCHOOL

GATEWAY
PARK

SAN MATEO

PUBLIC LIBRARY
South Ellsworth Avenue
South Grant Street
9th Avenue
South B Street
SR 82/El Camino Real
South Humboldt Street
East 3rd Avenue
11th Avenue
South San Mateo Drive
Baldwin Avenue
6th Avenue
8th Avenue
South Idaho Street
Laurel Avenue
North B Street
1st Avenue
East 4th Avenue
Mission Drive
Rosewood Drive
10th Avenue
US 101
South Railroad Avenue
South Delaware Street
North Claremont Street
Cypress Avenue
South Claremont Street
7th Avenue
South Eldorado Street
Tilton Avenue
East 5th Avenue
2nd Avenue
South Fremont Street
San Mateo
Caltrain Station
448 of 846
Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment
April 2022
6 Block 21 Project Description
The project site includes the 65,888 square foot block bounded by East 3rd Avenue, South Claremont Street, East 4th Avenue, and South Delaware Street, known as ‘Block 21’. The project site consists of eleven parcels made up of a variety of uses including, commercial, restaurant, residential and auto-related uses. It has a General Plan Designation of Downtown Retail Core Support and a zoning designation of CBD/SCentral Business District Support. The project site is bounded directly to the north by restaurant uses along East 3rd Avenue, restaurant, retail commercial, and gas station uses along South Delaware Street, restaurant and gas station uses along East 4th Avenue and new mixed-use buildings across South Claremont Street. The San Mateo Caltrain station is located less than one quarter mile to the north of the project site.

The project proposes the construction of a 271,328 square foot, six story mixed use building with two levels of below grade parking and open spaces along the project frontages. The lower four floors would contain office uses and the 4th and 5th level would have a small office component and residential uses, including 111 rental units (53 studio and 58 one bedroom units). The project would include Below Market Units (BMR) in accordance with the City of San Mateo BMR Ordinance (15% Very Low-Income) and is requesting the use of State Density Bonus concessions and waivers as described in the State Density Bonus letter submitted with the project.

The primary pedestrian entries to the building would be provided on East 3rd Avenue near the corner of South Claremont Street and on the corner of East 4th Avenue and South Delaware Street. These entries would include larger lobbies and the entrance on East 3rd Avenue would be oriented toward downtown to draw pedestrians specifically coming to and from the core of downtown and the train station to the north. The garage entrance would be provided through a 22-foot curb cut on South Claremont Street, in the middle of the block.

The two-story, below grade parking garage would contain 407 on-site parking spaces, including 11 ADA spaces and 27 electric vehicle spaces. The residential uses will be parked at a ratio of 0.5 spaces per bedroom in accordance with State Density Bonus law for a total of 56 spaces. The office parking proposes to incorporate tandem parking spaces and an increase in compact spaces as outlined in the State Density Bonus letter in order to provide all required parking on-site. In accordance with the City’s parking code, a project-specific parking study was conducted.
1 Based on trip generation and parking demand, the office parking requirement shall be calculated on a rate of 2.06 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft for a total of 375 spaces.

Per the latest application plans submitted April 18, 2022, parking for the proposed office uses is provided at a ratio of 1.94 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft for a total of 354 spaces, including 61 tandem spaces. The project would pay in-lieu fees for the 21 office spaces not provided on site per City of San Mateo Municipal Code Section 27.64.100(3)(A). 129 long-term bicycle parking spaces will be provided on the first floor of the 1 San Mateo Block 21 and 435 E. 3rd Avenue Parking Requirements, Fehr & Peers, April 2022. 449 of 846
7 Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment
April 2022
residential lobby. Eleven short term bicycle racks with the capacity for 22 spaces will be located near the main entrance on East 3rd Avenue.

The project proposes to make the garage parking spaces allocated to the office uses available for public use during the evenings and weekends. The parking could function similarly to public garages in downtown and other buildings in downtown that offer private parking for public use.

The project will also include a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that would result in a substantial decrease in the number of trips generated and parking demand compared to typical projects of this use and size, similar to the TDM Plans prepared for the 405 East 4th Avenue2 and 406 East 3rd Avenue projects.
3 Measures would include ride matching services, bike sharing, Caltrain Go Passes, etc. The project also includes unbundled parking for the proposed residential uses.

The project proposes to widen sidewalks, create pedestrian bulb outs, and provide street furnishings and street trees along the project frontages to meet City of San Mateo standards and promote connectivity and pedestrian safety in the project area.
2 405 E. 4th Avenue Draft Transportation Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., January 24, 2017. 3 406 E. Third Avenue Office & Residential Mixed-Use Development, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., May 21 2019, p 34.
450 of 846
Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment
April 2022
8 Existing Transportation Conditions
The existing transportation conditions surrounding the project site relating to the following topics are presented below: roadway network, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, transit service, vehicle volumes and lane configurations, intersection level of service, and parking conditions.

Existing Roadway Network
As shown in Figure 1, the project site is bound by East 3rd Avenue, South Claremont Street, South Delaware Street, and East 4th Avenue. El Camino Real/State Route 82 and US 101 are the two nearest regional access routes, both providing access to State Route 92.

East 3rd Avenue is a two-way east-west street with two westbound travel lanes, one eastbound travel lane, and parking and sidewalks on each side of the street adjacent to the project site. East of South Delaware Street, East 3rd Avenue becomes a one-way street westbound, part of a one-way couplet with East 4th Avenue. The roadway is approximately 50 feet wide, and each sidewalk is approximately seven and a half feet wide. East 3rd Avenue provides direct access from US 101 northbound and southbound on/off ramps as well as connection to El Camino Real. The intersections of East 3rd Avenue with South Claremont Street and South Delaware Street at either corner of the project site are signalized.

East 4th Avenue is a two-way east-west street with two eastbound travel lanes, one westbound travel lane, and parking and sidewalks on each side of the street. East of South Delaware Street, East 4th Avenue becomes a one-way street eastbound, part of a one-way couplet with East 3rd Avenue. The roadway is approximately 45 feet wide with approximately 12-foot sidewalks on both sides of the road. Coupled with East 3rd Avenue, East 4th Avenue provides direct access to US 101 and El Camino Real and intersects with South Claremont Street and South Delaware Street by the project site at signalized intersections.

South Claremont Street is a two-way north-south street with one travel lane in each direction and onstreet parking and sidewalks on each side of the street. The roadway adjacent to the proposed project site is approximately 42 feet wide. The sidewalk fronting the project site is approximately 10 feet wide and the sidewalk on the western side of South Claremont Street is approximately eight feet wide. The intersections of South Claremont Street with East 3rd Avenue and East 4th Avenue are signalized.

South Delaware Street is a two-way north-south street with two travel lanes in each direction with a shared center left-turn lane and sidewalks on each side. There is no street parking between East 3rd Avenue and East 4th Avenue fronting the project site. A few blocks north and south of the project site, Delaware Street becomes a two lane road with parking on both sides. The roadway adjacent to the project site is approximately 58 feet wide and each sidewalk is approximately six feet wide. 451 of 846
Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment
April 2022
9 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks are provided on all approaches to the project site on East 3rd Avenue, South Claremont Street, South Delaware Street, and East 4th Avenue. The sidewalks in the vicinity of the project site are approximately six to 12 feet wide and do not currently meet the City of San Mateo’s design guidelines for mixed use developments. According to the 2012 San Mateo Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan, 4 the
minimum sidewalk widths for mixed use developments are 16 feet wide with a recommendation of 20 feet wide for blocks with no street parking and no setbacks and 26 feet wide where there are amenities in the frontage zone. The minimum through zone width (walking space that excludes amenities such as street trees and street furniture), is 8 feet wide. The sidewalk along South Delaware narrows considerably to approximately three feet where there are street trees, which does not meet the City of San Mateo’s ADA requirements, which is 4 feet. The sidewalks are generally in good condition with single curb ramps at all intersections. There are bulbouts at three of the four intersections within the project vicinity except at East 3rd Avenue and South Delaware Street. All four intersections are signalized and have marked crosswalks and pedestrian push buttons. There are leading pedestrian intervals at all signalized study intersections adjacent to the project site. All crosswalks are high-visibility, except at East 3rd Avenue and South Delaware Street where there is standard crosswalk striping. Pedestrian-scale lighting is present along East 3rd Avenue and East 4th Avenue but not along South Claremont Street or South Delaware Street.

Community outreach feedback conducted as part of the ongoing San Mateo Transit-Oriented Pedestrian Improvement Plan has indicated the need for improved pedestrian crossings at project study intersections along South Delaware Street at East 3rd and East 4th avenues, citing unsafe crossings. There have been five pedestrian/vehicle collisions reported at the following study locations in the last 4 years as a result of vehicles colliding with pedestrians while crossing at the crosswalk, resulting in minor injuries: South Claremont and East 3rd Avenue (two collisions), South Delaware Street and East 4th Avenue, and South Claremont Street and 2nd Avenue. A fatal collision occurred at night midblock on East 3rd Avenue between South Delaware Street and El Dorado Street. As such, pedestrians may feel unsafe walking to and from the project site.

Existing Bicycle Facilities
Bikeway planning and design in California typically relies on guidelines and design standards established by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000:

Bikeway Planning and Design). The Caltrans guidelines cover four primary types of bikeway facilities: Class I, Class II, Class III, and Class IV. These facility types are described below. • Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) provides a completely separate right-of-way, is designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and minimizes vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow. In general, bike paths serve corridors that are not served by existing streets and highways, or where sufficient right-of-way exists for such facilities to be constructed. 4 San Mateo Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan, City of San Mateo & Alta Planning + Design, 2012, p. A-12-A13. 452 of 846
Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment
April 2022
10 • Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes) are lanes for bicyclists generally adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. These lanes have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bicycle lanes are generally five feet wide. Adjacent vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted.

Note that when grade separation or buffers are constructed between the bicycle and vehicle lanes, these facilities are classified as Class IV Separate Bikeways. • Class III Bikeway (Bicycle Routes/Bicycle Boulevards) are designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles but have no separated bicycle rightof-way or lane striping. Bicycle routes serve either to a) provide continuity to other bicycle facilities, or b) designate preferred routes through high demand corridors. Bicycle routes are implemented on low-speed (less than 25 mph) and low-volume (less than 3,000 vehicles/day) streets. The San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan also designates a special subset of Bicycle Routes which include traffic calming treatments as Bicycle Boulevards. 453 of 846
Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment
April 2022
11 • Class IV Bikeway, also known as “cycle tracks” or “protected bike lanes,” provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel within a roadway and which are protected from other vehicle traffic with devices, including, but not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or parked cars.

Existing bicycle facilities near the project site include Class III bike routes along South Claremont Street, South Delaware Street, 5th Avenue, and B Street. South Delaware Street turns into a Class II bicycle lane south of East 4th Avenue.

However, these bicycle facilities along South Delaware and 5th Avenue would be ranked as a having a high “Level of Traffic Stress” (LTS).5 LTS measures bicycling comfort based on roadway characteristics. Low stress bikeways are comfortable for everyone to ride on, including people who would be categorized as “interested but concerned.” In contrast, high stress bikeways are only tolerated by a few: primarily those who could be described as “strong and fearless” – those comfortable riding under any conditions (about 7% of the population). Class II and Class III bicycle facilities on roadways with multiple lanes of vehicle 5 The LTS Methodology was developed by Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon in Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity (2012).
454 of 846
Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment
April 2022
12 traffic and speed limits above 25 miles per hour would be categorized as high stress bikeways. The bicycle facilities adjacent to the project site along South Delaware Street would be categorized as high stress (as shown on Figure 3.7 of the 2020 San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan).6 As such, it would be unlikely that any but the most confident and fearless bicyclists would feel comfortable bicycling to the project site along South Delaware Street and may opt to use South Claremont Street.

The City of San Mateo, through the 2020 Bicycle Master Plan, has proposed a few nearby Class IV separated bike lanes on E 3rd Avenue and South Delaware Street between East 3rd Avenue and East 4th Avenue. South Claremont Street is proposed as a Class III bicycle boulevard. All of these proposed bicycle facilities are considered high priority as shown on Figure 6.1 of the 2020 San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan.7 Existing and proposed bicycle facilities are shown on Figure 2. 6 San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan, City of San Mateo & Toole Design, 2020, p 28. 7 San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan, City of San Mateo & Toole Design, 2020, p 60. 455 of 846
N:\Projects\2021_Projects\SF21-1188_San Mateo Block 21_435 E 3rd Ave\Graphics\GIS\Block21_435E3rdAve_Basemap\Block21_435E3rdAve_Basemap.aprx Figure 2
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilites
Bike Route
Bike Boulevard
Existing Proposed
Bike Lane
Shared Use Path Shared Use Path
Buffered Bike Lane Seperated Bike Lane
Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Route
Study Area
FIRE

STATION
24 FIRE

STATION
21 CENTRAL PARK

SAN MATEO SUNNYBRAE

ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
MILLS

PENINSULA

HOSPITAL
ST. MATTHEW'S

EPISCOPAL

DAY SCHOOL

GATEWAY
PARK

SAN MATEO

PUBLIC LIBRARY
South Ellsworth Avenue
South Grant Street
9th Avenue
South B Street
SR 82/El Camino Real
South Humboldt Street
East 3rd Avenue
11th Avenue
South San Mateo Drive
Baldwin Avenue
6th Avenue
8th Avenue
South Idaho Street
Laurel Avenue
North B Street
1st Avenue
East 4th Avenue
Mission Drive
Rosewood Drive
10th Avenue
US 101
South Railroad Avenue
South Delaware Street
North Claremont Street
Cypress Avenue
South Claremont Street
7th Avenue
South Eldorado Street
Tilton Avenue
East 5th Avenue
2nd Avenue
South Fremont Street
San Mateo
Caltrain Station
456 of 846
Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment
April 2022
14 Existing Transit Service
Table 1 and Figure 3 present the existing transit service providers and routes that provide service near the project site. SamTrans is the primary regional and local transit provider within San Mateo County, serving all rail stations within the County and major transit transfer points for Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Francisco counties. Many service operators are running reduced schedules due to COVID-19. The schedule information below reflects pre-COVID-19 timetables, which we anticipate will resume once emergency health orders are lifted.

Table 1: Existing Transit Service
Route
Weekday
Headway
(minutes)
Weekend
Headway
(minutes)
Hours of
Operation
Closest Stop(s) to
project site
Key Destinations Served by
Route
SamTrans 53 - -
School Drop
Off/Pick Up
Hours Only
Delaware Street and
3rd Street
Peninsula/Humboldt, Borel
Middle School
SamTrans 55 - -
School Drop
Off/Pick Up
Hours Only
El Camino Real and
4th Avenue
Clark/El Camino, Borel
Middle School
SamTrans 59 - -
School Drop
Off/Pick Up
Hours Only
Delaware Street and
4th Avenue
Hillsdale/Norfolk, Aragon
High School
SamTrans 250 60 60 All Day
Delaware Street and
4th Avenue,
Claremont Street and
2 nd Avenue
San Mateo and Hillsdale
Caltrain Station, College of
San Mateo
SamTrans 292 30 60 All Day Delaware Street and
3rd Street
Downtown San Francisco,
SFO, all Caltrain stations in
the city of San Mateo,
Hillsdale Mall
SamTrans 295 120 - Weekday only Delaware Street and
2 nd Avenue
San Mateo and Hillsdale
Caltrain Stations; Redwood
City Transit Center
SamTrans 397 60 60 Early AM hours El Camino Real and
4th Avenue
Palo Alto Transit Center,
Downtown San Francisco,
San Francisco Airport, all
Caltrain stations in San
Mateo
SamTrans ECR 15-20 30 All day El Camino Real and
4th Avenue
Multiple BART stations, all
Caltrain stations in the city of
San Mateo, Palo Alto Transit
Center
Caltrain 30-60 90 All day San Mateo Station San Francisco, San Jose 457 of 846
Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment
April 2022
15 The nearest Caltrain rail station is the San Mateo Station located three blocks north of the project site. It provides local, limited, and Baby Bullet service. People walking between the project site and the Caltrain station would primarily use South Claremont Street to reach the 1st Avenue station entrance. Sidewalks and crosswalks are provided along this walking route but there is a lack of west side street trees and pedestrian scale lighting along South Claremont Street between 1st and 2nd Avenue. Street trees are also lacking on South Claremont Street between 2nd and East 3rd Avenue. Sidewalks along this path are generally in good condition and range between seven and 12 feet wide. There are no truncated domes along the ADA curb ramps at the intersection of South Claremont Street and 1st Avenue. Five regular SamTrans routes provide access to all major Caltrain Stations, BART, downtown San Francisco, and other major attractions in the City of San Mateo. There are no bus shelters or seating amenities provided at any of the nearby bus stops except one unsheltered bench at the South Claremont and East 2nd Avenue stop.

Sidewalks along these bus stops are narrow and do not provide adequate waiting space. The stops at South Delaware Street and East 2nd Avenue and South Delaware and East 3rd Avenue also lack pedestrianscaled lighting. 458 of 846
N:\Projects\2021_Projects\SF21-1188_San Mateo Block 21_435 E 3rd Ave\Graphics\GIS\Block21_435E3rdAve_Basemap\Block21_435E3rdAve_Basemap.aprx Figure 3
Existing Transit Routes
Route 53
Route 59
Route 250
Route ECR
SamTrans Station
Caltrain
Caltrain Station
Route 292
Route 55
Route 295
Route 397
Study Area
FIRE

STATION
24 FIRE

STATION
21 CENTRAL PARK

SAN MATEO SUNNYBRAE

ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
MILLS

PENINSULA

HOSPITAL
ST. MATTHEW'S

EPISCOPAL

DAY SCHOOL

GATEWAY
PARK

SAN MATEO

Existing Intersection Level of Service
Five locations were identified as study intersections within the project vicinity:

1. East 3rd Avenue and South Delaware Street (signalized)

2. East 3rd Avenue and South Claremont Street (signalized)

3. East 4th Avenue and South Claremont Street (signalized)

4. East 4th Avenue and South Delaware Street (signalized)

5. East 5th Avenue and South Claremont Street (all-way stop-controlled) Four of the five intersections are signalized except East 5th Avenue and South Claremont Street, which is all-way stop controlled. The San Mateo General Plan, through the TIA Guidelines, requires the City to maintain a Level of Service no worse than mid LOS D, average delay of 45.0 seconds, as the acceptable Level of Service for all signalized intersections within the City. Adverse traffic operations are to be noted if a signalized intersection operating at acceptable LOS is triggered to operate at unacceptable levels of service (from mid LOS D or better to E or F) or increases in the average delay for a signalized intersection that is already operating at unacceptable LOS by 4.0 seconds or more.

For unsignalized intersections, the guidelines require the City to maintain a Level of Service no worse than LOS E for unsignalized intersections. Adverse traffic operations are to be noted if an unsignalized intersection operating at acceptable LOS is triggered to operate at unacceptable levels of service (from E or better to F) or increases the average delay for an unsignalized intersection that is already operating at unacceptable LOS by 4 or more seconds.

In order to evaluate these policies, the City uses the metric Level of Service (“LOS”), which is a qualitative description of driver comfort and convenience. Typical factors that affect motorized vehicle LOS include speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, and freedom to maneuver. Typical LOS criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections are defined in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. 460 of 846
28 (50)
268 (320)
0 (0
30 (40) )
0 (0)20 (30) 529 (495)
89 (92)
474 (459)
264 (242)

1. South Delaware Street/East 3rd Avenue
8 (16)
69 (119)
15 (55)
3 (9)
77 (150)
10 (38) 21 (30) 105 (124)
36 (26)
33 (35)
473 (479)
16 (25)

2. South Claremont Street/East 3rd Avenue
2 (10)
78 (150)
70 (61)
7 (21)
438 (591)
15 (36) 3 (20) 95 (111)
33 (56)
7 (19)
68 (96)
12 (6)

3. South Claremont Street/East 4th Avenue
15 (30)
273 (334)122 (140)
23 (36)
492 (650)
26 (22) 72 (91) 555 (474)
264 (363)

4. South Delaware Street/East 4th Avenue
27 (13)
74 (148)
32 (27)
64 (53)
192 (318)
39 (23) 15 (21) 101 (103)
6 (29)
12 (20)
275 (245)
83 (30)

1. South Delaware Street/East 3rd Avenue
8 (26)
69 (119)
16 (56)
3 (10)
77 (149)
10 (47) 21 (30) 105 (124)
36 (26)
33 (35)
473 (434)
16 (58)

2. South Claremont Street/East 3rd Avenue
2 (10)
88 (148)
85 (96)
11 (22)
438 (557)
15 (36)
3 (21)95 (154)33 (62)
7 (19)
68 (94)
12 (6)

3. South Claremont Street/East 4th Avenue
15 (30)
273 (343)122 (153)
23 (35)
492 (693)
26 (24) 72 (89) 555 (507)
264 (363)

4. South Delaware Street/East 4th Avenue
27 (13)
74 (146)
32 (27)
64 (88)
192 (396)
39 (23) 15 (21) 135 (181)
22 (64)
12 (20)
343 (288)
83 (30)

STOP ACE
EC AB
E
D
D
D
B
E
B
D
E
D
D
B
ACE
E
ECA
D
D
D
D
Opening Year Vehicle Volumes
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Controls Figure 6
30 (39)
0 (0)
B
F
98 (199)
TO
P
Opening Year Plus Project Vehicle Volumes
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Controls Figure 8
40 (50)
271 (328)
0 (0)
23 (27)536 (500)
89 (92)
608 (437)
291 (260)

1. South Delaware Street/East 3rd Avenue
11 (45)
69 (120)
16 (58)
3 (10)
78 (149)
55 (35) 21 (30)
108 (122)
36 (26)
33 (35)
448 (434)
162 (35)

2. South Claremont Street/East 3rd Avenue
East 3rd Avenue
South Delaware Street
East 3rd Avenue East 3rd Avenue
South Claremont Street
ACE
EC A
B
E
D
D
D
B
E
2 (10)
107 (141)
85 (96)
28 (21)
430 (557)
15 (36) 2 (32) 132 (164)
37 (99)
13 (18)
60 (94)
12 (6)

3. South Claremont Street/East 4th Avenue
East 4th Avenue
South Claremont Street
B
D
E
D
D
21 (29)
289 (343)
126 (153)
23 (35)
520 (730)
26 (25) 64 (89) 601 (507)
264 (363)

4. South Delaware Street/East 4th Avenue
East 4th Avenue
South Delaware Street
B
ACE
E
ECA
27 (13)
85 (145)
32 (27)
95 (82)
226 (396)
39 (23) 48 (51) 102 (108)
5 (24)
14 (19)
343 (288)
83 (30)

5. South Claremont Street/East 5th Avenue
East 5th Avenue
South Claremont Street
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
D
D
D
D
31 (41)
0 (0)
B
F
102 (199)
50 (60)
322 (384)
0 (0)
24 (36)635 (595)
107 (110)
737 (643)
317 (290)

1. South Delaware Street/East 3rd Avenue
11 (26)
88 (143)
19 (66)
4 (11)
99 (180)
12 (47) 25 (36) 133 (149)
43 (31)
40 (42)
672 (639)
99 (58)

2. South Claremont Street/East 3rd Avenue
2 (12)
97 (187)
85 (96)
8 (25)
613 (827)
18 (43) 14 (24) 201 (163)
40 (67)
13 (23)
82 (115)
14 (7)

3. South Claremont Street/East 4th Avenue
22 (36)
333 (401)146 (168)
39 (43)
668 (921)
31 (26) 87 (109) 666 (569)
317 (436)

4. South Delaware Street/East 4th Avenue
32 (16)
90 (183)
38 (32)
80 (88)
230 (396)
47 (28) 53 (42) 168 (136)
12 (35)
14 (24)
343 (294)
100 (36)

STOP ACE
EC AB
E
D
D
D
B
E
B
D
E
D
D
B
ACE
E
ECA
D
D
D
D
Cumulative Vehicle Volumes
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Controls Figure 9
36 (48)
0 (0)
B
F
118 (229)
STOP
50 (60)
322 (384)
0 (0)
26 (35)635 (595)
107 (110)
799 (620)
317 (290)

1. South Delaware Street/East 3rd Avenue
11 (45)
88 (144)
19 (68)
4 (11)
99 (180)
55 (35) 25 (36) 135 (148)
43 (31)
40 (42)
672 (639)
163 (35)

2. South Claremont Street/East 3rd Avenue
2 (12)
116 (180)
85 (96)
25 (19)
613 (827)
18 (43) 14 (35) 201(173)
40 (104)
15 (22)
82 (115)
14 (7)

3. South Claremont Street/East 4th Avenue
24 (35)
333 (401)146 (168)
39 (43)
668 (958)
31 (27) 87 (109) 666 (569)
317 (436)

4. South Delaware Street/East 4th Avenue
32 (16)
92 (182)
38 (32)
95 (82)
230 (396)
47 (28) 53 (51) 168 (137)
12 (36)
16 (23)
343 (294)
100 (36)

STOP ACE
EC AB
E
D
D
D
B E
B
D
E
D
D
B
ACE
E
ECA
D
D
D
D
Cumulative Plus Project Vehicle Volumes
Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Controls Figure 10
36 (50)
0 (0)
B
F
118 (229) 0 (0)
0 (0)0 (0
0 (2) )
0 (0)
2 (-1)0 (0)
0 (0)
62 (-23)
0 (0)

1. South Delaware Street/East 3rd Avenue
0 (19)
0 (1)0 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
32 (-12)
0 (0)2 (-1)0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
64 (-23)

2. South Claremont Street/East 3rd Avenue
0 (0)
19 (-7)
0 (0)
17 (-6)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (11)0 (10)0 (37)
2 (-1)
0 (0)
0 (0)

3. South Claremont Street/East 4th Avenue
2 (-1)0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (37)
0 (1)
0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)

4. South Delaware Street/East 4th Avenue
0 (0)2 (-1)0 (0)
15 (-6)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (9)0 (1)0 (1)
2 (-1)
0 (0)
0 (0)

Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35 and ≤ 55
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
> 55 and ≤ 80
F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2016. Highway Capacity Manual 6 th Edition
Table 3: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Description LOS
Average Control Delay (seconds
per vehicle)
Unsignalized Intersections
Represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by others in the traffic stream. A ≤ 10
Stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. B > 10 to 15
Stable flow, but the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream.

C > 15 to 25
Represents high-density, but stable flow. D > 25 to 35
Represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. E > 35 to 50 Represents forced or breakdown flow. F > 50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science, 2017.

Table 4 below presents existing LOS and intersection delay in seconds for each study intersection. The study intersections perform acceptably under existing conditions in both the AM and PM peak periods.

See Appendix A for detailed LOS results.
462 of 846
Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment
April 2022
20 Table 4: Existing LOS and Delay Results
Intersection LOS Threshold Peak Hour
Existing
Delay LOS

1. East 3rd Avenue and South Delaware Street D
AM 24 C
PM 23 C

2. East 3rd Avenue and South Claremont Street D
AM 12 B
PM 13 B

3. East 4th Avenue and South Claremont Street D
AM 13 B
PM 15 B

4. East 4th Avenue and South Delaware Street D
AM 27 C
PM 29 C

5. East 5th Avenue and South Claremont Street E
AM 15 B
PM 14 B
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Existing Parking Conditions
There is on-street parking on three of the roadway segments adjacent to the project site, along East 3rd Avenue, South Claremont Street, and East 4th Avenue. There is no on-street parking on South Delaware Street. Parking is metered along East 3rd Avenue and South Claremont Street. Parking along East 3rd Avenue is limited to three hours, 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM everyday with street cleaning on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays between 4:00 AM and 6:00 AM. Parking on South Claremont Street is limited to three hours 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Saturday with street cleaning every first and third Wednesday 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Parking on East 4th Avenue is limited to two-hour parking 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM everyday with street cleaning on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays between 4:00 AM and 6:00 AM. There is a public parking lot on East 4th Avenue and S. Railroad Avenue with a three-hour limit one block from the project site. Public parking is also available at the Main Street Garage three blocks away, as well as at the Downtown San Mateo Caltrain Station parking garage, located four blocks away. 463 of 846
Block 21 Transportation Impact Assessment
April 2022
21 Opening Year Conditions
The Opening Year reflects the anticipated transportation conditions at the time of the occupancy of the proposed project. Opening Year Conditions include traffic volumes added by nearby developments that have been approved but not yet completed or occupied near the project site. The approved project list includes:
• 405 East 4th Avenue Office and Residential Mixed-Use Development • 406 East 3rd Avenue Office and Residential Mixed-Use Development • 303 Baldwin Avenue Office and Commercial Mixed-Use Development • 480 East 4th Avenue (Kiku Crossing) Residential Development Figure 5 shows the location of these projects relative to the project site.

These projects propose new circulation improvements, including:
• A new bulbout at the northeast corner of Railroad Avenue and 4th Avenue • A new bulbout at the southeast corner of Railroad Avenue and 3rd Avenue • New bulbouts at the northeast corner of Ellsworth Avenue and Baldwin Avenue and the northwest corner of B Street and Baldwin Avenue
• Wider sidewalks with landscaping zone along sections of B street and Baldwin Avenue fronting the 303 Baldwin Avenue project site
• Wider sidewalks with landscaping zone along the residential frontage of Kiku Crossing • Additional eastbound lane at the East 5th Avenue and South Claremont Street intersection Vehicle volumes were extrapolated from the TIAs provided by the City of San Mateo for the nearby development projects listed above. Opening Year traffic volumes that include the estimated traffic generated by these development projects are shown in Figure 6. 464 of 846
Caltrain
Caltrain Station Study Area
Background Projects
Driveways
FIRE

STATION
21 PENINSULA

HOSPITAL

GATEWAY
PARK
South Ellsworth Avenue
South B Street
R 82/El Camino Real
uth Humboldt Street
East 3rd Avenue
South San Mateo Drive
Baldwin Avenue
North B Street
1st Avenue
East 4th Avenue
South Railroad Avenue
South Delaware Street
Cypress Avenue
South Claremont Street
South Eldorado Stree
East 5th Avenue
2nd Avenue
South Fremont Street
San Mateo
Caltrain Station
Block 21
Kiku
Crossing
405 E.
4th Ave
Kiku
Crossing
Garage
406 E.
3rd Ave
303
Baldwin
Ave
Figure 5
Background Project Sites
N:\Projects\2021_Projects\SF21-1188_San Mateo Block 21_435 E 3rd Ave\Graphics\GIS\Block21_435E3rdAve_Basemap\Block21_435E3rdAve_Basemap.aprx 465 of 846
28 (50)
268 (320)
0 (0)
30 (40)
0 (0)20 (30) 529 (495)
89 (92)
474 (459)
264 (242)

1. South Delaware Street/East 3rd Avenue
8 (16)
69 (119)
15 (55)
3 (9)
77 (150)
10 (38) 21 (30) 105 (124)
36 (26)
33 (35)
473 (479)
16 (25)

2. South Claremont Street/East 3rd Avenue
2 (10)
78 (150)
70 (61)
7 (21)
438 (591)
15 (36) 3 (20) 95 (111)
33 (56)
7 (19)
68 (96)
12 (6)

3. South Claremont Street/East 4th Avenue
15 (30)
273 (334)122 (140)
23 (36)
492 (650)
26 (22) 72 (91) 555 (474)
264 (363)

4. South Delaware Street/East 4th Avenue
27 (13)
74 (148)
32 (27)
64 (53)
192 (318)
39 (23) 15 (21) 101 (103)
6 (29)
12 (20)
275 (245)
83 (30)

1. South Delaware Street/East 3rd Avenue
11 (26)
69 (119)
16 (56)
3 (10)
78 (149)
23 (47) 21 (30) 106 (124)
36 (26)
33 (35)
448 (434)
98 (58)

2. South Claremont Street/East 3rd Avenue
2 (10)
88 (148)
85 (96)
7 (22)
430 (557)
15 (36)
2 (21)132 (154)37 (62)
11 (19)
60 (94)
12 (6)

3. South Claremont Street/East 4th Avenue
19 (30)
289 (343)126 (153)
23 (35)
520 (693)
26 (24) 64 (89) 601 (507)
264 (363)

4. South Delaware Street/East 4th Avenue
27 (13)
83 (146)
32 (27)
80 (88)
226 (396)
39 (23) 48 (42)
102 (107)5 (23)
12 (20)
343 (288)
83 (30)

1. South Delaware Street/East 3rd Avenue
11 (45)
69 (120)
16 (58)
3 (10)
78 (149)
55 (35) 21 (30) 108 (122)
36 (26)
33 (35)
448 (434)
162 (35)

2. South Claremont Street/East 3rd Avenue
East 3rd Avenue
South Delaware Street
East 3rd Avenue East 3rd Avenue South Claremont Street
ACE
CE
ABE
D
D
D
BE
2 (10)
107 (141)
85 (96)
28 (21)
430 (557)
15 (36) 2 (32) 132 (164)
37 (99)
13 (18)
60 (94)
12 (6)

3. South Claremont Street/East 4th Avenue
East 4th Avenue
South Claremont Street
BE
D
D
D
21 (29)
289 (343)
126 (153)
23 (35)
520 (730)
26 (25) 64 (89) 601 (507)
264 (363)

4. South Delaware Street/East 4th Avenue
East 4th Avenue
South Delaware Street
BE
ACE
ACE
27 (13)
85 (145)
32 (27)
95 (82)
226 (396)
39 (23) 48 (51) 102 (108)
5 (24)
14 (19)
343 (288)
83 (30)