Agenda packet — San Mateo City Council, December 1, 2022 (part 6 of 6)

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.1
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 82 54 256 53 22 250
Future Vol, veh/h 82 54 256 53 22 250
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 89 59 278 58 24 272
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 627 307 0 0 336 0
Stage 1 307 - - - - -
Stage 2 320 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 432 727 - - 1223 -
Stage 1 733 - - - - -
Stage 2 723 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 422 727 - - 1223 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 422 - - - - -
Stage 1 733 - - - - -
Stage 2 706 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 15 0 0.6

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 506 1223 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.292 0.02 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15 8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.2 0.1 -
1052 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 14 102 0 0 0 17 573 3 0 220 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 14 102 0 0 0 17 573 3 0 220 33 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 1945 1945 1939 1939 1939 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 15 111 0 0 0 18 623 3 0 239 36
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 176 43 156 0 340 0 80 1237 6 0 1072 161
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.00 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 474 236 856 0 1870 0 20 1901 9 0 1646 248 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 203 0 0 0 0 0 644 0 0 0 0 275
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1565 0 0 0 1870 0 1930 0 0 0 0 1894 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.38 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.13
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 375 0 0 0 340 0 1323 0 0 0 0 1233 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 776 0 0 0 830 0 1323 0 0 0 0 1233 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 203 0 644 275
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.5 0.0 6.3 0.4
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.6 40.4 14.6 40.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.4 21.4 24.4 21.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 2.0 0.0 11.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 1.0 0.0 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.6
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 1053 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 13 0 411 351 0
Future Vol, veh/h 4 13 0 411 351 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 4 14 0 447 382 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 829 382 382 0 - 0
Stage 1 382 - - - - -
Stage 2 447 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.3 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 328 663 1188 - - -
Stage 1 680 - - - - -
Stage 2 633 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 328 663 1188 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 328 - - - - -
Stage 1 680 - - - - -
Stage 2 633 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 12 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1188 - 535 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.035 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 12 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
1054 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 6 ends

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 21 238 41 58 314 92 22 324 88 35 322 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 21 238 41 58 314 92 22 324 88 35 322 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1856 1707 1900 1870 1841 1884 1976 1945 1899 1961 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 23 259 45 63 341 100 24 352 96 38 350 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 3 13 0 2 4 6 0 2 5 1 0
Cap, veh/h 99 844 139 149 713 195 83 434 114 101 503 27 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 51 1469 243 131 1242 340 46 1457 384 99 1686 92 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 327 0 0 504 0 0 472 0 0 408 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1762 0 0 1712 0 0 1887 0 0 1877 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.07 0.14 0.12 0.20 0.05 0.20 0.09 0.05
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1082 0 0 1057 0 0 632 0 0 631 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1082 0 0 1057 0 0 934 0 0 926 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.19 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 18.7 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 327 504 472 408
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.1 8.4 18.7 17.6
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.1 19.9 35.1 19.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 25.5 22.5 25.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 12.5 11.1 14.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.9
HCM 6th LOS B
1055 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 8 ends

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 122 262 120 27 244 90 43 585 42 14 139 14 Future Volume (veh/h) 122 262 120 27 244 90 43 585 42 14 139 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1870 1900 1885 1796 1899 1930 1899 1976 1930 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 133 285 130 29 265 98 47 636 46 15 151 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 2 0 1 7 5 3 5 0 3 0
Cap, veh/h 198 338 141 96 500 175 101 770 54 98 735 69
Arrive On Green 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.46 0.46 0.46 Sat Flow, veh/h 297 859 359 64 1269 444 69 1684 118 59 1608 151 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 548 0 0 392 0 0 729 0 0 181 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1515 0 0 1778 0 0 1872 0 0 1817 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.7 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 678 0 0 770 0 0 925 0 0 902 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 737 0 0 839 0 0 925 0 0 902 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 548 392 729 181
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.0 4.2 7.4 9.5
Approach LOS C A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.8 29.2 25.8 29.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.9 22.9 23.9 22.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.7 5.1 6.5 9.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.6 1.7 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.0
HCM 6th LOS B
1056 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 63 28 278 95 47 177
Future Vol, veh/h 63 28 278 95 47 177
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 68 30 302 103 51 192
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 648 354 0 0 405 0
Stage 1 354 - - - - -
Stage 2 294 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 420 683 - - 1154 -
Stage 1 697 - - - - -
Stage 2 744 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 399 683 - - 1154 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 399 - - - - -
Stage 1 697 - - - - -
Stage 2 708 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 15 0 1.7

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 458 1154 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.216 0.044 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.8 0.1 -
1057 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 134 39 102 0 0 0 11 714 10 0 273 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 134 39 102 0 0 0 11 714 10 0 273 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 1945 1945 1939 1939 1939 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 146 42 111 0 0 0 12 776 11 0 297 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 242 64 132 0 431 0 62 1191 17 0 1003 182
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.00 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 693 279 574 0 1870 0 9 1897 27 0 1597 290 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 299 0 0 0 0 0 799 0 0 0 0 351
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1546 0 0 0 1870 0 1933 0 0 0 0 1887 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.49 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.15
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 438 0 0 0 431 0 1270 0 0 0 0 1185 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 707 0 0 0 760 0 1270 0 0 0 0 1185 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A B A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 299 0 799 351
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.5 0.0 10.0 0.6
Approach LOS C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.6 45.4 19.6 45.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.4 29.4 26.4 29.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.0 2.0 0.0 18.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 1.4 0.0 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.7
HCM 6th LOS B
1058 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 38 0 421 350 0
Future Vol, veh/h 10 38 0 421 350 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 11 41 0 458 380 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 838 380 380 0 - 0
Stage 1 380 - - - - -
Stage 2 458 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.31 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.309 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 324 662 1190 - - -
Stage 1 681 - - - - -
Stage 2 625 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 324 662 1190 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 324 - - - - -
Stage 1 681 - - - - -
Stage 2 625 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 12.3 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1190 - 544 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.096 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 12.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - -
1059 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 6 ends

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 216 48 54 255 103 60 435 86 36 304 43 Future Volume (veh/h) 26 216 48 54 255 103 60 435 86 36 304 43 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1900 1976 1961 1945 1976 1976 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 235 52 59 277 112 65 473 93 39 330 47 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 100 717 150 135 580 218 110 548 103 96 580 78 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 78 1406 294 142 1138 427 128 1433 270 94 1515 205 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 315 0 0 448 0 0 631 0 0 416 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1778 0 0 1707 0 0 1831 0 0 1814 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.09 0.17 0.13 0.25 0.10 0.15 0.09 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 967 0 0 933 0 0 762 0 0 755 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 967 0 0 933 0 0 914 0 0 905 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.34 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 23.2 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A B A A C A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 315 448 631 416
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.3 12.2 23.2 16.0
Approach LOS A B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.6 28.4 36.6 28.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.5 30.5 27.5 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 13.1 12.5 22.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.4 1.8 1.9 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.8
HCM 6th LOS B
1060 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 8 ends

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 63 205 162 31 238 92 62 743 78 17 160 37 Future Volume (veh/h) 63 205 162 31 238 92 62 743 78 17 160 37 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1811 1885 1841 1976 1945 1976 1976 1976 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 223 176 34 259 100 67 808 85 18 174 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 6 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 118 273 198 86 378 138 108 911 93 96 801 174 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.62 0.62 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 176 885 642 84 1222 446 87 1612 165 65 1418 309 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 467 0 0 393 0 0 960 0 0 232 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1703 0 0 1753 0 0 1863 0 0 1791 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.7 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.15 0.38 0.09 0.25 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 589 0 0 602 0 0 1112 0 0 1072 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 733 0 0 752 0 0 1112 0 0 1072 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.1 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.9 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.8 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A B A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 467 393 960 232
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.8 11.0 6.6 7.5
Approach LOS C B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.2 40.8 24.2 40.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.9 30.9 25.9 30.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.7 5.9 11.7 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.4 1.0 1.6 5.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.7
HCM 6th LOS B
1061 of 1252
Appendix G 95th
Percentile Queue
Length Synchro
Worksheets
1062 of 1252
Existing AM/PM 95th
Queues
1063 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Existing 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 81 45 228 51 42 243
Future Vol, veh/h 81 45 228 51 42 243
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 88 49 248 55 46 264
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 632 276 0 0 303 0
Stage 1 276 - - - - -
Stage 2 356 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 429 757 - - 1258 -
Stage 1 759 - - - - -
Stage 2 695 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 411 757 - - 1258 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 411 - - - - -
Stage 1 759 - - - - -
Stage 2 665 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 15.1 0 1.2

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 491 1258 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.279 0.036 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.1 8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 0.1 -
1064 of 1252
Queues
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Existing 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 266 75 418 173
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.18 0.35 0.15
Control Delay 22.3 15.2 7.6 5.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 22.3 15.2 7.6 5.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 63 20 56 26
Queue Length 95th (ft) 109 39 135 53
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 212 1008 209
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 703 771 1195 1190
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.10 0.35 0.15
Intersection Summary
1065 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Existing 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 63 36 284 284 10
Future Vol, veh/h 21 63 36 284 284 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 23 68 39 309 309 11
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 702 315 320 0 - 0
Stage 1 315 - - - - -
Stage 2 387 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.3 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 392 724 1251 - - -
Stage 1 732 - - - - -
Stage 2 676 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 377 724 1251 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 377 - - - - -
Stage 1 704 - - - - -
Stage 2 676 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 12.2 0.9 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1251 - 589 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 - 0.155 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 12.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.5 - -
1066 of 1252
Queues
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Existing 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 141 233 349 295
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.23 0.65 0.58
Control Delay 2.2 5.5 22.4 21.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.2 5.5 22.4 21.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 22 95 84
Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 66 140 124
Internal Link Dist (ft) 214 547 208 235
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1028 1033 938 915
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.23 0.37 0.32
Intersection Summary
1067 of 1252
Queues
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Existing 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 243 167 438 111
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.39 0.36 0.09
Control Delay 22.8 10.7 4.0 5.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
Total Delay 22.8 10.7 4.2 5.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 60 22 32 11
Queue Length 95th (ft) 103 38 55 36
Internal Link Dist (ft) 667 214 209 237
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 652 724 1212 1201
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 213 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 0.23 0.44 0.09
Intersection Summary
1068 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Existing 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 61 27 269 90 52 198
Future Vol, veh/h 61 27 269 90 52 198
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 66 29 292 98 57 215
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 670 341 0 0 390 0
Stage 1 341 - - - - -
Stage 2 329 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 407 695 - - 1169 -
Stage 1 707 - - - - -
Stage 2 716 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 385 695 - - 1169 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 385 - - - - -
Stage 1 707 - - - - -
Stage 2 677 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 15.3 0 1.7

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 446 1169 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.214 0.048 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.3 8.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.8 0.2 -
1069 of 1252
Queues
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Existing 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 368 118 578 245
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.39 0.51 0.22
Control Delay 31.8 19.7 12.4 10.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Delay 31.8 19.7 12.4 10.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 121 38 129 54
Queue Length 95th (ft) 184 70 261 91
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 212 1008 209
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 610 408 1127 1117
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 465
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.29 0.51 0.38
Intersection Summary
1070 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Existing 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 32 120 45 318 226 27
Future Vol, veh/h 32 120 45 318 226 27
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 35 130 49 346 246 29
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 705 261 275 0 - 0
Stage 1 261 - - - - -
Stage 2 444 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.31 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.309 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 390 774 1300 - - -
Stage 1 776 - - - - -
Stage 2 635 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 372 774 1300 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 372 - - - - -
Stage 1 740 - - - - -
Stage 2 635 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 12.7 1 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1300 - 631 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 - 0.262 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 12.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1 - -
1071 of 1252
Queues
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Existing 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 184 268 450 302
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.27 0.75 0.50
Control Delay 4.3 7.8 26.9 19.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 4.3 7.8 26.9 19.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 16 38 153 93
Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 98 205 131
Internal Link Dist (ft) 214 547 208 235
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1020 989 918 913
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.27 0.49 0.33
Intersection Summary
1072 of 1252
Queues
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Existing 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 292 218 644 156
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.53 0.51 0.12
Control Delay 30.2 16.9 5.0 5.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Delay 30.2 16.9 5.0 5.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 88 47 58 18
Queue Length 95th (ft) 144 71 100 51
Internal Link Dist (ft) 667 214 209 237
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 610 660 1260 1252
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 51 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.33 0.53 0.12
Intersection Summary
1073 of 1252
Baseline AM/PM 95th
Queues
1074 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background- No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background- No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 81 30 207 51 6 228
Future Vol, veh/h 81 30 207 51 6 228
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 88 33 225 55 7 248
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 515 253 0 0 280 0
Stage 1 253 - - - - -
Stage 2 262 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 505 780 - - 1283 -
Stage 1 778 - - - - -
Stage 2 771 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 502 780 - - 1283 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 502 - - - - -
Stage 1 778 - - - - -
Stage 2 766 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 13.3 0 0.2

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 556 1283 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.217 0.005 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.3 7.8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.8 0 -
1075 of 1252
Queues
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background- No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background- No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group SET NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 395 173
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.30 0.13
Control Delay 15.1 5.3 3.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 15.1 5.3 3.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 21 45 19
Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 92 34
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 1008 209
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 674 1302 1287
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.30 0.13
Intersection Summary
1076 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background- No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background- No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 12 0 330 308 0
Future Vol, veh/h 4 12 0 330 308 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 4 13 0 359 335 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 694 335 335 0 - 0
Stage 1 335 - - - - -
Stage 2 359 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.3 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 396 705 1236 - - -
Stage 1 716 - - - - -
Stage 2 697 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 396 705 1236 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 396 - - - - -
Stage 1 716 - - - - -
Stage 2 697 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 11.3 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1236 - 590 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.029 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
1077 of 1252
Queues
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background- No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background- No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 230 379 312
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.23 0.68 0.58
Control Delay 2.7 5.8 22.7 20.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.7 5.8 22.7 20.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 23 105 87
Queue Length 95th (ft) 18 67 150 126
Internal Link Dist (ft) 214 547 208 235
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1008 1013 943 916
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.23 0.40 0.34
Intersection Summary
1078 of 1252
Queues
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background- No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background- No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 240 166 433 108
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.40 0.36 0.09
Control Delay 22.6 10.8 4.3 5.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
Total Delay 22.6 10.8 4.5 5.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 22 31 11
Queue Length 95th (ft) 102 37 54 35
Internal Link Dist (ft) 667 214 209 237
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 655 724 1216 1205
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 257 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 0.23 0.45 0.09
Intersection Summary
1079 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 61 27 224 90 36 129
Future Vol, veh/h 61 27 224 90 36 129
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 66 29 243 98 39 140
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 510 292 0 0 341 0
Stage 1 292 - - - - -
Stage 2 218 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 509 741 - - 1218 -
Stage 1 746 - - - - -
Stage 2 808 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 491 741 - - 1218 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 491 - - - - -
Stage 1 746 - - - - -
Stage 2 780 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 13 0 1.8

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 548 1218 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.175 0.032 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0.1 -
1080 of 1252
Queues
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group SET NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 242 548 245
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.42 0.19
Control Delay 28.4 7.9 6.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Delay 28.4 7.9 7.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 70 87 50
Queue Length 95th (ft) 121 197 90
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 1008 209
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 600 1303 1281
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 626
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.42 0.37
Intersection Summary
1081 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 35 0 356 281 0
Future Vol, veh/h 9 35 0 356 281 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 10 38 0 387 305 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 692 305 305 0 - 0
Stage 1 305 - - - - -
Stage 2 387 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.31 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.309 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 397 731 1267 - - -
Stage 1 740 - - - - -
Stage 2 676 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 397 731 1267 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 397 - - - - -
Stage 1 740 - - - - -
Stage 2 676 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 11.2 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1267 - 624 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.077 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
1082 of 1252
Queues
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 178 263 467 340
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.27 0.75 0.55
Control Delay 5.3 8.0 26.7 20.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 5.3 8.0 26.7 20.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 38 159 107
Queue Length 95th (ft) 45 98 211 146
Internal Link Dist (ft) 214 547 208 235
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1005 979 921 920
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.27 0.51 0.37
Intersection Summary
1083 of 1252
Queues
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 262 213 641 153
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.58 0.49 0.12
Control Delay 27.5 19.3 4.5 4.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Delay 27.5 19.3 4.7 4.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 74 48 66 15
Queue Length 95th (ft) 127 73 94 45
Internal Link Dist (ft) 667 214 209 237
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 648 656 1315 1306
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 109 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.32 0.53 0.12
Intersection Summary
1084 of 1252
Baseline Plus Project
AM/PM 95th Queues
1085 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.1
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 81 54 242 51 22 235
Future Vol, veh/h 81 54 242 51 22 235
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 88 59 263 55 24 255
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 594 291 0 0 318 0
Stage 1 291 - - - - -
Stage 2 303 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 452 742 - - 1242 -
Stage 1 746 - - - - -
Stage 2 737 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 442 742 - - 1242 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 442 - - - - -
Stage 1 746 - - - - -
Stage 2 720 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 14.4 0 0.7

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 527 1242 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.278 0.019 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14.4 8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 0.1 -
1086 of 1252
Queues
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group SET NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 396 173
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.30 0.13
Control Delay 15.1 5.3 3.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 15.1 5.3 3.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 21 45 19
Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 92 34
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 1008 209
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 674 1302 1287
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.30 0.13
Intersection Summary
1087 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 12 0 389 331 0
Future Vol, veh/h 4 12 0 389 331 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 4 13 0 423 360 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 783 360 360 0 - 0
Stage 1 360 - - - - -
Stage 2 423 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.3 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 350 682 1210 - - -
Stage 1 696 - - - - -
Stage 2 650 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 350 682 1210 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 350 - - - - -
Stage 1 696 - - - - -
Stage 2 650 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1210 - 551 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.032 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
1088 of 1252
Queues
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 145 237 407 367
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.24 0.70 0.65
Control Delay 2.7 6.5 22.6 21.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.7 6.5 22.6 21.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 26 112 104
Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 74 157 146
Internal Link Dist (ft) 214 547 208 235
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 981 980 942 922
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.24 0.43 0.40
Intersection Summary
1089 of 1252
Queues
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 244 167 434 108
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.39 0.36 0.09
Control Delay 22.8 10.5 4.4 5.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
Total Delay 22.8 10.5 4.6 5.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 60 22 31 11
Queue Length 95th (ft) 104 37 54 35
Internal Link Dist (ft) 667 214 209 237
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 656 724 1212 1201
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 253 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 0.23 0.45 0.09
Intersection Summary
1090 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 61 27 260 90 45 166
Future Vol, veh/h 61 27 260 90 45 166
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 66 29 283 98 49 180
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 610 332 0 0 381 0
Stage 1 332 - - - - -
Stage 2 278 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 442 703 - - 1177 -
Stage 1 714 - - - - -
Stage 2 757 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 422 703 - - 1177 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 422 - - - - -
Stage 1 714 - - - - -
Stage 2 722 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 14.3 0 1.7

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 481 1177 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.199 0.042 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14.3 8.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.1 -
1091 of 1252
Queues
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group SET NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 242 549 246
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.42 0.19
Control Delay 28.4 7.9 6.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Delay 28.4 7.9 7.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 70 87 50
Queue Length 95th (ft) 121 197 91
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 1008 209
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 600 1303 1281
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 626
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.42 0.38
Intersection Summary
1092 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 35 0 392 327 0
Future Vol, veh/h 9 35 0 392 327 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 10 38 0 426 355 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 781 355 355 0 - 0
Stage 1 355 - - - - -
Stage 2 426 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.31 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.309 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 351 684 1215 - - -
Stage 1 700 - - - - -
Stage 2 648 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 351 684 1215 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 351 - - - - -
Stage 1 700 - - - - -
Stage 2 648 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 11.9 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1215 - 573 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.083 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - -
1093 of 1252
Queues
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 182 267 558 368
v/c Ratio 0.20 0.30 0.78 0.51
Control Delay 6.1 9.8 25.7 17.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 6.1 9.8 25.7 17.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 16 46 183 106
Queue Length 95th (ft) 47 109 244 145
Internal Link Dist (ft) 214 547 208 235
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 920 893 915 926
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.30 0.61 0.40
Intersection Summary
1094 of 1252
Queues
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 266 221 642 153
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.60 0.49 0.12
Control Delay 27.8 19.9 4.6 4.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Total Delay 27.8 19.9 4.7 4.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 76 50 66 15
Queue Length 95th (ft) 130 m87 95 46
Internal Link Dist (ft) 667 214 209 237
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 646 655 1308 1300
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 108 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.34 0.54 0.12
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 1095 of 1252
Cumulative AM/PM
95th Queues
1096 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 82 30 221 53 6 243
Future Vol, veh/h 82 30 221 53 6 243
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 89 33 240 58 7 264
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 547 269 0 0 298 0
Stage 1 269 - - - - -
Stage 2 278 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 483 764 - - 1263 -
Stage 1 765 - - - - -
Stage 2 757 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 480 764 - - 1263 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 480 - - - - -
Stage 1 765 - - - - -
Stage 2 752 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 13.7 0 0.2

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 533 1263 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.228 0.005 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.7 7.9 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.9 0 -
1097 of 1252
Queues
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group SET NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 203 643 275
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.50 0.22
Control Delay 15.5 7.5 3.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.6 0.0
Total Delay 15.5 8.1 3.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 86 17
Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 192 m39
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 1008 209
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 686 1281 1271
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 15 284 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.64 0.22
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 1098 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 13 0 352 328 0
Future Vol, veh/h 4 13 0 352 328 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 4 14 0 383 357 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 740 357 357 0 - 0
Stage 1 357 - - - - -
Stage 2 383 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.3 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 371 685 1213 - - -
Stage 1 699 - - - - -
Stage 2 679 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 371 685 1213 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 371 - - - - -
Stage 1 699 - - - - -
Stage 2 679 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1213 - 571 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.032 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
1099 of 1252
Queues
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 321 496 444 354
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.52 0.72 0.63
Control Delay 5.7 10.8 22.0 20.5
Queue Delay 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 6.0 10.8 22.0 20.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 80 119 97
Queue Length 95th (ft) m44 201 165 136
Internal Link Dist (ft) 214 547 208 235
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 952 949 931 860
Starvation Cap Reductn 217 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.52 0.48 0.41
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 1100 of 1252
Queues
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 543 391 728 181
v/c Ratio 0.95 0.57 0.86 0.22
Control Delay 45.7 10.7 22.9 10.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.7 10.9 22.9 10.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 149 37 213 34
Queue Length 95th (ft) #332 98 #409 68
Internal Link Dist (ft) 667 214 209 237
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 590 710 847 824
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 45 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.92 0.59 0.86 0.22
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
1101 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 63 28 242 95 38 140
Future Vol, veh/h 63 28 242 95 38 140
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 68 30 263 103 41 152
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 549 315 0 0 366 0
Stage 1 315 - - - - -
Stage 2 234 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 482 719 - - 1193 -
Stage 1 727 - - - - -
Stage 2 794 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 464 719 - - 1193 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 464 - - - - -
Stage 1 727 - - - - -
Stage 2 764 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 13.5 0 1.7

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 521 1193 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.19 0.035 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.5 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.1 -
1102 of 1252
Queues
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group SET NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 299 798 350
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.65 0.29
Control Delay 29.4 13.8 7.4
Queue Delay 0.0 1.2 0.5
Total Delay 29.4 15.0 7.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 89 179 70
Queue Length 95th (ft) 143 #454 m126
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 1008 209
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 599 1224 1209
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 472
Spillback Cap Reductn 5 218 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.79 0.47
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 1103 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 38 0 385 304 0
Future Vol, veh/h 10 38 0 385 304 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 11 41 0 418 330 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 748 330 330 0 - 0
Stage 1 330 - - - - -
Stage 2 418 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.31 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.309 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 367 707 1241 - - -
Stage 1 720 - - - - -
Stage 2 653 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 367 707 1241 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 367 - - - - -
Stage 1 720 - - - - -
Stage 2 653 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1241 - 593 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.088 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - -
1104 of 1252
Queues
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 311 443 540 389
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.50 0.79 0.57
Control Delay 7.0 12.9 26.0 18.6
Queue Delay 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.3 12.9 26.0 18.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 96 177 114
Queue Length 95th (ft) m72 211 235 156
Internal Link Dist (ft) 214 547 208 235
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 918 892 892 891
Starvation Cap Reductn 235 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.50 0.61 0.44
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 1105 of 1252
Queues
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 464 384 959 232
v/c Ratio 0.89 0.71 0.90 0.23
Control Delay 37.6 19.4 23.4 8.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 37.6 19.8 23.4 8.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 146 72 348 41
Queue Length 95th (ft) #279 135 #607 85
Internal Link Dist (ft) 667 214 209 237
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 618 647 1065 1031
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 46 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.75 0.64 0.90 0.23
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
1106 of 1252
Cumulative Plus
Project AM/PM 95th
Queues
1107 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 506 1223 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.292 0.02 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15 8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.2 0.1 -
1108 of 1252
Queues
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group SET NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 203 644 275
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.50 0.22
Control Delay 15.5 7.5 3.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.6 0.0
Total Delay 15.5 8.1 3.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 86 16
Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 193 m39
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 1008 209
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 686 1281 1271
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 15 284 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.65 0.22
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 1109 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1188 - 535 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.035 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 12 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
1110 of 1252
Queues
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 327 504 472 408
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.55 0.73 0.68
Control Delay 6.0 11.9 22.1 21.3
Queue Delay 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 6.3 11.9 22.1 21.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 86 126 113
Queue Length 95th (ft) m45 215 173 155
Internal Link Dist (ft) 214 547 208 235
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 928 917 930 880
Starvation Cap Reductn 200 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.55 0.51 0.46
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 1111 of 1252
Queues
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 548 392 729 181
v/c Ratio 0.96 0.57 0.86 0.22
Control Delay 46.4 10.8 23.3 10.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 46.4 11.0 23.3 10.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 150 37 213 34
Queue Length 95th (ft) #336 105 #410 68
Internal Link Dist (ft) 667 214 209 237
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 591 710 844 822
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 48 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.93 0.59 0.86 0.22
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
1112 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 458 1154 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.216 0.044 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.8 0.1 -
1113 of 1252
Queues
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group SET NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 299 799 351
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.65 0.29
Control Delay 29.4 13.8 7.4
Queue Delay 0.0 1.2 0.5
Total Delay 29.4 15.0 7.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 89 179 67
Queue Length 95th (ft) 143 #454 m126
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 1008 209
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 599 1224 1209
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 472
Spillback Cap Reductn 5 220 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.80 0.48
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 1114 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1190 - 544 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.096 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 12.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - -
1115 of 1252
Queues
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 448 631 416
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.55 0.83 0.55
Control Delay 7.7 15.0 26.9 16.7
Queue Delay 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.1 15.0 26.9 16.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 40 110 204 114
Queue Length 95th (ft) m72 214 296 169
Internal Link Dist (ft) 214 547 208 235
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 852 822 892 894
Starvation Cap Reductn 202 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.55 0.71 0.47
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 1116 of 1252
Queues
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group SET NWT NET SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 467 393 960 232
v/c Ratio 0.89 0.72 0.90 0.23
Control Delay 38.0 19.6 23.8 8.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 38.0 20.0 23.8 8.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 148 73 350 41
Queue Length 95th (ft) #283 m142 #608 85
Internal Link Dist (ft) 667 214 209 237
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 617 645 1062 1029
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 47 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.76 0.66 0.90 0.23
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 1117 of 1252
TDM Plan
October 2022
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan
Image source: KSH Architects
City of San Mateo
24174201
1118 of 1252
1119 of 1252
Steer has prepared this material for City of San Mateo. This material may only be used within the context and scope for which Steer has prepared it and may not be relied upon in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any part of this material without the express and written permission of Steer shall be deemed to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Steer has prepared this material using professional practices and procedures using information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the results and conclusions made.

TDM Plan
October 2022
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan
Prepared by: Prepared for:

Steer
800 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1320,
Los Angeles, CA 90017
USA
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
+1 (213) 425 0990
www.steergroup.com
24174201
1120 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 1
Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................4 Project Description................................................................................................................... 4 Demographic Travel Trends ..................................................................................................... 5 2 Site Assessment.................................................................................................................9 Site Geography and Road Network .......................................................................................... 9 Transit Services....................................................................................................................... 12 Nearby Attractions................................................................................................................. 13 Available TDM Services .......................................................................................................... 14 3 Project TDM Measures ....................................................................................................15 Transportation Management Association (TMA) Membership ............................................. 16 TDM Coordinator.................................................................................................................... 16 Institutionalizing TDM ............................................................................................................ 17 New Resident and Employee Packets .................................................................................... 17 Multimodal Wayfinding Signage ............................................................................................ 19 TDM Communications............................................................................................................ 20 GOPass and Way2GO Pass Provision ..................................................................................... 21 Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking............................................................................. 22 4 Optional TDM Measures..................................................................................................23 Bike Education / Workshops .................................................................................................. 23 Promotional Programs ........................................................................................................... 24 Carshare.................................................................................................................................. 24 5 Impacts of Project TDM Measures...................................................................................26 VMT Reduction Calculations .................................................................................................. 26 Program Impacts .................................................................................................................... 26 6 Monitoring ......................................................................................................................29 Annual Survey......................................................................................................................... 29 7 Exhibits............................................................................................................................30 1121 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 2
A. TDM ROI Calculator .........................................................................................................31 A1 Regional Inputs.................................................................................................................. 32 A2 Regional Travel, Environmental and Cost Benefit Factors................................................ 33 B. 222 E 4th Avenue Site Assessment...................................................................................37 Figures
Figure 1 Zoning Map........................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 Commute mode split for Census Tract 6063 ........................................................................ 7 Figure 3 Inflow and Outflow patterns ................................................................................................ 8 Figure 4 Street Network ..................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5 Car-sheds from 222 E. 4th Avenue ...................................................................................... 10 Figure 6 20-minute Pedestrian-shed for 222 E. 4th Avenue.............................................................. 11 Figure 7 Existing Bicycle Network..................................................................................................... 11 Figure 8 Cycling Level of Stress......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 9 A New Resident Packet distributed in Santa Monica ......................................................... 18 Figure 10 Multimodal wayfinding window decals used in Santa Monica ........................................ 19 Figure 11 Example Transportation Screen........................................................................................ 20 Tables
Table 1 Proposed Project Attributes .................................................................................................. 5 Table 2 Census Tract 6063 Demographics Characteristics................................................................. 6 Table 3 Distribution of job locations for residents of Census Tract 6063 .......................................... 7 Table 4. Levels of Service for 222 E. 4th Avenue ............................................................................... 10 Table 5. Caltrain Service ................................................................................................................... 13 Table 6. SamTrans Service ................................................................................................................ 13 Table 7 Proposed Project Net Trip Generation Calculations (Scenario 1 & 2) ................................. 15 Table 8 Cumulative Program TDM Strategies................................................................................... 26 1122 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 3
Table 9 Percentage of Annual Vehicle Trips Reduced ...................................................................... 27 Table 10 Individual Strategies (Scenario 1) ...................................................................................... 27 Table 11 Individual Strategies (Scenario 2) ...................................................................................... 28 1123 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 4
A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan is a long-term management strategy for an organization or site that seeks to deliver sustainable transportation objectives. It is articulated in a document that is regularly reviewed by the implementing organization. It involves identifying an appropriate package of measures aimed at promoting sustainable travel, with an emphasis on reducing reliance on single occupancy car journeys and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). It can also assist in meeting other objectives such as increasing accessibility as well as reducing congestion, greenhouse gas and noise pollution.

This TDM Plan was produced on behalf of the City of San Mateo for the 222 E. 4th Ave. project site, which is a planned mixed-used property owned by Lane Partners and developed by KSH Architects.

Project Description
The project site is a city block bounded by E. 4th Avenue to the northwest, S. B Street to the northeast, E. 5th Avenue to the southeast, and S. Ellsworth Avenue to the southwest. The project site is currently a grocery store spanning a whole city block. The project proposes demolishing the existing building at 222 E. 4th Avenue to construct a new 5-story mixed use building. The project includes:

1. 8 one-bedroom and 2 studio units (total of 10 units)

2. 104,554 sq. ft of office space

3. 17,658 sq. ft of retail space

4. 221 physical parking spaces, in a 2-level subterranean garage and 12,392 sq. ft of covered parking area.

5. 1,455 sq. ft. open space

6. 1,515 sq. ft. common usable open space.

The project site is zoned as CBD/R – Central Business District with Residential Mixed-Use Overlay.

As shown in Figure 1, the lots to the north and south are also zoned as CBD/R. The lots towards the northwest are zoned as CBD – Central Business. The lot to the southwest is zoned as R5 – Multiple Family Dwellings (High Density). There is a large area zoned as Open Space to the southwest of the project site.
1 Introduction
1124 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 5
Figure 1 Zoning Map
Source: City of San Mateo Planning
The project site zoning allows for a FAR of 3.0; due to a state density bonus waiver the project will have a FAR of 3.1. The project site has an allowable height of 55’-0”; the developer has proposed a height of 74’-3” when measured to top of plate.

Table 1 Proposed Project Attributes
Current Proposed
Description Two story building – grocery
store
5 story multi-use building with
residential, office, and retail
space
Square Footage 49,478 sq. ft building 152,533 sq. ft mixed-use building Zoning Designation CBD/R CBD/R
Demographic Travel Trends
The travel trends described in this section are based on information from the Census Bureau for the project’s census tract (6063).

Demographics Insights
The project site is located within Census Tract 6063. The Census Tract has a population of 4,110.

The information outlined in Table 2 and Error! Reference source not found. below provides the general residents’ demographic profiles and travel behavior.

1125 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 6
Table 2 Census Tract 6063 Demographics Characteristics
Category Characteristics Amount
Age Under 18 17%
18 to 64 57%
Over 65 26%
Education Bachelor’s degree or higher 48.5%
Households Renter-Occupied Housing Units 49%
Number of households 1,805
Persons per household 2.2
Median household income $92,007
Race White alone 62%
Asian alone 29%
Hispanic or Latino 24%
Black or African American 3%
Mixed 4%
Languages spoken Speaks English only 53%
Speaks a language other than English: Spanish 19%
Speaks a language other than English: Indo-European Languages 7% Speaks a language other than English: Asian and Pacific Island Languages
18%
Source: ACS 2019 5-year, Census.gov
Commute Outlook
Census Reporter data from 2019 indicates that majority (72%) of people that live within Census Tract 6063 drive alone to work. The data also reports that 21% of the population use sustainable modes of transportation such as public transit, carpooling and walking to commute to work, while 5% of the population work from home. Of those that commute to work, the mean travel time is

27.6 minutes. Of note, commuting patterns have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and may be in flux for some time as businesses gradually adjust their travel patterns. The postpandemic reality might result in new commuting patterns as more organizations implement hybrid and flexible working patterns.
1126 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 7
Figure 2 Commute mode split for Census Tract 6063
Source: ACS 2019 5-year, Census.gov (Universe: workers 16 and older) Where people work
According to the ACS and as demonstrated in Table 3, residents in Census Tract 6063 commute to a variety of locations, with a majority commuting out of San Mateo. The City and County of San Francisco is the most common destination for commuters (20.6%) followed by the City of San Mateo (15.4%).

Table 3 Distribution of job locations for residents of Census Tract 6063 Job Location Count Share
San Francisco, CA 407 20.6%
San Mateo, CA 305 15.4%
Redwood City, CA 134 6.8%
Palo Alto, CA 115 5.8%
South San Francisco, CA 83 4.2%
Burlingame, CA 69 3.5%
Foster City, CA 62 3.1%
San Jose, CA 53 2.7%
San Carlos, CA 50 2.5%
Menlo Park, CA 47 2.4%
All other locations 650 32.9%
All Places (Cities, CDPs, etc.) 1,975 100%
Source: ACS 2019 5-year, Census.gov (Universe: workers 16 and older) Inflow/Outflow analysis of the census tract, as shown in Figure 3, depicts those 1,862 individuals that commute out of the area and 8,091 people commute into the area for work on a daily basis.

The high inflow number signifies that the region is dominated by commercial and mixed-use land1127 of 1252 222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 8
use types, with key employers including medical centers and downtown retail and restaurant establishments. A total of 113 individuals both live and work inside the census tract.

Figure 3 Inflow and Outflow patterns
Source: U.S Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies
1128 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 9
A site assessment was conducted as part of the TDM Plan development process. The site assessment included a description of the site’s geography and road network, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, transit services, nearby attractions, and existing TDM services. For the complete assessment, please refer to the 222 E 4th Avenue Background Assessment memo in Exhibit B. Key findings from the site assessment are as follows:

Site Geography and Road Network
The project site is located on a city block which currently consists of Draeger’s Market, a grocery store. The current structure will be demolished. The block is situated between E. 5th Ave. to the south, E. 4th Ave. to the north, S. Ellsworth Avenue to the West, and S. B Street to the east.

The site is adjacent to E. 4th Avenue, a city-maintained street that feeds directly into two highways: U.S. Highway 101 to the east and the California State Route 82 (El Camino Real) to the west.
• U.S. Highway 101 is a major federal highway that runs north-south along the entire west coast. It connects several major cities including San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose • Route 82 connects to Interstate-880 (I-880) in San Jose and Interstate-280 (I-280) in San Francisco
Both the U.S. Highway 101 and Route 82 provide easy access to California State Route 92, which runs east-west and runs over the San Mateo Bridge. This bridge bypasses the San Francisco Bay to connect San Mateo to the East Bay.

Figure 4 Street Network
Source: City of San Mateo Public Works

2 Site Assessment
1129 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 10
Figure 5 Car-sheds from 222 E. 4th Avenue
Free Flow:
20-minute car-shed from 222 E. 4th Avenue
Rush hour:
20-minute car-shed from 222 E. 4th Avenue
Source: Walkscore.com
The intersection at B Street and 4th Avenue was included in the San Mateo Existing Conditions Circulation Report1. As recorded in October 2018, the intersection maintains a “B” level of service (LOS) in the AM and PM Peak hours.

Table 4. Levels of Service for 222 E. 4
th Avenue
Signalized Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service
Year 2018 Conditions
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
B Street and 4th Avenue 11.0 B 11.3 B
Source: San Mateo Existing Conditions Circulation Report (2018) Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
The site’s topography and road access, as well as proximity to other nearby services make this area an appealing pedestrian and cyclist environment. The walkability website Walkscore.com gives the site a 99 out of 100 for walking, “Walker’s Paradise – Daily errands do not require a car.” The walk shed for the project area is seen in Figure 6.

San Mateo Existing Conditions Report - Circulation
1130 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 11
Currently B Street and 5th Avenue both serve as bike routes to the project site. Both bike routes are Class III. The bike route on 5th Avenue connects to the bicycle network to the north and south of the project site. As per recent San Mateo City Council direction, bike facilities along B Street from 5th Avenue to Baldwin Avenue have been removed from the 2020 Bicycle Master Plan.

Figure 6 20-minute Pedestrian-shed for 222 E. 4th Avenue Source: Walkscore.com
Figure 7 Existing Bicycle Network
Source: San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan

1131 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 12
All the streets surrounding the project site are characterized as “High Stress” streets by the April 2020 San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan due to their traffic volumes or lack of cycling facilities. This makes the streets more suited for experienced cyclists. The project site is in a high bicycle connectivity area.

Figure 8 Cycling Level of Stress
Source: San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan
For nearby bicycle amenities, BikeLink operates multiple on-demand bike lockers located at the nearby San Mateo Caltrain Station. BikeLink allows cyclists to securely store their bike in secure lockers using a stored-value card that can be purchased online or at nearby vendors. There are 24 lockers at the San Mateo Caltrain Station. Additionally, there are two free-to-use public bike repair stations are located less than 0.5-mile of the project site. These stations are located at the San Mateo Public Library and the San Mateo Caltrain Station.

Planned Bicycle Projects
The 2020 Bicycle Master Plan was adopted by the San Mateo City Council on April 6, 2020 and serves as a blueprint for expanding and improving the San Mateo bicycle and mobility network in the coming years. The Plan includes two project relevant to the project site:
• 3
rd Avenue has proposed improvements to build a separated bike lane. This is a high priority project.
• Bicycle facilities to continue along 5th Avenue, including a Class II bicycle lane from Virginia Avenue to El Camino Real. This is the 16th highest priority project in the 2020 Bicycle Master Plan.

Transit Services
The project site is 0.3 miles from the Caltrain station and is served by two San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) routes.

1132 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 13
Caltrain
Caltrain connects the project site to San Francisco to the north as well as to San Jose and Gilroy to the south. The station is 0.3-miles, 6 minutes walking, from the site and can be accessed by bike, walk, transit, and car.

Table 5. Caltrain Service
Category San Mateo Station
Frequency Approx. 30 minutes
Walking distance to station 0.3 miles (6 minutes)
Access Park and ride lot, San Mateo BikeLink
Cost $3.20 - $10+ depending on distance
SamTrans
There are two bus routes with stops adjacent to the project site. The bus stop closest to the project site can be accessed via bike and walk. Additionally, there are other bus stops that are less than a 5 minute walking distance from the site for routes that have higher frequency. Each SamTrans bus is equipped with bike racks that hold up to three bikes. Trips cost $2.25 in cash or via a mobile app, or $2.05 if a Clipper card is being used.

Table 6. SamTrans Service
SamTrans
Route #
Hours of
Operation
Frequency Closest Stop Distance
to Stop
Route Details
59 School day
service
1 AM bus,
4 PM buses
E. 4
th Avenue &
S. Ellsworth
Avenue
203 ft. Connects to Borel
School
295 6 am – 7 pm Every 2
hours
E. 4
th Avenue &
S. Ellsworth
Avenue
203 ft. Connects to Caltrain
station
55 School day
service
7AM bus,
1 PM bus,
3 PM bus
El Camino Real
& E. 5th Ave
1300 ft. Connects to Borel
Middle School
397 Afternoon Service
(1 pm – 3 pm)
Every hour El Camino Real
& E. 5th Ave
1300 ft. Connects San Francisco
and Palo Alto Transit
Ctr
ECR 24 hours service Every 15
mins
El Camino Real
& E. 5th Ave
1300 ft. Connects Daly City
BART and Palo Alto
Transit Ctr
250 6 am – 11 pm Every 30
mins
S San Mateo Dr
& E. 4th Ave
690 ft. Connects to College of
San Mateo
Nearby Attractions
Seven shopping center/grocery store within one mile walk that provide access to a multitude of retail outlets, eateries, grocery stores, dance theatre, etc.

Four childcare centers within a mile walking distance.
1133 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 14
Four parks within one-mile radius.

Two universities within a two-mile radius.

Twenty schools within a two-miles radius.

Available TDM Services
Commute.org Incentives
Commmute.org is the San Mateo County Transportation Demand Management Agency. Their resources are available to all residents and employees within San Mateo County. The residents and employees of the project site will have access to the TDM resources provide for commutes within the County and in the surrounding areas. They provide the following services:
• Try Transit Incentives: Commute.org provides a free “Try Transit” program that allows individuals to request free tickets for the transit option that works best for them. • Carpool Incentives: Commuters who use Waze carpool or Scoop are eligible to earn gift cards worth up to $100.
• Vanpool Incentives: Drivers of a new vanpool can earn a $500 reward, and vanpool riders can be reimbursed $100/month of their costs for up to three months. • Bike Education: Free bike safety workshops and marketing materials on biking are available to residents and commuters. These workshops are scheduled upon request and are available to employers and other development sites, including residential properties within San Mateo County.
• Bike Incentives: Commute.org currently provides commuters who live or work in San Mateo County with incentives worth between $25 to $200 for biking to work. To participate in the program, bike commuters must track their work commutes using the Strava app. The rides are then recorded in the STAR platform, Commute.org’s incentive delivery platform, where commuters can access their incentives.
1134 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 15
This chapter outlines the TDM strategies identified for the 222 E. 4th Avenue site. The strategies in this section are effective and appropriate based on the project’s size, location, and land use. The narrative below provides guidelines for implementation, cost estimates, expected timelines, and indicates the anticipated responsible party for each recommended measure. It is understood that the property management team will be the ‘responsible party’ for most TDM measures outlined below.

Each strategy’s description also estimates the number of vehicle miles traveled and percentage of trips expected to be reduced through its implementation. It is important to note that many of the TDM strategies in this section are scalable and can easily be expanded by increasing the number of resources allocated.

The trip generation numbers from the traffic impact assessment consider visitor trips to the supermarket in addition to employees and residents at site. However, the project TDM measures are geared primarily to residents and employees as these audiences are more likely to utilize TDM measures to reduce trip. Given this, the percentage of daily vehicle trips reduced by each strategy has been calculated considering both potential audiences. • Scenario 1: Considering a total of 2,904 daily trips which includes visitor trips to the supermarket, in addition to employee and resident trips. • Scenario 2: Considering a total of 1,083 daily trips attributed to the office and housing uses only, which includes an estimation of 70 daily trips for 35 retail employees. ITE estimates about 2 employees per 1,000 sq.ft. for a supermarket (ITE 850). The project is expected to have 17,658 sq. ft. of retail space.

Table 7 Proposed Project Net Trip Generation Calculations (Scenario 1 & 2) Land Use Size Weekday Daily Trips
(Scenario 1)
Weekday Daily Trips
(Scenario 2)
Proposed Project
Retail (Supermarket) 17.6 KSF 1,891 70
Office Space 104.7 KSF 1,208 1,208
Affordable Housing 10 DU 38 38
Internal Capture -233 -233
Pass-by reduction (24% PM only) 0 0
Total Proposed Project Trips 2,904 1,083
3 Project TDM Measures
1135 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 16
Transportation Management Association (TMA) Membership
The Sustainable Streets Plan recommends new developments within the Downtown Area Plan boundaries to be a part of a future Transportation Management Association (TMA). Membership with the TMA does not have a direct impact on the reduction of trips and VMT reduction. It is, however, a platform to show how developments will meet their TDM requirements and market TDM services and programs. The TMA would serve as a coordinating body to developments within the Rail Corridor and the Downtown Area Plan boundaries.

Once a TMA is formed, the development in the future will be required to be a TMA member.

Estimated timeframe Annual
Estimated cost Will be based on membership rate
Responsible party Property Management
Estimated daily VMT reduced 0
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 1)
0%
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 2)
0%
TDM Coordinator
An on-site TDM coordinator would act as a liaison between the developer, City, employees, and the residents. The TDM coordinator would help develop, implement, and report on the various TDM strategies. This person would be responsible for coordinating and marketing the selected TDM strategies as well as maintaining working relationships with the City and nearby developments.

Implementation Guidelines:

Assign the role of TDM Coordinator to an individual on the property management team to plan and implement the TDM program. Allocate at least 5 hours per month for the TDM Coordinator to spend on the following activities:
• Annual Monitoring: Survey the residents and employees and compile a monitoring report for submission to the City of San Mateo annually.
• Commute Assistance: Provide route planning and transit itineraries for employees and residents who wish to explore their transportation options. • TDM Program Coordination and Outreach: Organize and promote sustainable travel options through building communications such as emails, bulletin boards, and social media. Specific tasks include:
- Organize and promote the trip reduction and air quality strategies detailed in the following sections.
- Organize and promote campaigns and challenges that encourage trip reduction - Promote the sustainable transportation options available to the residents and employees.
1136 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 17
Estimated timeframe Ongoing
Estimated cost $2,000 per year
Responsible party Property Management team
Estimated daily VMT reduced 37 to 73
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 1)
Spending 5 hours per month organizing TDM programs will lead to a

0.10% to 0.21% decrease in vehicle trips (can be reduced further with an increased commitment in time and TDM strategies) Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 2)
Spending 5 hours per month organizing TDM programs will lead to a

0.28% to 0.55% decrease in vehicle trips (can be reduced further with an increased commitment in time and TDM strategies) Institutionalizing TDM
It is important that the TDM program be implemented as the site becomes occupied and when office, retail, and apartment units eventually begin to turn over. It must also be updated as needs change and transportation options and technology evolve. Therefore, the TDM Plan should become ‘institutionalized’ as part of the property’s leasing process to ensure the program remains in place and new residents and employees are aware of its existence.

Implementation Guidelines:

Describe the TDM infrastructure, amenities, and programs available to employers and residents and how they will be made available to the tenants in the lease documents.

Estimated timeframe During the drafting of lease language and ongoing Estimated cost $0 – it is likely that this cost will already be undertaken by the property management in order to establish the details of the lease agreement, so including TDM in this effort will likely come at no additional cost.

Responsible party Property Management
Estimated daily VMT reduced 0
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 1)
0%
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 2)
0%
New Resident and Employee Packets
Individuals are most likely to make a change in their transportation behavior alongside other life changes. This means that providing new residents and employees with a packet that offers them information about all their transportation options can increase the likelihood for them to choose options other than driving alone.

New residents and employees would be provided with welcome packets that include a Clipper Card with stored value, customized transportation information about nearby transit routes, bus stops, bike maps, amenities, and routes, and other TDM initiatives undertaken by the property.

The welcome packets should also include the contact information of the property’s TDM 1137 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 18
Coordinator. Figure 9 offers an example of a welcome packet distributed to new residents in Santa Monica, CA.

Implementation Guidelines:

Design a New Resident and Employee Packet for the property that provides information on all transportation modes available as well as services that may make choosing sustainable travel easier. The TDM Coordinator can work directly with Commute.org, who can assist the property in purchasing Clipper Cards and provide supportive materials, commuter incentives and advice. The packet should include:
• A Clipper Card with stored value ($10 to $20 would be ideal) • A map depicting a 10- and 20-minute walk and bicycle radius • Information about the transit options available (SamTrans, Caltrain, and BART) and how to connect to them, including Park and Ride options
• Information about all the transportation related amenities offered by the property • Information about Commute.org services and resources
• Information about Guaranteed Ride Home and how to register • Information about bike routes and amenities in the City of San Mateo Parking and Transportation Planning webpage (https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2125/ParkingTransportation) Estimated timeframe Pre-occupancy, ongoing
Estimated cost $3,000 to develop packet, then up to $3 per packet to print and distribute
Approximately $4,000 total (cost of transit subsidies included in that strategy description)
Figure 9 A New Resident Packet distributed in Santa Monica 1138 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 19
Responsible party Owner or consultant to develop; Property Management team to maintain and distribute long term
Estimated daily VMT reduced 441 to 490
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 1)

1.38% to 1.55%
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 2)

3.69% to 4.16%
Multimodal Wayfinding Signage
The developer would provide multimodal
wayfinding signage at entry and exit points
of the property. Wayfinding can help
people visualize how close sustainable
travel options are and in which direction,
as well as familiarize them with nearby
modes. Examples of wayfinding window
decals used in the City of Santa Monica are
shown in Figure 10.

Implementation Guidelines:

Using consistent and legible design
guidelines, create and post a network of
pedestrian-scale signage at key entry and
exit points of the property. The signs
should point users to key destinations and give them estimates for how far away they are by walking and/or biking. For example -
• 6 min walk to Downtown San Mateo Caltrain Station
• 1 min walk to E. 4
th Avenue & S. Ellsworth Avenue
• 5 min walk to El Camino Real & E. 5th Ave
Be sure to evaluate the signage regularly to take into consideration any infrastructural or service changes that may impact options.

Estimated timeframe Pre-occupancy
Estimated cost Under $500
Responsible party Property Management
Estimated daily VMT reduced 0 to 1
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 1)
0%
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 2)
0%
Figure 10 Multimodal wayfinding window decals used in Santa Monica 1139 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 20
TDM Communications
In order to encourage individuals to choose sustainable travel options, it is critical to provide them with the information needed to do so. Having a communications plan that outlines what information to share and how would set clear expectations for the TDM Coordinator.

Communicating Transportation Information:
• Website - Having all transportation-related information and resources available in one virtual location makes it easy and convenient for residents and employees to learn about their travel options. The webpage should provide information about relevant special offers and programs that are offered from outside agencies (such as the Peninsula Clean Energy e-bike subsidy while there is funding), nearby transit routes and schedules, bike and pedestrian paths, services offered by Commute.org and other amenities. This is especially helpful for residents new to the neighborhood or employees coming from outside of the City who are unaware of the transportation options available to them.
• Bulletin Boards – Bulletin boards should be set up in high-traffic areas and include TDM messaging to inform and update residents, visitors, and employees of sustainable travel options, upcoming events, and activities. Commute.org sends out regularly scheduled newsletters that are a good reference for up-to-date transportation information. Each newsletter would advertise different TDM measures and events such as commuter promotions and incentives and highlight resources such as 511 and Commute.org. • Building Social Media Channels (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) – The property manager could promote transportation options and updates via the tenant portal website and social media channels such as Facebook, Instagram and Nextdoor.
• Realtime Transportation Information- Transportation screens at the lobby and elevators that provide real-time transit departures and arrivals to visitors to 222 E 4th Avenue.

Figure 11 Example Transportation Screen
Transportation Options to Promote:
• All TDM incentives and services offered by the property to residents, visitors, and employees, such as bike parking.
• Resources for trip planning, including Transit app, Google Maps or Citymapper offer excellent smartphone-based trip planning options.
• A link to Commute.org with information about the resources available to residents and employees, especially information regarding the mode-specific resources and subsidies offered.
• Information about the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) or Emergency Ride Home (ERH) programs offered by the surrounding counties (e.g., Commute.org's GRH program for 1140 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 21
commuters who work in San Mateo County, Alameda County's GRH program, Marin County’s ERH program, etc.). If an unforeseen emergency occurs, employees that use a sustainable transportation mode are eligible for reimbursement of the cost of their trip home. • Information about Safe Routes to School programs
• Locally accessible transit information
– Caltrain, including Information about bikes on board, secure bike parking, and Park and Ride lots and at the Hayward Park, Hillsdale, and Belmont stations • Information about biking, including links to local bike maps and cycling resources Implementation Guidelines
Create a webpage that lives on or is linked from the property’s tenant facing website and includes all the above listed information, at a minimum, in addition create a social media presence.

Commute.org offers a comprehensive transportation resources website free of charge that provides much of the above information.

Develop a regular schedule for newsletters and social media posts and promote relevant transportation information regularly through employee and resident bulletin boards. The social media posts can be utilized for a wider audience that includes not just residents and employees but also retail visitors.

Estimated timeframe
Pre-occupancy, property management (TDM Coordinator) to maintain webpage and newsletter/social media calendar as well as managing all transportation-related information to residents.

Estimated cost $2,000
Responsible party Property Management
Estimated daily VMT reduced 26 to 53
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 1)

0.07% to 0.17%
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 2)

0.18% to 0.46%
GOPass and Way2GO Pass Provision
Providing subsidized transit passes can help reduce single occupancy trips and increase transit ridership. It also provides increased flexibility for those who might still opt to drive occasionally.

Implementation Guidelines
Partner with Caltrain and SamTrans to provide free or discounted transit options to residents and employees through the following strategies.

Employees (both office and supermarket employees)
• Partner with Caltrain to provide free annual pass Caltrain GO Pass to all employees • Partner with SamTrans to provide a free annual pass Way2Go Pass to all employees 1141 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 22
Residents
• Provide $200 in annual subsidies for the purchase of Caltrain passes to residents • Provide $20 in annual subsidies for the purchase of SamTrans passes to residents Estimated timeframe Pre-occupancy (during the drafting of lease agreements), and ongoing.

Estimated cost Employees: Approximately $342 per employee for GO Pass, and $75 per employee for Way2GO pass. Based on an estimate of 381 employees, the employee cost estimate is $158,877 annually.

Residents: Approximately $200 per resident for Caltrain pass, and $20 per resident for SamTrans pass. Based on an estimate of 11 commuting residents, the resident cost estimate is $2,420 in subsidies annually.

Total cost estimate: $161,297 annually.

Responsible party Property Management
Estimated daily VMT reduced 1245 to 1383
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 1)

5.10% to 5.68%
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 2)

13.67% to 15.24%
Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking
Reserving space for carpools and vanpools encourages shared travel be ensuring those riders are able to find guaranteed parking easily. If signed in a manner that stands out, it may also generate interest in carpooling and vanpooling from solo drivers.

Implementation Guidelines
Designate at least ten on-site spaces for employees who carpool and vanpool to their worksites.

The spaces should be located close to an entrance, and demarcated spaces with signage and/or paint, in line with other signage within the parking facility. While it is not required that property management undertake strong enforcement efforts such as monitoring the spaces on a daily basis and ticketing or towing non-compliant vehicles, they should be prepared to remind single drivers that the spaces are reserved for higher occupancy vehicles.

Estimated timeframe Ongoing
Estimated cost $1,000 for sign fabrication
Responsible party Property Management
Estimated daily VMT reduced 740 to 822
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 1)

0.96 to 1.10%
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 2)

2.59% to 2.95%
1142 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 23
In addition to the TDM measures identified in the previous Chapter, the following strategies would help to support further vehicle trip and VMT reduction for travel to and from the project site. They are offered as optional recommendations as they are measures that are not required to meet the VMT reduction requirement.

Bike Education / Workshops
Encouraging bike ridership is one of the most effective ways of reducing short range trips by car.

About 59.4% of vehicle trips in the United States were less than six miles in 2017.2The property could partner with local bike advocacy groups, bike shops or Commute.org to host bike safety workshops to educate residents and employees on the basics of biking and share educational resources such as maps of nearby bike amenities (such as BikeLink lockers at Caltrain stations).

Given the size of the project site, if demand for full workshops doesn’t exist, it may be more appropriate to support residents and employees in one-on-one support from bike shops.

Implementation Guidelines:

Partner with Commute.org or a local bike advocacy organization to organize a bicycle safety training webinar or workshop annually. Commute.org offers free bike training workshops to employers and residential properties within San Mateo County. • Promote the workshop or webinar along with additional resources on the property’s dedicated website, resident and employee bulletin board, and social media. Some additional resources to share with residents and employees include:
- Bike Safety and Rules of the Road
- Family Biking - How to Bike Safely with Adults and Kids of Any Age - Biking Maps and Trails
Estimated timeframe 75% occupancy, annually
Estimated cost $500
Responsible party Property management to coordinate
Estimated daily VMT reduced 32 to 71
2 As per data collected from Office of Energy Efficiency and renewable Energy 2017. https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1042-august-13-2018-2017-nearly-60-all-vehicle-trips-wereless-six miles#:~:text=Data%20collected%20on%20one%2Dway,distance%20categories%20about%205%25%20each. 4 Optional TDM Measures
1143 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 24
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 1)

0.14% to 0.34%
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 2)

0.37% to 0.92%
Promotional Programs
Contests, promotions, and prizes can be used as a strategy to provide awareness about transportation options available to employees, residents, and visitors. This can be in the form of short-term or long-term commute challenges and events that encourage the use of a new modes of commuting.

Implementation Guidelines
Promote monthly or quarterly commute challenges that encourage individuals to try new modes of transportation, promotion can be done via the TDM communication’s webpage, information boards and TDM coordinator. As incentives, include prizes in the form of gift cards, rewards points and transit subsidies.

Estimated timeframe Ongoing
Estimated cost $2,000-10,000 per year depending on the number of participants Responsible party Property Management
Estimated daily VMT reduced 6 to 12
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 1)

0.03%
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 2)

0.09%
Carshare
The developer could partner with an existing carshare company such as Zipcar, Envoy, or Car2Go to provide those who do not own a vehicle the ability to use a car when needed. Providing occasional access to a vehicle, coupled with incentives to reduce parking needs, can encourage households and employees to forgo vehicle ownership (studies show increased car access decreases use of other modes such as transit)3.

Implementation Guidelines:

Partner with a shared vehicle provider to provide residents and employees access to a car when needed. The carshare benefit can be made available to other external users. However, each participating household and employee at 222 E. 4th Avenue can be provided with annual credits or subscription discounts.
3 Jordan, S. (May 2019). Ridership Study Revisited UCLA ITS Scholars 2018 Report on Falling Transit Ridership Gets a Second Look. Retrieved from https://caltransit.org/news-publications/publications/transit-california/transitcalifornia-archives/2019-editions/may/ridership-study-revisited/ 1144 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 25
Estimated timeframe Ongoing
Estimated cost $4,000 to $8,000 per year depending on number of participants
Responsible party Property Management
Estimated daily VMT reduced 241 to 278
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 1)

1.00% to 1.14%
Percent of daily vehicle trips
reduced (Scenario 2)

2.68% to 3.05%
1145 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 26
If implemented correctly and consistently, the TDM program outlined within chapters Project TDM Measures and Optional TDM Measures is forecasted to result in a daily VMT reduction of between 2,768 (low estimate) to 3.183 (high estimate) and a reduction of 1071 to 1234 kilograms of carbon dioxide every day.

VMT Reduction Calculations
Estimated VMT and vehicle trip reduction calculations were made using the TDM Return on Investment (ROI) Calculator, a tool owned by Mobility Lab and developed by university and governmental partners. The TDM ROI Calculator helps practitioners and policy makers understand the benefits of their investment in TDM strategies and programs by calculating estimated vehicle trips, VMT, hours of congestion delay, and emissions reduced. More information about the TDM ROI Calculator and assumptions made to calculate estimated impacts are included in Exhibit A.

Program Impacts
TDM Program for 222 E 4th Avenue
Table 8 outlines the total estimated VMT and congestion hours reduced with the recommended and optional TDM program for the project site.

Table 8 Cumulative Program TDM Strategies
222 E 4th
Avenue
Annual VMT Reduced Annual Vehicle Trips
Reduced
Annual Congestion
Reduced (hours of
delay
Carbon dioxide
Reduced (kg)
Low Est. High Est. Low Est. High Est. Low Est. High Est. Low Est. High Est.

Recommended
Strategies
614,783 697,034 54,587 62,491 85,462 97,318 238,108 270,218 Optional
Strategies 70,889 93,366 8,398 10,868 7,410 8,645 26,429 34,580 Recommended
and Optional
TDM Program
685,672 790,400 62,985 73,359 92,872 105,963 265,27
8 306,527
Based on Scenario 1, which considers visitor trips to the supermarket, in addition to employee and resident trips, the project is estimated to reduce between 8.78 to 10.23% annual vehicle trips.

When considering Scenario 2, which considers just employee and resident trips that are more 5 Impacts of Project TDM Measures
1146 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 27
receptive to trip reduction measures, the project is expected to reduce between 23.53% to

27.42%.

Table 9 Percentage of Annual Vehicle Trips Reduced
222 E 4th Avenue
% of Annual Vehicle Trips
Reduced (Scenario 1)
% of Annual Vehicle Trips
Reduced (Scenario 2)
Low Est. High Est. Low Est. High Est.

Recommended and Optional TDM Program 8.78% 10.23% 23.55% 27.42% Table 10 and Table 11 outlines the individual program components and estimated daily VMT reduction ranges for each TDM strategy. This is presented in order to provide an understanding of which strategies are the most impactful.

Table 10 Individual Strategies (Scenario 1)
Strategy Daily VMT
Reduced
Daily Vehicle
Trips Reduced
% Daily Trip
Reduced
Daily
Congestion
Reduced
(hours of
delay)
Daily Carbon
Dioxide
Reduced (kg)
Low
Est/
High
Est.

Low
Est.

High
Est.

Low
Est.

High
Est.

Low
Est.

High
Est.

Low
Est.

High
Est.

TMA Membership -
- - - - - - - - -
TDM Coordinator 37 73 3 6 0.10% 0.21% 6 12 14 28
Institutionalizing TDM
at the Property
0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0
New Resident + New
Employee Packet
441 490 40 45 1.38% 1.55% 57 64 171 190
Multimodal
Wayfinding Signage
0 1 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0
TDM Communications 26 53 2 5 0.07% 0.17% 3 6 10 21
GoPass and Way2Go
Pass Provision
1245 1383 148 165 5.10% 5.68% 162 180 482 536
Preferential Carpool
and Vanpool Parking 740 822 28 32 0.96% 1.10% 118 132 287 319 1147 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 28
Bike Education and
Promotion
40 88 4 10 0.14% 0.34% 0 0 15 34
Promotional Program 6 12 1 1 0.03% 0.03% 0 1 2 5
Carshare (with annual
credits or discounts)
241 278 29 33 1.00% 1.14% 30 34 93 108
Table 11 Individual Strategies (Scenario 2)
Strategy Daily VMT
Reduced
Daily Vehicle
Trips Reduced
% Daily Trip
Reduced
Daily
Congestion
Reduced
(hours of
delay)
Daily Carbon
Dioxide
Reduced (kg)
Low
Est/
High
Est.

Low
Est.

High
Est.

Low
Est.

High
Est.

Low
Est.

High
Est.

Low
Est.

High
Est.

TMA Membership -
- - - - - - - - -
TDM Coordinator 37 73 3 6 0.28% 0.55% 6 12 14 28
Institutionalizing TDM
at the Property
0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0
New Resident + New
Employee Packet
441 490 40 45 3.69% 4.16% 57 64 171 190
Multimodal
Wayfinding Signage
0 1 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0
TDM Communications 26 53 2 5 0.18% 0.46% 3 6 10 21
GoPass and Way2Go
Pass Provision
1245 1383 148 165 13.67% 15.24% 162 180 482 536
Preferential Carpool
and Vanpool Parking 740 822 28 32 2.59% 2.95% 118 132 287 319 Bike Education and
Promotion
40 88 4 10 0.37% 0.92% 0 0 15 34
Promotional Program 6 12 1 1 0.09% 0.09% 0 1 2 5
Carshare (with annual
credits or discounts)
241 278 29 33 2.68% 3.05% 30 34 93 108
1148 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 29
Annual monitoring and reporting are required from the site by the City of San Mateo. Ongoing monitoring will help the project site track the impact of their TDM programs as well as provide a regular schedule for evaluating programming and identifying gaps and opportunities. The results will help the building adjust programs to better meet the needs of their residents and employees.

Annual Survey
The City of San Mateo requires an annual letter to the Public Works Director or designee that outlines the TDM measures implemented and information from a mode split survey.

To comply with City requirements, the TDM Coordinator will conduct an annual resident and employee survey to understand commute patterns and the modes by which they commute.

During the first year of occupancy, an initial survey should be conducted to establish a baseline to which future surveys will be compared.

The baseline survey and the subsequent annual surveys should ask questions to understand how residents and employees travel for different types of trips and understand barriers to sustainable travel. To gain insight into the resident’s and employee’s travel characteristics and attitudes, the survey should identify the following key topics:
• Mode of travel by trip purpose (work, school, leisure, etc.) • Work location
• Business travel requirements, if applicable
• Daycare or school pick-up/drop-off location, if applicable • Flexible working arrangements, if applicable
• Improvements to the main mode of travel
• Current barriers to walking/biking
• Ideas for how the property could encourage walking, biking, carpooling and transit • Car ownership
• Level of awareness of the property’s TDM amenities
• Feedback on amenities and services currently available to the residents and employees • Other services or amenities that are not currently offered that would encourage residents and employees to try a different mode of travel
The survey results allow the property to not only track program progress but also identify ways to adjust the program and further shift travel behavior towards more sustainable modes (transit, bike, walk and carpool) over time. The TDM Coordinator could use the data to understand which amenities are popular and should remain, which are not effective and should be adjusted, and identify additional measures to implement at their site. 6 Monitoring
1149 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 30
A. TDM ROI Calculator
B. 222 E 4th Ave. Site Assessment
7 Exhibits
1150 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 31
A. TDM ROI Calculator
The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Return on Investment-(ROI) Calculator is a tool owned by Mobility Lab, an Arlington County, Virginia funded transportation behavior and policy research center. It was developed in partnership with university and governmental partners, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration, to provide TDM program staff, transportation planners, and others involved in implementing TDM services a quantifiable way to estimate the ROI for TDM services.

According to the TDM ROI Calculator User Manual, the model calculates impacts for individual TDM services then combines the individual impacts, with discounts to account for overlap between services, to determine the cumulative impact of all services.4 The calculator performs the following functions:
• Estimates TDM travel impacts, defined as reductions in commute vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled (VMT), from a user-defined package of TDM services • Converts vehicle trip and VMT reductions into societal benefits, such as reduction in hours of travel time delay and gallons of gasoline saved
• Calculates the societal cost savings from each benefit and the overall cost saving from all benefits combined
• Compares the societal cost saving to the TDM program "investment" cost to estimate ROI As most TDM programs do not have detailed VMT and trip reduction data, the ROI Calculator instead asks for user participation numbers and program costs as the inputs for its calculations.

The model then uses four calculation factors derived from TDM service user surveys along with pre-set regional inputs and national environmental data to estimate the number of participants who will shift behavior and the number of daily vehicle trips, VMT and hours of congestion that their behavior shift will reduce. If more detailed regional and national data are known, they can be input to override the preset data used for calculation.

The inputs used for calculating the VMT and vehicle trip reductions for the 222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan are outlined below so that the results can be duplicated with ease. 4 Mobility Lab.(2019).TDM ROI Calculator User Manual Retrieved from https://mobilitylab.org/calculators/ 1151 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 32
A1 Regional Inputs
At the outset in Section A (Your Region, Service Area Type and Transit Availability), the TDM ROI Calculator asks users to make a series of selections to determine geographic and transit characteristics of the area being examined. The options selected for the 222 E 4th Avenue Plan are displayed in Table A.1 as follows:

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..1: Selections made for region, service area type and transit availability
Questions in the ROI Calculator Option Selected for the TDM Plan Metropolitan Region San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
Primary land use density and development pattern Moderate density, urban or small city/town Primary focus of TDM program outreach Primarily to commuters at worksite/through employers
Percentage of commuters within 1/2 mi of
bus/train stop in the service area
76% to 100% of commuters are within 1/2 mile of a
bus or train stop
Average public transit frequency in the service area
in the morning peak period (Select ONLY ONE
option)
Moderate-Average rush hour frequency for most
routes is 16-30 minutes
With the above inputs selected, the model determines the classifications for the project site as follows in Table A.2:

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..2: Project site TDM service area and transit availability classifications
Your TDM Service Area classification is: Suburban/Small city Your Transit Availability classification is: High Transit 1152 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 33
A2 Regional Travel, Environmental and Cost Benefit Factors The final section of the ROI Calculator (Section F - Additional Regional/Service Area Data Environmental Inputs) shows the default numbers used for regional travel, environmental and cost benefit factors. Users have the option to override these defaults by inputting values into the “User Defined” cells if specific local factors are known. Table A.3 shows the defaults assumed by the model and indicates if the defaults were overridden, and which values were used. The inputs defined in Table A.3 remained the same for all calculations for the 222 E 4th Avenue plan.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..3: Travel, vehicle pollutant emission, and benefit cost factor default and user defined values
Regional Travel Factors Regional
Default
User
Defined
Average home-to-work commute miles for the region (one-way distance) 9.6 13.91 Percentage of regional commuters who drive alone to work OR percentage of weekly commute trips made by driving alone

63.2% 72%2
Percentage of regional commuters who ride public transit to work OR percentage of weekly commute trips made by transit

17.6% 15%2
Regional Vehicle Pollutant Emission Factors National
Default
User
Defined
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) emission rate in grams per mile of travel 0.445 0.1713 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emission rate in grams per mile of travel 0.075 0.0354 Greenhouse gas (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent) emission rate in grams per mile of travel
387.460 342.0004
Regional Benefit Cost Factors Regional
Default
User
Defined
Median average wage rate for commuters in the service area or metropolitan region
$24.90 $49.711
Estimated average annualized cost to build/maintain one lane-mile of major roadway (combination of Interstate and limited access roadway) $165,000 N/A
Average pump price per gallon for regular unleaded gasoline $3.36 $5.943 1 Source: San Mateo Economic Development Association’s Labor Supply and Commute Patterns in San Mateo County Report, 2012.
2 Source: ACS 2019 5-year for the Census Tract 6063, Census.gov 3 Source: AAA Gas Prices
4 Source: California Air Resources Board Emissions Factors (EMFAC) database 1153 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 34
Assumptions
Resident Characteristics Assumptions
To estimate potential participation numbers, some assumptions about the number of individuals living at the property at 100% occupancy were made. These assumptions begin with the knowledge that there will be 111 units for rent. The assumptions and the basis for each are outlined in Table A.4.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..4: 222 E 4th Avenue resident and employee characteristics assumptions
Category Assumption and Basis Number
Total number of people
residing at the property at full
occupancy
ACS data indicates that there are 2.2 persons per
household in the census tract 6063 and there will be 2
studios and 8 one-bedrooms on site.
22 Children under 18 ACS data shows that 17% of the census tract’s population is children
4 Adults Subtracting children from the total population 18 Number of residential
commuters
ACS data shows that 39.4% of people residing in the
census tract are not in the labor force
11 Number of employee
commuters
ITE estimates a space of 303 sq.ft. and 500 sq.ft. for
each employee in an office and a supermarket
respectively. There will be 104,772 sq.ft. of office space and 17,658 sq.ft. of retail space.
381
1154 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 35
ROI Calculator Participation and Calculation Factors Assumptions In order to use the ROI calculator to calculate estimated impacts for the 222 E 4th Avenue project, assumptions were made to estimate participation rate for each strategy. Additionally, if a strategy was not outlined as a direct input in the model, assumptions were made to estimate the calculation factors associated with it. Table A.5 outlines those assumptions.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..5 Summary of Assumptions for each strategy Strategy ROI Calc Input
Participation
Assumption
(per year)
Basis for Participation Assumption
Placement
rate (%)
Assumption
Vehicle Trip
Reduction
Factor
Assumption
One-Way
Commute
Distance
Assumption
Drive-Alone
Access %
Assumption
TDM Coordinator
Comprehensive
commute
assistance
20 Assist 5% of residents and employees
with questions about transportation
including one-on-one assistance when
asked and promoting sustainable
transportation options (5
hours/month).
40%
Pre-set in
mode

0.9 Pre-set in
model

11.5 miles
Pre-set in
model
10%
Pre-set in
model
Institutionalizing
TDM at the
Property
General marketing 392
All residents and employees at the
property would be subjected to the
lease conditions.
0%
Pre-set in
model

0.4 Pre-set in
model

11.5 miles
Pre-set in
model
10%
Pre-set in
model
New Resident +
New Employee
Packet
Alternative mode
“try it” incentive 78
Each household and new employee
on the property would receive a
packet. At a minimum, the transit
users (15%) would take advantage of
the cards and an additional 5% will
“try it” based on the transit mode
split and ease of accessing the
incentive.
60%
Pre-set in
model

1.2 Pre-set in
model

8.6 miles
Pre-set in
model
10%
Pre-set in
model
Multimodal
Wayfinding
Signage
General marketing 392
The decals would be visible to all
residents, employees and visitors.
0%
Pre-set in
model

0.4 Pre-set in
model

11.5 miles
Pre-set in
model
10%
Pre-set in
model
TDM
Communications
Commute program
website 137
10% of adults would access webpage
for transportation info and incentives 40% 0.3 11.5 miles 10% 1155 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 36
and approximately 25% would see the
newsletter and social media
communications, especially if they are
included with communications
regarding other property updates.

Pre-set in
model
Pre-set in
model
Pre-set in
model
Pre-set in
model
GoPass and
Way2Go Pass
Provision
Ongoing transit
incentive
392
The transit pass will be distributed to
all employees and residents.
35%
Pre-set in
model

1.2 Pre-set in
model

8.6 miles
Pre-set in
model
10%
Pre-set in
model
Preferential
Carpool and
Vanpool Parking
Vanpool formation 35
4% of the population carpool/vanpool
and with an additional incentive more
people could be motivated to carpool.

An additional 5% will try it based on
convenience of finding carpool and
vanpool partners.
95%
Pre-set in
model

1.0 Pre-set in
model

28.8 miles
Pre-set in
model
80%
Pre-set in
model
Bike Education
and Promotion Custom 40
Approximately 21 residents and
employees who have access to long
term bike parking will attend and an
additional 5% will participate based
on interest.
25%
Pre-set in
model (for
commute
challenges/
events)

1.2 Used the same
pre-set for a
bike commute
program
10 miles
Average
doable biking
distance
according to
Mobility
Lab 5
40%
Pre-set in
model
Promotional
Program
Commute
Challenges/Events 78
Transit users at a minimum will take
advantage of promotional programs,
and an additional 5% of residents and
employee will “try it” based on
incentives.
25%
Preset in
model

0.3 Preset in
model

11.5 miles
Pre-set in
model
10%
Preset in
model
Carshare Carshare 72
It would be used by residents and
employees who do not have access to
parking.
15%
Preset in
model

0.3 Preset in
model

8.6 miles
Pre-set in
model
0%
Preset in
model
5 McLeish, Mike. (February 27,2017). How far is too far to bike to work? Retrieved from https://mobilitylab.org/2017/02/27/how-far-bike-work/ 1156 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 37
B. 222 E 4th Avenue Site Assessment
222 E. 4th Avenue Project Background Assessment Memorandum Introduction
The City of San Mateo has commissioned Steer to develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the 222 E. 4th Avenue project site to reduce the ceiling of potential congestion and trips generated by the project. The project is a proposed redevelopment of Draeger’s Market at 222 E. 4th Avenue into a single building that would consist of approximately 104,722 sq. ft of office space, 17,658 sq. ft of retail space for a grocer, and 8,971 sq. ft of residential space developed by Lane Partners (referred to as “the developer”).

The TDM Plan development begins with a thorough assessment of the site, including existing and planned conditions. A combination of desktop-based research and analysis, review of available site plans and renderings, and study of planned developments was utilized in our understanding of the site conditions.

The document details the following aspects of the site and project:
• Project Description
• Physical Attributes
– Site Geography and Road Network
– Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
– Transit Services
• Nearby Attractions
• Available TDM Services
• Travel Trends
• TOD Requirements (if applicable)
• Next Steps
1157 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 38
Project Description
The project site is a city block bounded by E. 4th Avenue to the northwest, S. B Street to the northeast, E. 5th Avenue to the southeast, and S. Ellsworth Avenue to the southwest. The project site is currently a grocery store spanning a whole city block. The project proposes demolishing the existing building at 222 E. 4th Avenue to construct a new 5-story mixed used building. The project includes:

1. 8 one-bedroom and 2 studio units (total of 10 units)

2. 104,722 sq. ft of office space

3. 17,658 sq. ft of retail space

4. 239 physical parking spaces as well as 50-60 valet parking spaces, in a 2-level subterranean garage and 12,392 sq. ft of covered parking area.

5. 2,070 sq. ft community open space

6. 1,450 sq. ft outdoor dining space
The project site is zoned as CBD/R – Central Business Residential. As shown in Figure 1, the lots to the north and south are also zoned as CBD/R. The lots towards the northwest are zoned as CBD – Central Business. The lot to the southwest is zoned as R5 – Multiple Family Dwellings (High Density). There is a large area zoned as Open Space to the southwest of the project site.

Figure 1 Zoning Map
Source: City of San Mateo Planning

1158 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 39
The project site zoning allows for a FAR of 3.0, due to a state density bonus the project will have a FAR of 3.1. The project site has an allowable height of 55’-0”; the developer has proposed a height of 72’-0”.

Table 1 Proposed Project Attributes
Current Proposed
Description Single story building – grocery
store
5 story multi-use building with
residential, office, and retail
space
Square Footage 49,478 sq. ft building 155,052 sq. ft mixed-use building Zoning Designation CBD/R CBD/R
Physical Attributes
Site Geography and Road Network
The project site is located on a city block which currently consists of Draeger’s Market, a grocery store. The current structure will be demolished. The block is situated between E. 5th Ave. to the south, E. 4th Ave. to the north, S. Ellsworth Avenue to the West, and S. B Street to the east.

The site is adjacent to E. 4th Avenue, a county-maintained street that feeds directly into two highways: U.S. Highway 101 to the east and the California State Route 82 (El Camino Real) to the west.
• U.S. Highway 101 is a major federal highway that runs north-south along the entire west coast. It connects several major cities including San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose • Route 82 connects to Interstate-880 (I-880) in San Jose and Interstate-280 (I-280) in San Francisco
Both the U.S. Highway 101 and Route 82 provide easy access to California State Route 92, which runs east west and runs over the San Mateo Bridge. This bridge bypasses the San Francisco Bay to connect San Mateo to the East Bay.
1159 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 40
Figure 2 Street Network
Source: City of San Mateo Public Works
Figure 3 Car-sheds from 222 E. 4th Avenue
Free Flow:
20-minute car-shed from 222 E. 4th Avenue
Rush hour:
20-minute car-shed from 222 E. 4th Avenue
Source: Walkscore.com

1160 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 41
The intersection at B Street and 4th Avenue was included in the San Mateo Existing Conditions Circulation Report6. As recorded in October 2018, the intersection maintains a “B” level of service (LOS) in the AM and PM Peak hours.

Table 2. Levels of Service for 222 E. 4th Avenue
Signalized Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service
Year 2018 Conditions
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
B Street and 4th Avenue 11.0 B 11.3 B
Source: San Mateo Existing Conditions Circulation Report (2018) Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
The site’s topography and road access, as well as proximity to other nearby services make this area an appealing pedestrian and cyclist environment. The walkability website Walkscore.com gives the site a 99 out of 100 for walking, “Walker’s Paradise – Daily errands do not require a car.” The walk shed for the project area is seen in Figure 4.

Currently B Street and 5th Avenue both serve as bike routes to the project site. Both bike routes are Class III. The bike route on 5th Avenue connects to the bicycle network to the north and south of the project site. As per recent San Mateo City Council direction, bike facilities along B Street from 5th Avenue to Baldwin Avenue have been removed from the 2020 Bicycle Master Plan.

Figure 4 20-minute Pedestrian-shed for 222 E. 4th Avenue Source: Walkscore.com
San Mateo Existing Conditions Report - Circulation
1161 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 42
Figure 5 Existing Bicycle Network
Source: San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan
All the streets surrounding the project site are characterized as “High Stress” streets by the April 2020 San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan due to their traffic volumes or lack of cycling facilities. This makes the streets more suited for experienced cyclists. The project site is in a high bicycle connectivity area.

Figure 6 Cycling Level of Stress
Source: San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan

1162 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 43
For nearby bicycle amenities, BikeLink operates multiple on-demand bike lockers located at the nearby San Mateo Caltrain Station. BikeLink allows cyclists to securely store their bike in secure lockers using a stored-value card that can be purchased online or at nearby vendors. There are 24 lockers at the San Mateo Caltrain Station. Additionally, there are two free-to-use public bike repair stations are located less than 0.5-mile of the project site. These stations are located at the San Mateo Public Library and the San Mateo Caltrain Station.

Planned Bicycle Projects
The 2020 Bicycle Master Plan was adopted by the San Mateo City Council on April 6, 2020 and serves as a blueprint for expanding and improving the San Mateo bicycle and mobility network in the coming years. The Plan includes one project relevant to the project site:
• 3
rd Avenue has proposed improvements to build a separated bike lane. This is a high priority project.
• 5
th Avenue has a planned Class II bicycle lanes from Virginia Avenue to El Camino Real. This is the 16th highest priority project in the 2020 Bicycle Master Plan.

Transit Services
The project site is 0.3 miles from the Caltrain station and is served by two San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) routes.

Caltrain
Caltrain connects the project site to San Francisco to the north as well as to San Jose and Gilroy to the south. The station is 0.3-miles, 6 minutes walking, from the site and can be accessed by bike, walk, transit, and car.

Table 3. Caltrain Service
Category San Mateo Station
Frequency 30 minutes
Walking distance to station 0.3 miles (6 minutes)
Access Park and ride lot, San Mateo BikeLink
Cost $3.20 - $10+ depending on distance
SamTrans
There are two bus routes with stops adjacent to the project site. The bus stop closest to the project site can be accessed via bike and walk. Additionally, there are other bus stops that are less than a 5 minute walking distance from the site for routes that have higher frequency. Each SamTrans bus is equipped with bike racks that hold up to three bikes. Trips cost $2.25 in cash or via a mobile app, or $2.05 if a Clipper card is being used. 1163 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 44
Table 4. SamTrans Service
SamTrans
Route #
Hours of
Operation
Frequency Closest Stop Distance
to Stop
Route Details
59 School day
service
1 AM bus,
4 PM buses
E. 4th Avenue &
S. Ellsworth
Avenue
203 ft. Connects to Borel
School
295 6 am – 7 pm Every 2
hours
E. 4th Avenue &
S. Ellsworth
Avenue
203 ft. Connects to Caltrain
station
55 School day
service
7AM bus,
1 PM bus,
3 PM bus
El Camino Real
& E. 5th Ave
1300 ft. Connects to Borel
Middle School
397 Afternoon Service
(1 pm – 3 pm)
Every hour El Camino Real
& E. 5th Ave
1300 ft. Connects San Francisco
and Palo Alto Transit
Ctr
ECR 24 hours service Every 15
mins
El Camino Real
& E. 5th Ave
1300 ft. Connects Daly City
BART and Palo Alto
Transit Ctr
250 6 am – 11 pm Every 30
mins
S San Mateo Dr
& E. 4th Ave
690 ft. Connects to College of
San Mateo
Nearby Attractions
Shopping
The project site is in downtown San Mateo and is close to a variety of retail and shopping options.

The project site will include a grocery store and other retail space as well. • The lot northwest of the project site contains several small retail stores in a strip mall • The lot southeast of the project site has a bank, a dance theatre, and a restaurant • A large parking structure with many retailers on the first level of the garage is located east of the site.
• There are several grocery stores located around half a mile walking radius of the project site:
– Dean’s Produce
– Suruki
– Golden 9th Deli and Market
• The site is in close proximity to Downtown San Mateo (one block south) which provides a variety of retail options.

Table 5. Shopping Center and Grocery Store Locations and Distances Shopping Center Distance Walk Transit Drive
Central Parking Garage (Suruki
Supermarket)
500 ft. 2 min - 2 min
Central Park Plaza (Dean’s Produce) 0.2 miles 3 mins - 4 min Takahashi Market 0.2 miles 5 min - 2 min
1164 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 45
Byrd’s Filling Station 0.2 miles 4 min - 2 min
Golden 9th Deli & Market 0.4 miles 8 min - 2 min
Mi Rancho Supermarket 0.4 miles 8 min - 4 min
Everybody’s Market 0.4 miles 9 min SamTrans Route #250 | 6 min
3 min
Trader Joe’s 1.6 miles 30 min SamTrans Route #292 | 17
min
6 min
Schools and Childcare
About seventeen percent (17%) of the population located in the census tract (residential area) are under the age of 18, with the median age and average household size being 39.2 and 2.2, respectively, according to the American Communities Survey (ACS) 2019. This suggests that this region is populated with young families that may add school or childcare trips into their daily schedule. Since school drop-offs and pickups can lead to significant traffic and congestion twice daily, the TDM Plan will explore synergies with existing Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs and related trip reduction strategies.

Childcare Centers
There are several childcare and Preschool centers located within the vicinity (2 miles) of the project location. Table 6 lists the childcare centers located close to the project site.

Table 6 Childcare Centers
Childcare Distance Walk Transit Drive
Safari kid-San Mateo 0.2 miles 4 minutes - 2 minutes
Shu Academy 0.3 miles 7 minutes - 3 minutes
Intercommunal Preschool 0.5 miles 9 minutes 8 minutes 4 minutes Little Panda Home Family Daycare 0.7 miles 11 minutes 10 minutes 4 minutes Pita, Victoria Daycare 0.9 miles 17 minutes 11 minutes 4 minutes Amelia L’s Family Daycare 1.0 miles 20 minutes 19 minutes 6 minutes Lucy’s Learn and Play Daycare 1.0 miles 20 minutes 13 minutes 5 minutes Mi Second Casa Preschool and
Daycare

1.1 miles 21 minutes 11 minutes 5 minutes
Happy Kids Daycare and Preschool 1.2 miles 24 minutes 12 minutes 6 minutes Little Scientist Nursey School 1.3 miles 28 minutes 27 minutes 6 minutes 4-KIDS Family Daycare 1.4 miles 27 minutes 16 minutes 6 minutes My little Mushroom Daycare 1.5 miles 30 minutes 11 minutes 6 minutes Zena’s Home Daycare 1.8 miles 35 minutes 18 minutes 8 minutes Foster City Preschool and Daycare
Center

2.0 miles 41 minutes 15 minutes 8 minutes
Nearby Schools
1165 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 46
There are over a dozen schools within two miles of the project site. A comprehensive list of schools located within 2 miles of the project site is provided in Table 7.

Table 7 Nearby Schools
*Assigned schools for the project site
Nearby Schools Travel distance in miles
Art Academia 0.3
St. Matthew’s Episcopal Day School 0.4
St. Matthew Catholic Elementary School 0.6
Centennial Montessori School 0.7
Sunnybrae Elementary School* 0.7
La Escuelita Christian Academy 1.0
Stanbridge Academy 1.0
St. Timothy School 1.0
Baywood Elementary School 1.1
College Park Elementary School 1.1
San Mateo High School* 1.1
South Hillsborough Elementary 1.1
Aragon High School 1.2
Borel Middle School* 1.2
Crystal Springs Uplands School 1.2
North Shoreview Montessori 1.2
San Mateo Adult School 1.2
Pacific Rim International School 1.4
San Mateo Park School 1.6
St. Catherine of Siena School 1.7
1166 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 47
San Mateo Safe Routes to School
San Mateo County Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a
program of San Mateo County that encourages and
enables school-age children to walk and bike to
school. SRTS is intended to reduce school-travel
related congestion and emissions around schools, as
well as improve health and wellness through
physical activity. The program is led and
implemented by volunteers, often parents and PTA
members.

The project site is within the San Mateo-Foster
School district and has been zoned for Sunnybrae
Elementary School and Borel Middle School. These
schools are included in the SRTS program. Figure 7
shows the scope of the Safe Routes to School
program for Borel Middle School within a half-mile
radius, including suggested walking and biking
routes.

Figure 7 Walking and Biking Routes to Borel School
Safe Route to School Map for Borel Middle School
Other Educational Institutions
There are two universities within a 2-mile driving radius from the site. • Draper University (0.2 miles) on 3rd Avenue is a private, for-profit school that offers boot camp-style educational programming in collaboration with Arizona State University. • Samuel Merritt University on S. Amphlett Boulevard (1.9 miles) is the San Francisco Peninsula campus of the Oakland-based Samuel Merritt private university, focused on health sciences. • Two key educational institutions are outside of a 2-mile radius but may also generate trips to/from the project site
– San Mateo Community College (3.6 miles)
– College of San Mateo (3.4 miles)
Source: San Mateo Safe Routes to School
1167 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 48
Parks
There are four parks located with a one-mile walking distance from the project site. • San Mateo Central Park – 0.2-mile walking distance
– 16.5-acre park, bounded by 9th Avenue to the south, E. 5th Avenue to the north, N. El Camino Real to the west, and Laurel Avenue to the east. Central Park is one of the most popular parks and attractions in San Mateo, which may need to be considered when determining TDM strategies.
• De Anza Historical Park – 0.5-mile walking distance
– Small park, located along Arroyo Court.
• Gateway Park – 0.5-mile walking distance
– Small park surrounded by housing and business that provides a pedestrian path through 2 nd Avenue and 3rd Avenue. This park also has access to the San Mateo Creek. • Martin Luther King Jr. Park – 0.9-mile walking distance – The block sized park is bounded by Monte Diablo Avenue to the south, E. Santa Inez Avenue to the north, N. Eldorado Street to the west, and N. Fremont Street to the east.

The park has a playground, a pool, and a community center that offers community activities.

Available TDM Services
Commute.org Incentives
Commmute.org is the San Mateo County Transportation Demand Management Agency. Their resources are available to all residents and employees within San Mateo County. The residents and employees of the project site will have access to the TDM resources provide for commutes within the County and in the surrounding areas. They provide the following services:
• Try Transit Incentives: Commute.org provides a free “Try Transit” program that allows individuals to request free tickets for the transit option that works best for them. • Carpool Incentives: Commuters who use Waze carpool or Scoop are eligible to earn gift cards worth up to $100.
• Vanpool Incentives: Drivers of a new vanpool can earn a $500 reward, and vanpool riders can be reimbursed $100/month of their costs for up to three months. • Bike Education: Free bike safety workshops and marketing materials on biking are available to residents and commuters. These workshops are scheduled upon request and are available to employers and other development sites, including residential properties within San Mateo County.
• Bike Incentives: Commute.org currently provides commuters who live or work in San Mateo County with incentives worth between $25 to $200 for biking to work. To participate in the program, bike commuters must track their work commutes using the Strava app. The rides are then recorded in the STAR platform, Commute.org’s incentive delivery platform, where commuters can access their incentives.
1168 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 49
Travel Trends
The travel trends described in this section are based on information from the Census Bureau for the project’s census tract (6063).

Demographics
The project site is located within Census Tract 6063. The Census Tract has a population of 4,110.

The information outlined in Table 8 and Figure 8 below provides the general residents’ demographic profiles and travel behavior.

Table 8 Census Tract 6063 Demographics Characteristics
Category Characteristics Amount
Age Under 18 17%
18 to 64 57%
Over 65 26%
Education Bachelor’s degree or higher 48.5%
Households Renter-Occupied Housing Units 49%
Number of households 1,805
Persons per household 2.2
Median household income $92,007
Race White alone 62%
Asian alone 29%
Hispanic or Latino 24%
Black or African American 3%
Mixed 4%
Languages spoken Speaks English only 53%
Speaks a language other than English: Spanish 19%
Speaks a language other than English: Indo-European Languages 7% Speaks a language other than English: Asian and Pacific Island Languages
18%
Source: ACS 2019 5-year, Census.gov
Commute Outlook
Census Reporter data from 2019 indicates that majority (72%) of people that live within Census Tract 6063 drive alone to work. The data also reports that 21% of the population use sustainable modes of transportation such as public transit, carpooling and walking to commute to work, while 5% of the population work from home. Of those that commute to work, the mean travel time is

27.6 minutes. Of note, commuting patterns have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and may be in flux for some time as businesses gradually adjust their travel patterns. The postpandemic reality might result in new commuting patterns as more organizations implement hybrid and flexible working patterns.
1169 of 1252
222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 50
Figure 8 Commute mode split for Census Tract 6063
Source: ACS 2019 5-year, Census.gov (Universe: workers 16 and older) Where people work
According to the ACT and as demonstrated in Table 9, residents in Census Tract 6063 commute to a variety of locations, with a majority commuting out of San Mateo. The City and County of San Francisco is the most common destination for commuters (20.6%) followed by the City of San Mateo (15.4%).

Table 9 Distribution of job locations for residents of Census Tract 6063 Job Location Count Share
San Francisco, CA 407 20.6%
San Mateo, CA 305 15.4%
Redwood City, CA 134 6.8%
Palo Alto, CA 115 5.8%
South San Francisco, CA 83 4.2%
Burlingame, CA 69 3.5%
Foster City, CA 62 3.1%
San Jose, CA 53 2.7%
San Carlos, CA 50 2.5%
Menlo Park, CA 47 2.4%
All other locations 650 32.9%
All Places (Cities, CDPs, etc.) 1,975 100%
Source: ACS 2019 5-year, Census.gov (Universe: workers 16 and older) Inflow/Outflow analysis of the census tract, as shown in Figure 9, depicts those 1,862 individuals that commute out of the area and 8,091 people commute into the area for work on a daily basis.

The high inflow number signifies that the region is dominated by commercial and mixed-use land1170 of 1252 222 E 4th Avenue TDM Plan | TDM Plan
October 2022 | 51
use types, with key employers including medical centers and downtown retail and restaurant establishments. A total of 113 individuals both live and work inside the census tract.

Figure 9 Inflow and Outflow patterns
Source: U.S Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies
TOD Requirements
Since the project site is not zoned as TOD, this policy does not apply.

Next Steps
Based on the information gleaned from the Background Assessment, our team will develop a Draft TDM Plan. The TDM Plan will include a list of recommended and optional TDM Strategies for the project site, and will touch on the following types of strategies:
• Site elements
• Education and incentives
• Service provision
• Monitoring and reporting
Based on comments from the City of San Mateo we will edit and submit a finalized TDM Plan and will work with the City to ensure it is approved.
1171 of 1252
Control Information
Prepared by Prepared for
Steer
800 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1320,
Los Angeles, CA 90017
USA
+1 (213) 425 0990
www.steergroup.com
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Steer project/proposal number Client contract/project number 24174201
Author/originator Reviewer/approver
Parama Ghosh Roy Julia Wean
Other contributors Distribution
Barbara Ledesma, Titi Onabanjo Client: Steer:

Version control/issue number Date

10.28.2022
1172 of 1252
steergroup.com
1173 of 1252
1 From: Mia Maddalena
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 8:38 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Draegers store and site.

Dear City council members,
I understand the need for more housing downtown but with all the people moving into the downtown area, where Do you think all these people will get their groceries if there is no large grocery store downtown?
Not everyone will eat out all the time and with the prices of restaurants these days who can afford to eat in them regularly. The cost of living is so high we need another affordable grocery store downtown to shop at. You want to promote shopping locally but the variety of stores downtown are dwindling and our town is becoming sad and un-interesting .

The traffic will be a nightmare All those living downtown have to drive to a grocery store in another town.

The logical solution is to place a grocery store back into the site where Draegers was! I’m loosing faith in this town
-Mia Alioto
Sent from my iPad
1174 of 1252
From: Caroline Caufield
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 7:50 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Draeger Redevelopment Project
I would like to voice my concern that the space allocated for a grocery store is inadequate for a full service store. Downtown SM needs a grocery store that offers the full spectrum of food choices, not a quick shop like 7-11. If the developer has put together a plan that does not allow for that, send them back to the drawing board.

Caroline Caufield
, San Mateo
Sent from Mail for Windows
1175 of 1252
From: cj665 (null)
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 3:22 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Save Draegers Market
I am a supporter of Draegers Market and urge the city council to move to save it. It’s the only reason I go to downtown San Mateo. There’s nothing else there.

I’d rather go to Burlingame Avenue or Laurel in San Carlos. They offer more of a variety of shops and restaurants than San Mateo.

Sent from my iPad
1176 of 1252
1177 of 1252
1178 of 1252
1 From: Marcus Gilmour
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 11:13 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Cc: Drew Corbett <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]> Subject: Draeger's Project Update
Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners,
It was brought to my attention that a community member posted a false update on our Draeger’s project on the Nextdoor website yesterday. Here is a link to the post: Draeger's Project Post (also pasted below in case you can’t access nextdoor)
In the post he claims that the project will no longer be providing space for a future grocery store “due to city concerns about the loading dock required for such a store.” The purpose of my email here is to assure you all that this is not true. Our plan, which has remained consistent from the outset, is to design the ground floor retail space to accommodate a future grocery store tenant as we recognize how critical it is to the downtown community to have access to a walkable/bikeable grocery store, not to mention the community at large which will benefit from fewer cars on the road. In fact, the goal is to bring Draeger’s back into the new project and we are currently discussing this scenario with them now. I’m confident that if I can provide Richard Draeger with some predictability around project approvals/construction timing, etc. that we can come to an agreement on a new lease.

I’m meeting with the individual that posted the nextdoor update today and I will walk him through our plans for the project. In addition, our team continues to engage the community on this project including the Gramercy residents and other key stakeholders. In fact, if you are able to forward any emails or messages you’ve received on this issue I will reach out to each person individually and offer to meet for coffee to talk about the project.

Finally, I’d encourage folks to visit our project website here: https://courbanize.com/projects/222‐east‐4th‐ ave/information
Through this site we post project updates and provide a platform for community feedback. To date, we have over 380 comments from community members.

Should you have any questions about the project please don’t hesitate to reach out to me directly via email or on my cell (We are finally breaking ground on our 180 3rd Ave project [formerly Aaron Brothers] on the corner of 3rd and Ellsworth later this month and wanted to make you all aware as well) Regards,
1179 of 1252
1180 of 1252
1181 of 1252
1182 of 1252
1183 of 1252
1 From: Planning <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 3:50 PM
To: Ashley Snodgrass <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: B Street South Proposed Project ‐‐ Keep a full size grocery store as a requirement Hi Ashely,
The following email was received. Can you please forward to the appropriate staff members.

Thank you,
Laura Aguirre
Senior Development Review Technician, Community Development Department 330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650‐522‐7187 | [email protected]
Visit the Citizen Self‐Service (CSS) Portal today! Skip the line…now you can submit for permits online, track permits, planning applications, code enforcement cases, business tax records, and request inspections online from anywhere, at any time using a computer, tablet, or smartphone!
From: Suzanne Kennedy
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 2:41 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]> Subject: B Street South Proposed Project ‐‐ Keep a full size grocery store as a requirement Dear San Mateo City Council Members and San Mateo City Planning Department, I urge you to support the inclusion of a full size grocery store in this proposed project. The loss of the current Draegers market will be a tragedy for downtown San Mateo, its residents, and visitors if it is not replaced with a full size grocery store, preferably one as service oriented and unique as Draegers.

Draegers is a destination for my family and a reason we will go downtown and then go to other stores or businesses. But other families and individuals that live or will live (after more housing is added), having a 1184 of 1252
2 full size grocery story is a integral part of a vibrant place to live. There is little value in adding housing near transportation when residents must drive out of the area to go food shopping.

Please make sure that this project is not a loss of a community resource by keeping a full size grocery store required for its realization.

Sincerely,
Suzanne Kennedy
San Mateo
1185 of 1252
1186 of 1252
1 From: Jean Kovacs
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 5:53 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Draegers Replacement
Please include a Draegers replacement in the same location. San Mateo needs a downtown full‐service grocery store.

Jean Kovacs
Partner
1187 of 1252
1188 of 1252
1 From: Levaggi, Scott
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 10:12 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Scott and Anna Levaggi
Subject: grocery store
To whom it may concern,
I have lived closed to downtown SM for 25 years plus and have worked downtown for 15 plus years.

Downtown needs and must have a sufficient Grocery Store.

Scott Levaggi
San Mateo, Ca 94402
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message. 1189 of 1252
1 From: Michal Lim
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 7:08 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Grocery Store Needed Downtown
From: Michal Lim
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 7:03 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Grocery Store Needed Downtown
Dear Council Members,
Please, please, please make sure that San Mateo keeps a grocery store downtown. All the people who will be moving into the new housing units being constructed shouldn't have to drive to a grocery store. I now have 3 friends who are older and have bought condos around downtown. Many reasons were cited for their decision to move out of single‐family houses—proximity to stores, restaurants, bus stops, the train, Central Park, the library, and access to groceries. They all shop at Dean's, as do I when I need to go to the bank or do other shopping. We need to keep a full grocery store as well as other small stores. There are so many restaurants which is great but a variety of retailers would be good, too.

I have emailed, taken surveys, and asked questions before without anyone listening or so it seems. One issue I've talked about a lot is the need for parking at the new Trader Joe's that will be constructed by 92. The new location will also be less convenient because it will be on a busier road. I'm only hoping that shopping early in the morning on weekdays will make it easier for us retirees! Candidly yours,
MIchal Lim
1190 of 1252
1 From: Mimi Maslan
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 5:21 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: URGENT ‐ Grocery store need in downtown
To those planning the future of downtown ‐
Please, please, please make sure that downtown San Mateo has a full size grocery store as you plan for the future. I work on 3rd Ave and my husband works down near 9th Ave. While we are residents of Burlingame, I do at least 50% of our grocery shopping at Draegers. It is super convenient to the business district and to all of the apartments/homes in the area. Please plan to keep a grocery store for our convenience and for our quality of life. In addition, there are many elderly in the area that need an option too.

Thank you for reading this.

Mimi Maslan
1191 of 1252
From: Bob O'Pezio
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 9:16 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Wendy Lao <[email protected]>; Rendell Bustos <[email protected]> Subject: B Street South project
Planning Commission,
• We are writing to urge you to do everything in your power to ensure B Street South is approved as proposed with a full service grocery store and no taller than five (5) stories.

Robert & Sharron O’Pezio
San Mateo
1192 of 1252
From: Bob O'Pezio
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:55 AM
To: Rendell Bustos <[email protected]>
Subject: Lane B Street south proposal
Mr. Bustos,
As senior citizen residents in San Mateo we rely heavily on Draegers market so we strongly urge the Planning Commission to require that a full service grocery store remain at Draeger’s location.

We also urge you to require any structure to be a maximum of five stories and preferably less.

Since our previous objections to the proposal (see below) have had no impact please support the current design and not the Planning Commission design which calls for another story on top.

Thank you,
Robert & Sharron O’Pezio
San Mateo
We vehemently oppose the project and urge you to disapprove Lane’s proposal. The project will adversely affect our lives and the lives of all existing residents for the following reasons:

1. Environmental degradation caused by the demolition

2. Noise pollution and inconvenience to surrounding residents and businesses

3. Loss of Draegers a valued retail/grocery store that is within walking distance and critical to nearby residents.

4. Increased traffic congestion with the resulting pollution and inconvenience

5. Negative impact on local restaurants and retailers.
1193 of 1252
1194 of 1252
-----Original Message-----
From: Judith Paton
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 8:44 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: New high rises downtown
Please take this opportunity to establish design standards for our downtown that add to the historic look, rather than allowing developers to build utilitarian façades that clash with it. In the long run it’s good for business because people are drawn to neighborhoods that are attractive. You have already received several pictures of attractive buildings, of which the 101 Ellsworth project is one example.

With this many new proposals in the works, this is the time to choose to make our downtown beautiful.

Thank you
Judith Paton
Sent from my iPhone
1195 of 1252
From: Janet Periat
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:28 AM
To: Diane Papan <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Closure of 17th Avenue Safeway

Addendum to my earlier letter:

One of the main reasons for my emotional response regarding the possibility of losing Safeway (along with the logical points I presented):

In October 2020, I woke up from a seizure having lost 30 plus years of memories. I had no idea who my husband of 30 years was. All I knew was that I went to bed at 27 years old in Pescadero and woke up in my grandmother’s house here in San Mateo at 61 years old. I lost my ability to drive, I was deeply confused, fatigued and distraught. I lost my ability to use my computer or phone. Caring for myself was like scaling Everest. But I could get to Safeway. I couldn’t get to downtown because I’d forgotten how to get there, plus it was too far, but I knew where Safeway was, and I could get there on foot. It became a lifeline for me.

I have since mostly healed. I’m on anti-seizure meds, I can drive, I’m obviously back on the computer, and I can write my humor columns once more, and my novels.

But that experience of losing my cognitive abilities, my through-line, experiencing that extreme disorientation of not recognizing my own husband, losing my past and present, gave me a window into my potential 90s. How hard it would be if I lost my ability to use a computer again, if I didn’t have a husband to care for me, if I faced that kind of confusion again. I’m childless and estranged from my family. I have to be able to depend on myself. I want to stay in San Mateo. I know if I lose my mind once more, I’ll probably still recognize my grandmother’s house. Part of my plan to stay here and care for myself in my later years was the ability to walk to that Safeway.

My adage has always been “Well, at least I’ll be able to walk to Safeway to get my food.” And now you people are going to take that anchor of safety from me.

So be it. Things change. I keep hearing Bruce Lee’s quote in my head: "Be like water, my friend, be like water.”
So maybe my river now needs to flow elsewhere. I just was never expecting to lose that Safeway.

However, I’m glad I’m finding out now rather than having Safeway taken away from me at ninety. Like my neighbors. Some of whom are autistic, disabled, in their mid-nineties, dependent on that grocery store for survival. I know how scared they’ll be when they find out. How will they care for themselves? they’ll ask. Answer? Who knows?
Thanks for listening. I know you’re trying your best. I wouldn’t want your job because no choice you make can possilbly satisfy everyone.

I’m just worried about losing precious resources, like the ability to walk to a reasonably-priced grocery store. We lost Lucky years back, but gained so many more people. 1196 of 1252
It’s just making it so challenging for your disabled and elderly residents to survive here.

Thanks again,
Janet Periat
> On Apr 24, 2022, at 7:28 AM, Janet Periat < > wrote:
>
> Dear Ms. Papan:
>
> I was greatly alarmed by the decision of the City Council on April 18th to close the grocery store and redevelop the Safeway property at 17th Avenue. Also by the response of a City Council member who said that the residents could “all shop at Draeger’s.” Which you have already approved for closure. And as of a week ago, Draeger’s has no firm plans to stay, and hasn’t found an alternative grocery space. >
> So there won’t be any grocery stores within walking distance of my neighborhood. >
> I’m actually getting tears here just thinking about what you folks are planning to take from me. >
> Beyond that, even if Draeger’s stayed, it’s out of the price range of the majority of residents in my area of Homestead. It’s like comparing Maseratis to Hondas. “They can all buy Maseratis now that we don’t offer Hondas."
>
> I have many friends in their seventies, eighties and nineties who walk to that Safeway twice a day to get their meals. Twice a day. They walk. Where will they go for food? They don’t have computers, they don’t have kids caring for them, they are dependent on that Safeway for survival. >
> And the flippancy with the response “They can all shop at Draeger’s” to me means that no one on the council is tracking the grocery-stores-per-resident ratio. It also says to me that the council doesn’t care at all about the elderly who depend on a neighborhood grocery store for survival. >
> I understand you folks are under pressure to provide more housing, but a mixed use building there with offices, we don’t need. We need a grocery store there. >
> I planned on retiring here in my family home of 100 years, which is three blocks from the Safeway. My mother shopped there when I was a kid, my earliest memories of grocery shopping are from that store.

But my emotional response is beside the point.
>
> The point is, the quality of life for your residents is getting worse. You aren’t thinking of the neighbors living in the redeveloped areas, you aren’t tracking grocery store per resident ratios, the callousness of “they can shop at Draeger’s” and then quickly moving on from the subject of cutting off the lifeline for hundreds if not thousands of residents was beyond cruel. And also alarming that no one on the Council bothered to bring up the fact that Draeger’s is closing. >
> And also shows that no one is looking at the whole picture. No one is thinking of the elderly. You’re just concentrating on helping developers, not your residents. >
> We need that Safeway. We need it to stay. I don’t care if you put some huge building there, just make sure Safeway is the first floor.
1197 of 1252
>
> Think of your elderly residents who depend on that Safeway for survival. Think of your residents. Think of someone other than developers and the state requirements to build. >
> I am beyond upset by this. That store is/was part of my retirement plan. I knew if all else failed, I could get over there to feed myself. Now you’re taking that option away from me. >
> But I guess I can move elsewhere. Because I’m beginning to see that I can’t depend on the City Council watching out for me or my elderly friends who are trying to survive here. >
> Which is sad. I was born at Mills Hospital downtown. I grew up here. My great-grandmother started an auto business here in the 1920s that lasted fifty years. I’m the last Periat living in San Mateo. And I’m starting to see that it may be time for the last Periat to sell and move away. >
> Breaks my heart.
>
> With respect,
>
> Janet Periat
1198 of 1252
1 From: Susie Reeves
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 9:58 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Downtown San Mateo and Draegers
To whom it may concern,
Why are you destroying downtown San Mateo? Isn’t it bad enough that you are getting rid of the ethnic mon and pop businesses and restaurants ‐ for what? More expensive housing. I loved our downtown because of all the eclectic stores and restaurants. Isn’t it bad enough that Traggs was replaced with housing — and now soon Draegers‐‐ our last local grocery store downtown. Having no full grocery store downtown in not acceptable!! How much more housing do we need downtown? You are turning downtown into nothing more than housing and restaurants. It was so nice to have a downtown that I could do all my shopping or just pick up a few needed groceries on my daily walk.

Please think this through beyond the $$$. No more housing in downtown San Mateo and please leave Dragers alone!!! Susie Reeves
“I would rather stand with God and be judged by the world, than stand with the world and be judged by God.” 1199 of 1252
1200 of 1252
From: Janice
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 1:16 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: downtown grocery store needed
To City council and city redevelopment planners,
I am writing with regard to redevelopment plans for downtown San Mateo, specifically the Draeger's site at 4th and B street, and downtown SM generally (eg former Trag's site).

I believe it is essential to retain a reasonable and usable site for a full-service grocery in the downtown area, and was under the impression that Draeger's would likely continue to operate in the new building. I am now hearing that this is unlikely and/or the size of proposed allocation will make it unlikely for other grocers as well.

The necessity of a full service grocer is consistent with the building of increased transit oriented development. If we want people to walk and not use cars, we need to have essential services within walking distance. I have been a consistent patron of Draeger's since it was built, more often than not accessing the store by foot from Sunnybrae rather than driving. As an able-bodied walker, I am fortunate to have 3 choices of walkable grocery stores, but many in the downtown and north of downtown area will specifically need a downtown grocer.

Please keep the original intention of creating a suitable and economically viable space for a full-service grocer in downtown San Mateo development.

Respectfully,
Janice Schreckengost and Steve Greenblatt
San Mateo, CA 94402
1201 of 1252
From: Francie
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 8:09 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Development
Greetings -
We are residents of San Mateo and one of the main the reasons we moved here is because of our walkable city.

Since my husband doesn’t drive, having Draeger’s nearby was extremely attractive, as well as other local businesses and beautiful Central Park. We are saddened that another new development is taking over the Draeger’s spot with talks of no full-line grocery taking its place because of loading dock issues. Now wouldn’t this have been determined as the project was approved? Why don’t you leave the perfectly good building there which has underground parking, loading abilities and other business space on top of the grocery store? I realize it’s too late to stop this project, but please understand you are not acting on behalf of your citizens to keep building large projects, which detract from city architecture and remove affordable places for small business owners to offer their services. Please, please stop and consider your resident tax payers who rely on local businesses and need to have a full line grocery store (and other services) within our downtown area.

Tom & Frances Souza
Sent from my iPhone
1202 of 1252
1 From: Candace De Souza
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 8:21 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: San Mateo Deveopment
Subject: Grocery store in downtown San Mateo
Dear Council members:

I urge you to make sure we have a full service grocery store in downtown San Mateo. I have heard rumors that they are taking out Draeger’s in the new building project.

After removing Trags and now Safeway on 17th and soon Trader Joe’s, we are left with nothing.

Please do not take Draeger’s too. It needs a large space and we have heard only a small area has been allocated. Changes need to be made now!!
Respectfully,
Candace De Souza

San Mateo, CA. 94401
Sent from my iPhone
1203 of 1252
From: Richard Draeger
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:51 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Lane Project at 222 E. Fourth Ave
Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members,
The purpose of this letter is to provide support for Lane Parners' proposed mixed-use project on our existing Draeger's Market site in the Downtown. We have been working on the design and operational details of the retail area alongside the project team for the past 2 years. The layout will be able to accommodate a full-service grocer and is similar in size to our Los Altos location.

It will be able to provide the quality offerings that the San Mateo community desires. In addition, we believe the community plaza area on the corner of 4th and Ellsworth will create an enjoyable experience and natural community gathering spot for customers, Downtown residents and visitors. While I recognize the concern expressed by some residents at the downsizing of the existing store, the size of the retail space within the proposed project is large enough to accommodate a practical grocery store and the design has been tailored specifically to achieve this outcome.

In conclusion, I fully support the proposed project and look forward to seeing it approved after all these years.

Regards,
Richard A. Draeger
Draeger's Super Markets, Inc.

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL -- ALL information transmitted hereby is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or the agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient(s), please note that any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this communication in error should notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. mail. t
1204 of 1252
From: Eric Sundstrom
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 4:00 PM
To: Wendy Lao <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Marcus Gilmour <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Draeger's redevelopment public comment
Regarding restrictive covenants, here is an article describing a similar situation in Palo Alto:
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/11/09/family-owned-grocery-store-seeks-to-set-up-shop-at-collegeterrace-centre In this case the JJ&F Market on El Camino Real was redeveloped, with the covenant ensuring a grocery store remains in the space despite multiple changes in tenancy. For the Draeger's development the location is already a prime location for a grocer with ample parking and foot traffic, so there should be minimal risk to the developer in adopting such a covenant.

Regards,
Eric
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 3:44 PM Eric Sundstrom wrote:

To the San Mateo Planning Commission,
I am writing in regards to the proposed redevelopment of the Draeger's Market at 222 E. 4th Avenue.

This project will reduce retail square footage from 59k to 17k square feet for a site at the heart of the downtown retail core. In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce required retail frontage from 75% to 47% on B Street, 4th Avenue, and Ellsworth. As a result, the B Street frontage - San Mateo's signature shopping street - consists primarily of a blank wall fronting the parking garage. The continual elimination of retail space across downtown will only serve to drive up retail rents on balance, driving out the independent small businesses we cherish.

In exchange, the applicant offers a public plaza and 10 units of affordable housing. These 10 units are a drop in the bucket for a project that will likely employ 300-500 people in 100k square feet of office space. Directly across the street, the developers of 445 South B Street are proposing full retail frontage along B, alongside 60 units of affordable housing.

Overall, the benefits provided here do not match the impact on our jobs / housing imbalance, alongside the impacts of 3 years of construction during which downtown will have no full service grocery store.

While not every project can balance jobs and housing, this project should only be approved if the developer provides a meaningful contribution to the vibrancy of our downtown retail core. This could potentially include contributions towards the B Street pedestrian mall conversion, an enhanced retail environment on the B Street frontage, and/or a restrictive covenant to ensure the grocery space remains a full-service grocery in perpetuity.

Regards,
Eric Sundstrom
San Mateo, CA
1205 of 1252
From: Lisa Taner
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 11:12 AM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]> Cc: Laurie Hietter ; Drew Corbett <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Please Postpone Draeger's Meeting
Hi Christina,
I concur with Ms. Hietter that the Thursday special meeting should be postponed. Aside from having access to a second San Mateo grocery store removed (possibly forever or a very long while - placing MORE residents in vehicles to obtain foodstuffs,),which should be discussed in great detail with residents, there is the matter of Planning Commissioner Nugent presiding over anything at the moment due to the current investigation of his misdemeanor case by the District Attorney's office.

Thank you,
Lisa Taner
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 8:36 AM Laurie Hietter wrote:

Dear Ms. Horrisberger,
The staff report for the Draeger's project was posted at 7 pm on Monday, exactly 72 hours before the Thursday special Planning Commission meeting. I was dismayed to see that the packet contains 1,204 pages, including the CEQA document for the project.

My concern is that the Planning Commission will not have time to read and absorb all of the documents prior to making a decision to approve the subject documents. It is also an unreasonable burden on the public to have so little time to review and formulate comments on the documents.

I request that you postpone the meeting.

I am also concerned about Adam Nugent sitting on the Planning Commission when he has displayed such appalling bad judgment by removing Rob Newsom campaign signs, remaining silent about it for a week, and then making a series of excuses for his illegal behavior. We, and many other city residents, have requested that the City Council remove Adam Nugent from the Planning Commission.

I respectfully request your response.

Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
1206 of 1252
From: Laurie Hietter
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 3:38 PM
To: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on the 222 E. 4th Ave. Draeger's Market Project Hi,
Please see my comments on the proposed project at 222E. 4th Ave. (Draeger's Market). I have also enclosed my summary of the cumulative projects gleaned from the city's website, upon which I base many of my comments. Please do revise it if I have numbers in error (I know some have changed a little bit).

Please forward these comments to your planner. The city website seems to be stuck so I can't look it up.

Also, I hope that the Planning Commission will follow the City Council's approach of asking for Zoom participants to raise their hands at the beginning so we don't have the last-minute out-of-town callers trying to even out the numbers.

Thank you.

Best,
Laurie
1207 of 1252
Laurie and Randy Hietter
1 COMMENTS ON 222 E. 4TH AVENUE (DRAEGER’S MARKET)
Key comments on the proposed project:

1. Jobs/Housing Imbalance. The project adds to a jobs/housing imbalance and should include more housing.

2. Loss of Downtown Grocery. The loss of Draeger’s Market would be a substantial hardship to seniors and others who rely on the only downtown market. Even the loss of Draeger’s for the ~2 year construction period would be a hardship for downtown.

3. Too Much Office Space. There is over 132,000 square feet of available office space downtown, not counting the 260,000 square feet of approved office space for the Trag’s site, 180 E. 3
rd
, and 500 E. 3
rd
. There is another about 600,000 square feet
pending.

4. Inadequate Cumulative Impact Analysis. The CEQA Addendum and supporting documents do not adequately identify the cumulative impact scenarios and compare them to the General Plan and the Downtown Plan.

5. Design. The design of the project is not compatible.

6. The CEQA Addendum is Inadequate. The assumptions for population are overstated given the 10 units are studio and one bedroom. The estimate of employees per 1,000 square feet of office space is high. Most tech firms now use 150- 200 square feet, which means the number of employees, traffic trips and parking needs are undercounted. The Addendum does not provide assumptions for cumulative projects, which underestimates the impacts related to Air Quality, Noise, Traffic and Parking.

7. The Short Review Period is Inadequate. Three days to review the staff report of over 1,200 pages is inadequate for the public. Please provide the environmental document links on the “What’s Happening in Development” page.

OFFICE VS. HOUSING
This project has a substantial jobs/housing imbalance. The building should include additional housing.

In 2021, the planning commissioners were quoted in the Daily Journal (September 17, 2021):
“I don’t want to necessarily say no to office development per se, but again the jobs-housing imbalance is the elephant in the room when we are looking at this proposal,” Commissioner Adam Nugent said at a Sept. 14 meeting to discuss the proposed development. 1208 of 1252
Planning Commission
November 17, 2022

Page 2 ends

Hietter Comments on 222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger’s Market) “We did not get into this housing crisis from one developer building 10 million square feet of office space. We got into this crisis by a thousand paper cuts. Repeated decisions to approve office projects without a plan for how we were going to provide the full amount of accompanied residential space that would be needed to serve those workers,” Patel said.

Commissioner John Ebneter suggested more units in the proposal to address growing housing needs in San Mateo and to meet the city’s downtown plan calling for higher density.

Vice Chair Margaret Williams appreciated Draeger’s filling the needs for San Mateo residents and wanted to see it stay. She also was concerned about the job to housing imbalance and wanted to see about another floor of housing.

What happened? Did the applicant revise the project to reflect the comments of the Planning Commission?
The addition of 10 below market rate housing units is a benefit to downtown San Mateo. The project would include 104,550 square feet of office space and 17,000 square feet of retail, with 9,000 square feet of housing. The proposed project, however, would add to the jobs/housing imbalance in downtown San Mateo. This project is one of nine downtown projects with a significant jobs/housing imbalance. There are 13 proposed and approved downtown projects with over 850,000 square feet of office space proposed and only 737 housing units. The parking imbalance is significant.

The project should provide more housing and less office space because there is substantial unleased office space downtown.

Unleased Existing Office Space Downtown as of November 2022 520 S. El Camino Real 34,705 square feet
16 E. 3rd Ave . 7, 204
60 E. 3rd Ave. 46,524
180 E. 3rd/300 S. Ellsworth 26,495
401-403 E. 3rd Ave. 11,968
195 E. 4th Ave. 9,532
343-345 S. B Street 29,402
201 S. B St. 12,320
132,483 square feet available
The city is tasked with meeting our Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Adding excess office space does not help San Mateo meet the RHNA requirements. 1209 of 1252
Planning Commission
November 17, 2022

Page 3 ends

Hietter Comments on 222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger’s Market) The project will greatly exacerbate the parking problem downtown. It is disappointing that Ellsworth and B Street will not have any retail.

LOSS OF DRAEGER’S
The loss of Draeger’s would be huge. Is this the right place for a project? The project means that the city will be without a full grocery store, after losing Trag’s, for the 20+ month construction period. Who knows how long the construction will last in this economic environment? This is a hardship for local residents and the entire community who rely on Draeger’s.

Draeger’s is also a tourist attraction with busloads of visitors. Has the city considered the loss of this attraction?
Please consider providing a temporary location for the aspects of Draeger's that are not available downtown, such as the meat and fish, bakery, hot food, wine department, cookware and gifts, etc.

NEED FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS OF DOWNTOWN PROJECTS The City has approved seven substantial projects downtown, with nine additional projects that are coming up. Please provide the community with an estimated timeline for the construction of all of these projects and prepare an accompanying cumulative impact analysis, especially related to traffic, air quality, noise, and parking.

Downtown will be a construction nightmare of noise, traffic, dust, and toxic air contaminants.

COMMENTS ON DESIGN
We agree with the comments of the Cannon Design Group and request that their recommendations be followed. The building style and articulation does not blend well with existing buildings. The box on box style is not compatible with downtown.

Did Cannon have access to and/or review the other approved and proposed downtown projects. We suggest that they review and comment on those projects as well.

COMMENTS ON EIR ADDENDUM
Project Description
p. 10, para. 1: What will the diesel generator supply? Is it for the retail, office or residential uses, or all of the uses? Will diesel be stored on site? Where and how much? How often will the unit be tested and have emissions? How will the emissions be vented from the garage? 1210 of 1252
Planning Commission
November 17, 2022

Page 4 ends

Hietter Comments on 222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger’s Market) Site Access and Parking
p. 10, para. 3: The parking is inadequate and the removal of 22 on-street parking spaces further compounds the downtown parking problem. The office uses alone will bring 600 people to the site, not counting retail employees and residents, and provide only 226 parking spaces. There is no parking allocated for residents. The project should provide more parking. p. 10, para. 4: The 38 bicycle spaces are inadequate for the 700 office workers and 10 residential units, especially with the inadequate parking.

Construction
p. 20, last para.: The Addendum says construction will last 20 months but the ECORP greenhouse gas emissions analysis states that construction will take place over 3 years. Please clarify and resolve. Revised affected analyses if the construction would last more than 20 months.
p. 29, Impact AES-3: Please reference that the height of 75 feet allowed by AB1763 is not consistent with the community supported Measure Y, which limits mixed-use building height to 55 feet.

Air Quality
p. 47-49, Cumulative Community Health Risk Impacts: The cumulative health risk analysis should include the construction of the multiple other downtown buildings approved and proposed office and mixed-use projects, such as Block 21, Block 20, 435 E. 3rd Ave., 445 S. B Street, and 616 S. B Street.

The City has approved seven projects that are in or nearing construction downtown with nine more under review. This is unprecedented development occurring in a very small area downtown. The cumulative impacts must be thoroughly addressed for air quality, traffic, and noise. Only when there is a complete picture of what is construction is occurring downtown in the next few years can we really understand the cumulative impacts. Please conduct this analysis.

AIR QUALITY, bullet 1: All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

This measure is specified by the BAAQMD but may not be appropriate in this case. The measure is general and should be tied to the moisture conditions and wind speeds at the site. It may not be necessary to water two times per day if there has been a recent rain event. Please revise to be more instructive (e.g., water if the soil is dry and there is a visible dust plume).

Cultural Resources
p. 61, para. 1, last sentence: Cultural resources include resources listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the National Register
1211 of 1252
Planning Commission
November 17, 2022

Page 5 ends

Hietter Comments on 222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger’s Market) Energy
p. 70 and 71: It seem odd that Draeger’s uses 2.4 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year and 2.4 million kilo-Btu of natural gas per year. Are these numbers correct? p. 73, para 1: The project will increase electric use by 143 billion net new kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. That seems like a significant use of energy. Is it really billion? Will there be cooking facilities at the new grocery store or restaurant? Will natural gas stoves be allowed? If not, will this building then preclude a restaurant at the ground floor because natural gas is not available for cooking?
The ECORP greenhouse gas analysis state that there would be a net reduction in GHGs, yet says that the energy use will increase by143 billion new kilowatt hours. Please reconcile this apparent discrepancy.

Noise
Condition of Approval NOI-4.13.3-1 should adequately reduce the noise in the proposed units.

The cumulative noise during construction does not seem to be adequately addressed. Please provide assumptions for the cumulative noise analysis.

Population and Housing
p. 140, last para.: The estimate of 2.59 persons per household may not be appropriate for the 20 units that are studio and one bedroom. Similarly, 300 square feet per employee or job is high for technology jobs and therefore understate the number of people, traffic trips, and necessary parking.

Public Services
p. 143, City of San Mateo Parkland Dedication/Fees: Please provide the appropriate information from the cited Chapter 26.64. In Section 13.05.070 of the Municipal Code.

The City is once again “kicking the can down the road” by allowing the developer to pay a park impact fee (SMMC Section 13.05.070) or a fee in lieu of dedication of lands for park and recreation purposes (park in-lieu fee) (SMMC Chapter 26.64). This practice is now amounting to illegal deferred mitigation because the city is deficient in park and open space and has allowed multiple downtown buildings to pay the in-lieu fee.

What is the city’s plan for increasing the park land to meet the city goal? Traffic
Thank you for including LOS as a non-CEQA topic.

General Plan Policy C 2.1 says:
1212 of 1252
Planning Commission
November 17, 2022

Page 6 ends

Hietter Comments on 222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger’s Market) 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 intersections within the City. p. 158:
“New developments within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Planning Area are recommended to prepare a TDM plan that encourages a 25 percent trip reduction below project trip generation numbers for the site proposed for development. Additionally, proposed developments in the Downtown Area would be recommended to participate in the Transportation Management Association (TMA) for the Downtown Area if established in the future, as well as submitting a trip reduction and parking management plan, and preparing an annual monitoring plan.”
This discussion of the Traffic Demand Management Plan seems to be all hypothetical. This Plan should be included in the environmental document to understand the actual impacts of the project.

Did the General Plan and Downtown IS/MND actually consider nine projects under construction at once?
The Traffic section and the Transportation Impact Analysis do not provide the assumptions used for considering the traffic impacts. How many additional downtown projects were considered for the different scenarios. It is hard to believe that will an additional 5,000+ people downtown (assuming all projects are built and not including all new residents), the traffic analysis truly represents the cumulative scenario (see attached spreadsheet for downtown development, based on the city’s What’s Happening in Development webpage.

Please provide the assumptions for the number of people and the number of cars the new projects will generate, and then revise the traffic and parking analyses.

Mandatory Findings of Significance

2. Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts analyses are not adequate because they do not include the proposed and approved projects that could occur at the same time as the proposed Draeger’s project.

Please provide an analysis of the projects likely to occur at the same time, the cumulative impacts related to air quality, traffic, public services, noise, and other appropriate sections.

Did the General Plan EIR and the Downtown Specific Plan consider the simultaneous construction of nine or more downtown projects? The impact is not the same as the approved project.
1213 of 1252

DOWNTOWN SAN MATEO DEVELOPMENT
Hietter 11.17.22
Picture Borders
FullBlock? Developer Retail Office Office Peo Stories Site (sq ft) Style Built Total sq ft BMR CommercialResidential
1 405 E. 4th Ave. √ 4th Ave. Caltrain, Claremont Partial Windy Hill 63,000 352 4 80 22,216 Modern Glass Brick Box 2 406 E. 3rd Ave.* 3rd Ave. Caltrain, Claremont Partial Windy Hill 4 Under Construction
3 303 Baldwin‐‐Trag's √ Baldwin, S. Ellsworth, B St. Y Prometheus 19,952 60,664 347 64 4 to 5 286 40,946 Modern Glass Box 4 480 E. 4th Kiku Crossing√ 4th, 5th, Claremont, RR Y MidPen Housi 0 0 225 225 7 50,587 5 400 E. 5th 5th Ave Gara √ 5th, RR N City 0 0 5 526 164 54,471 6 200 Fremont* Fremont, 2nd, El Dorado Partial ? 0 Mediterranean 8 180 E. 3rd Ave. Aaron B √ 3rd, Ellsworth N Lane Partners 3,380 19,608 112 3 0 Nod to history Approved
7 500 E. 3rd Ave. Block 21√ E. 3rd Avenue, S. Delaware Street, E 4th Avenue, and S. Claremont Street Y Windy Hill 179,560 1026 111 12 6 402 Modern Glass Box 91 Hayward √ Hayward, El Camino N One Hayward 0 5,453 31 18 2 4 22 12,632 Modern Glass Box Under Review 0
10 616 S. B St. TAP √ B St, 6th, 7th Partial Nazareth 6,919 40 48 5 6 34 57 Modern Glass Concrete 11 477 9th/Claremont √ S. Claremont, 9th Partial Martin Group 28,100 161 120 12 5 48 120 Modern Brick Glass 12 435 E. 3rd Ave. √ 3rd S. Claremont Partial Windy Hill 33,529 192 5 1 5 0 0 11,035 Modern Glass Box 13 222 E. 4th Ave. Draeger √ 4th, 5th, B St, Ellsworth Y Lane Partners 17,660 104,550 597 9000 10 5 75 ft 221 0 49,478 Moder Brick Glass Box 14 445 S. B St. Talbots Tom√ 4th, 5th, B St, RR Y Bespoke 156,000 891 60 60 7 and 5 138 0 Modern Glass Box 15 222 Fremont* Fremont, 3rd, Eldorado Partial Wall St. Prop 40 52,514 5 25,327 Mediterranean Pre‐Application
16 500 E. 4th Ave. Block 20√ E. 4th Avenue, S. Claremont Street, E. 5th Avenue, and S. Delaware Street Y Windy Hill 0 142,046 812 86 9 6 226 43 50,530 Contemporary traditional (arches, trim, eaves) 17 31‐57 S. B St. Donut Del√ B St., 1st Ave. Y Harvest 7,185 29,662 169 0 0 4 0 16,117 Modern Glass Concrete 18 500 S. El Camino Real √ El Camino at 5th N Westlake 0 27,241 156 0 0 3 Totals 48,177 856,332 4,885 777 336 1,983 384
2,367 total
Borders
FullBlock Developer Retail Office People Housing sq ft Units Stories Parking Site (sq ft) Style BMR CommercialResidential
*Parking shown under
commercial if not
specified**IS/MND says 111 employees
***https://news.theregistrysf.com/commercial‐office‐building‐totaling‐nearly‐41800‐sqft‐planned‐for‐downtown‐san‐mateo‐%EF%BF%BC/ According to the California Department ofFinance, the City of San Mateo had approximately 42,034 residential dwelling units as of January 1,2021, the most recent data available.1 Housing Units Parking*
1 1214 of 1252
From: Francie
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 8:44 PM
To: Wendy Lao <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments re: Nov 17 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Draegers Ms Lao -
I was unable to make a comment at tonight’s meeting re Draeger’s. Please note my comment about the loading zone being planned for B Street. I believe this will have a negative impact to traffic flow especially considering the project taking shape across the street at Talbot’s site.

I also hope that the city will take a broad look at the amount of office space that is being planned.

Thank you,
Francie Souza
Central San Mateo resident
Sent from my iPhone
1215 of 1252
From: l watanuki
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2022 8:14 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: ; Michael Weinhauer ; Laurie Hietter
; Michael Nash
Subject: Questions at Planning Commission for the Draeger's Project.

Hello Ms. Sandhir,
I asked 2 questions at the Planning Commission meeting for Draegers and would like to get a response before this goes to the City Council on Thursday, December 1, 2022. As stated by Laurie Hietter in her comments on the Draeger’s Market, there is inadequate cumulative impact analysis and underestimates the impacts related to air quality, noise, traffic, and parking.

1. We requested mitigation for 5th Avenue between Delaware and S Amphlett, a narrow local street with a class III bike route, and a new bike boulevard for the safety of residents and bicyclists. 5th Avenue is not an Arterial between Delaware and Amphlett as described on page 351. 5th Avenue is not designed to serve shorter through traffic needs for commercial traffic, truck traffic, or a construction route. On page 1161, 5th Avenue is classified as a local street and local streets qualify for traffic calming. We need physical devices for traffic calming on 5th Avenue between Delaware to Amphlett to reduce the cut-through traffic and this needs to be included in the Conditions of Approvals.

Addendum to the EIR:

Page 351 of 1204 ends

5. The report states 5th Avenue is an east-west, two to three-lane arterial roadway extending from Virginia Avenue on the west and transitioning into Amphlett Boulevard to the east. Arterial roads link residential and commercial districts and serve shorter through traffic needs. In the vicinity of the project site, 5th Avenue has two lanes. The road is directly adjacent to the project site and is proposed to provide direct access.

Page 1161 of 1204 ends

6. This chart shows that 5th Avenue is a local street from Delaware to S Amphlett and mentions a Class III Bike Route in the report but leaves out it will be a bike boulevard from Delaware to S Amphlett. It should not be used as a cut-through route for commercial traffic, truck traffic, or used as a construction route for trucks. This has been a problem with the new Kiku Crossing construction.

2. We need a better understanding of what percent of traffic and trucks will be coming from 101 and what percent of traffic and trucks will come from El Camino Real. Grocery stores require many deliveries by large trucks through a commercial area and wider streets when they make their turns.

Thanks.

Laurie Watanuki
1216 of 1252
From: William Williams
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 3:03 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Draegers 4th Avenue Proposal
Why should residents bother to comment?
We are constantly told we need new housing due to the jobs/housing imbalance. This proposal provides 10 housing units while adding 400-500 jobs and bringing 200 cars to downtown. Such hypocrisy.
x Bill Williams, San Mateo
Sent from Outlook
1217 of 1252
From: Samantha Weigel
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 5:22 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment re Tonight's Planning Commission Meeting Hi all,
Normally I tell people not to submit formal comments via social media, but sharing this on the resident’s behalf.

This was a comment in response to the Nextdoor post about how to access tonight’s meeting Samantha Weigel
Communications Manager
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
O: 650-522-7005 C: 650-387-4747
[email protected]
1218 of 1252
1219 of 1252
1220 of 1252

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC

COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED

FOLLOWING THE PUBLICATION

OF THE AGENDA PACKET
1221 of 1252
From: diana pettit
To: Clerk
Subject: PA-2021-071 222 E. 4th Avenue(Draegers Market)-New Five Story Retail/Residental Mixed-Use Building Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 5:44:32 PM
The original Grocery Store building was erected for the purpose to celebrate owners' longevity of the grocery business in San Mateo since 1927, Frank and Mary Draeger and Family proprietors. It's address is 222 E. 4th Avenue, downtown San Mateo.

I worked in this grocery store from 2002 to 2009. In 2008, I bought my condo at Gateway Commons at 221 S. Fremont St in San Mateo. I am now retired from the grocery industry for 11 years. Many of the grocery clerks working at Dreagers' today have their retirements vested with United Commerical Food Works, Local 5.

As per this PA-2021-071, the building permit to be finalized and approved tonight, the hard working Employees at the Draegers' Supermarket would be out of work for 2+ years. These individuals whom many reside in the City of San Mateo would have to find other jobs.

Even though, there is a letter of intent to rebuild the building into another grocery store, will it be another unionized UFCW Local 5 shop?
Please remember that we lost Trags Grocery Store almost 2 years ago to another development on Baldwin and B streets. This building, almost completed will have Retail along the sidewalks and residental complexes. It is located across the interesction from the Cal Train Station on "B" Street.

PA-2021-017, 222 E. 4th Avenue will be a building with a grocery store, office space, and residental complexes.

The front of the store will be basically of a glass exterior, especially where the office complex 2nd level will be located.

At the property on 3rd Avenues and 4th Street,between S. Claremont and Railroad Avenues the property recently build and Occupied has an Office Complex on the second floor with residental on the top floors. This is known as the Windy Hill Building.

The Office Complex at night, has lighting "Glearing" through the glass being visible for 3 blocks away. Recently, at a Planning meeting to build "Block 21", residents complained about the "glaring" light and the developer had tenants of Office complex place drapes halfway over the glass windows. The drapes are not hung correctly.

The other half of this Office floor Complex has different light fixtures but still glares at night.

In fact, when the new residents of Kiku Crossing are living in their new apartments they will be effected by this lighting.

Now, we are tonight discussing the rebuilding of a new building at 222 East 4th Avenue with the Office Complex located on the middle floor of the building. Is this Office building be constantly "glaring" at night from the light fixtures?
Please be clear about the contractors' specifics about the buildings glass facade and the "glaring" to the buildings around.
1222 of 1252
Thank You.

Diana Pettit
1223 of 1252
From:

Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 7:55 PM
To: Eric Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Diane Papan <[email protected]>; Joe Goethals <[email protected]>; Rick Bonilla <[email protected]>; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Draeger's Project
Mayor and Council Members:

It was my intent to deliver my comments to the Planning Commission on November 17, however given the 1276-page package was only available 72 hours prior to the meeting and the City website was down on the 17th, I was unable to review the package. Following are my comments:

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The project applicant states the project is providing “affordable workforce” housing, which is a broad definition, however detail of rental prices was lacking for the ten low-income (80%AMI) units. Based on San Mateo County AMI table below the 2022 Maximum Affordable Rent Payments and Incomes Limits for this project are:
(2) Studio 460sf $2,610/mo $104,400 (1-person)
(6) 1-bdrm
590sf $2,797/mo $111,850 (1.5-person)
(2) 1-bdrm 630sf $2,797/mo $111,850 (1.5-person)
Based on the above rent payments the project will generate approximately $330,000 of income annually for the developer (unless the developer forgoes the proceeds) whereas a revenue stream to an affordable housing entity can be reinvested in creating more housing opportunities.

The project applicant proposes two more units than the eight required by the commercial linkage fee however, this proposed unit mix also maximizes the rental income. A different mix of eight units shown below generates approximately $280,000 of annual income:
(6) 1-bdrm 590sf $2,797/mo $111,850 (1.5-person)
(2) 2-bdrm 1000sf $3,356/mo $134,200 (3-person)
1224 of 1252
The project applicant claims that the cost of providing ten housing units is $7 million. The total square footage of the ten units is 5,960 resulting in a cost of nearly $1,200/sf. Interesting.

TRAFFIC
The project claims that there will be a reduction in traffic trips with the addition of 104,554sf of office space and ten residential units to full-service grocery store. Draeger’s is currently about 60,000sf, the proposed grocery store is about 17,000sf; but does that equate to a 70% reduction in traffic trips? Common sense says a reduced grocery store footprint will not result in a meaningful reduction of traffic trips, especially since this will be the only full-service grocery store downtown.

The traffic generated by Trader Joe’s, roughly 10,000sf, is a better representation. Logically, the addition of the office space and residential units and to a full- service grocery store will increase traffic trips.

Under the assumption traffic trips will decrease, the downstream intersections analyses would show no improvements are needed. However, if more traffic trips are generated by this project and intersection improvements are needed, the City will be footing the bill.

OFF-STREET LOADING ZONE
The project applicant maintains they should not have to comply with the Zoning Code that requires off-street loading in part because they “do not believe that this standard has been imposed on any other recent projects in the City, and it is clear that imposing this requirement on this project would physically preclude the project as proposed”. Has there been other recent commercial developments in the CBD that have not required off-street loading zones? It appears that the offices of Snowflake along Delaware have off-street loading zones.

Accepting this provision could end up setting a costly precedent and leaving the City vulnerable to continuously relinquishing valuable public real estate. The applicant designed the project contrary to zoning codes that are put in place to protect the safety and health of the public. Appears more like the taking of public property for private purposes.

GENERAL
There appears to be a real imbalance of benefits, to the detriment of the City, when applying the density bonus law to this predominantly commercial project. The residential component is less than 5% of the project yet the concessions and waivers yield substantial developer benefits but do not result in additional housing units above that required by the commercial linkage fee. As stated above the developer is proposing ten smaller units rather than eight of a different mix. Although the 1225 of 1252
Government Code states, “When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development” here the developer is realizing benefits for a commercial project.

Sincerely,
Lisa Maley
1226 of 1252
From: l watanuki
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 1:01 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Michael Weinhauer ; Maurine Killough
; Benjamin Portusach
Subject: Redevelopment at Draeger's - PA21-071 / 222 E. 4th Avenue December 1, 2022
Dear Members of the City Council,
These are comments for the Draeger’s project this evening.

SAFETY

1. We need strong traffic calming measures for 5th Avenue a 2 lane narrow local street, class III Bike Route, and Bike Boulevard to reduce the commercial cut-through traffic. The current signage and street markings are inadequate and we have large 16 wheel trucks and the construction trucks cutting through.

We are not designed for commercial traffic, truck traffic, or as a construction route. We need safer streets for our Seniors, children, and bicyclists. There are 19 new projects in the Downtown and 2 have been completed. Many future projects will be developed concurrently and the list is included at the bottom.

Traffic calming measures for 5th Avenue needs to be included in the Conditions of Approvals for Draegers Market for protections from the construction impacts from all surrounding projects.*

2. Truck traffic route - we need the commercial traffic to take 101 to 92 to ECR the state highways to 4th Avenue and B Street to Draegers and back out via 9th Avenue (Truck Route in Downtown) to ECR through State Highways - ECR, 92 and 101 and not residential streets. *Draegers’ Traffic Impact Analysis - Local Transportation Analysis Page 12 - Class III (Bike Route/Bicycle Boulevard) – Bike route provide signage and permanent markings on low-stress roadways to increase driver awareness of people biking. No exclusive right of way is provided. Bicycle boulevards prioritize bicycle through-travel and use traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic and maintain low motor vehicle volumes. These routes are often applied on quiet streets and through residential neighborhoods DESIGN
1227 of 1252

3. This project will use the new contemporary Mass Timber materials in the structure with large glass windows and we want to insure the interior illumination of 3 stories of office at night will not impact the residents at the Gramercy, Stratford, Stradbally, and BeSpoke. The Mass Timber was not covered in the EIR.

4.Replace the clear glass guard railings with solid material on the 2nd and 4th levels. This was recommended by Margaret Williams Planning Chair. Otherwise, there will be too much glass in this structure and we want the building to blend in better with the historic downtown with more traditional elements versus more contemporary box on box with angular lines.

TOO MUCH OFFICE SPACE

5.We will have 13 new large office projects and not enough workforce housing in the Downtown. We will have empty office buildings at night, and the Downtown needs more vitality and pedestrian traffic in the evenings.

INADEQUATE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

6.We need to know the cumulative construction impacts between Draegers and these other projects below.We do not know the list of projects used in these various reports by the different consultants. These are the Downtown Projects by completion, under construction, approved, under review, and in pre-app.

There are many under construction now and more under review. Many projects will be built concurrently.

This would add to the cumulative impacts of air quality, noise, traffic, parking, and vibrations. Emergency access may be a concern. All the projects on 3rd, 4th, 5th could cause delays along with the grade crossing back-ups. The analysis of construction traffic was not conducted, so we don’t know if it would cause a significant impact. The reports use - 1000 per square ft to count employees which is high. Tech uses 150- 200 employees sf of office space per person. The number of employees may be undercounted in the cumulative impact analysis. Therefore the impacts may be underestimated in the CEQA Addendum.

Laurie Watanuki
***************************
List of Downtown San Mateo Development Projects
Completed:

1.Windy Hill 405 E 4th

2.Windy Hill 406 E 3rd.

Under Construction:

3.Kiku Crossing - 480 4th Ave

4.Kiku Crossing Garage - 400 E 5th Ave

5.Arron Bros - 180 East 3rd Ave

6.Trag’s - 303 Baldwin

7.200 S. Fremont - residential
Approved:

8.Windy Hill Block 21- 500 E 4th

9.1 Hayward - residential
Under Review:
1228 of 1252

10. Windy Hill 435 East 3rd Ave

11.TAP - 616 S. B St

11.477 - 9th Ave

13.Windy Hill 435 - 3rd Ave

14.Draegers - 222 E 4th

15.Tomatina & Talbots - 445 S St

16.222 Fremont - residential
Pre-App:

17.Windy Hill Block 20 - 500 E 4th Ave

18.Donut Delite - 31-57 S B St.

19.500 S El Camino Real
1229 of 1252
Thursday, December 1, 2022
Send a personal letter of support for B Street South
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to urge you to do everything in your power to ensure B Street South is approved.