Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Mateo City Council, February 2, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Regular Meeting
February 2, 2026
7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Adam Loraine
Nicole Fernandez
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
Robert Newsom Jr.

AGENDA
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.

PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTELY .

SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.

To join via Zoom – click here:

February 2, 2026
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 876 9873 6532 Passcode: 345545
The City Council meeting will conclude by 11:00 p.m. unless otherwise extended by council vote.

Any unheard items will automatically move forward to the next regular meeting.

CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
AB 2449 Requests and Considerations for Meeting Participation by Teleconference due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances

CEREMONIAL

1. Black History Month & NAACP San Mateo Branch Centennial Commemoration — Proclamations

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion. If discussion is desired, that item may be removed and considered separately.

2. City Council Meeting Minutes — Approval
Approve the minutes of the special and regular meeting of the City Council held on January 12, 2026.

CEQA: This item is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

3. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance - Zoning Code Amendments — Ordinance Adoption Adopt an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.19, “Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit – Residential Zones” to address comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to align with current state law, and to address Housing Element programs, and find it exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines.

1 of 368

CEQA: The proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines because it is an accessory dwelling unit ordinance that is implementing the provisions of the Government Code related to ADUs and JADUs.

4. Salary Schedule Revision for the Senior Transportation Planner — Approval Adopt a Resolution to approve the revision to the Salary Schedule for the Senior Transportation Planner classification.

CEQA: This revision to the salary schedule for the Senior Transportation Planner is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

5. Senior Transportation “Get Around” Program — Amendment Approve an amendment to the agreement with Serra Yellow Cab of Daly City, Inc. for the Senior Transportation “Get Around” program to authorize an additional $200,000 for FY 2025–26, for a total amount not to exceed $950,000, and authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.

CEQA: This project is not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21065.))

6. Audio Solutions Special Events Support — Agreement
Adopt a Resolution to approve an alternate purchasing procedure; approve an agreement in an amount not to exceed $64,750.00 with Thor Audio Solutions for sound, stage, dance floor and support services at city-wide special events from July 22, 2024-December 31, 2025, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement substantially in the form presented.

CEQA: This item is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to comment on any item not appearing on the agenda may address the City Council at this time. State law prevents Council from taking action on any matter not on the agenda; your comments may be referred to staff for follow up.

Public comment is limited to a total of 15 minutes; however, an opportunity for additional public comment may be provided later in the agenda.

NEW BUSINESS

7. Humboldt Bike Lanes Alternative — Update
Receive a presentation from staff on efforts to explore potential alternatives to a portion of the Humboldt Street bike lanes and receive direction/recommendation from City Council.

REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND COMMITTEE UPDATES
City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members report on their various assignments and liaison roles and Council requests for scheduling future items.

2 of 368

ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS:

Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at
www.cityofsanmateo.org
. Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.

WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:

City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.

For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.

WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:

There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream

PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to:
[email protected]
until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.

During the meeting
By Zoom:

Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.

By telephone:

Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.

In Person:

At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form. Organized Group and Presentations: Up to five (5) minutes for a group presentation, with as many speakers as can be accommodated within that time allowance. To qualify for a group presentation, all individuals associated with the presentation must be clearly identified and confirmed as in attendance at the meeting. Presentation materials must be submitted to [email protected] one (1) business day in advance of the meeting.

ACCESSIBILITY:

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and to ensure meaningful access for all participants, including those with limited English proficiency, individuals requiring special accommodations or language assistance to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected] . Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

3 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 2
0 4

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 2 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 10-1511 File ID: 26-10863 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Clerk's Office
MEETING DATE: February 02, 2026
SUBJECT:

City Council Meeting Minutes — Approval
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the minutes of the special and regular meeting of the City Council held on January 12, 2026.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no budgetary impact associated with this administrative item.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This minutes approval is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Minutes 2026-1-12 Special
Att 2 - Minutes 2026-1-12 Regular

STAFF CONTACT
Martin McTaggart, City Clerk
[email protected]
(650) 522-7042

4 of 368

City Council Special Meeting Minutes – 1/12/2026 Page 1 6 1
6 5

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Adam Loraine, Mayor
Nicole Fernandez, Deputy Mayor
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
Rob Newsom Jr.

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Special Meeting Minutes
City Council
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org

January 12, 2026
6:00 PM
Special Meeting
CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 p.m.

Roll Call

Present: Mayor Loraine, Deputy Mayor Fernandez, Council Members: Cwirko-Godycki and Diaz Nash, Newsom AB 2449 Requests and Considerations for Meeting Participation by Teleconference due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances – there were no requests.

STUDY SESSION

1.Potential Ballot Measures for November 2026 — Survey Results and Council Direction Zachary Reda, Senior Management Analyst and Timothy McLarney from True North Research gave the presentation.

Public Comment: Michael Ragan expressed concern regarding spending on consulting and commented on potential “tax fatigue” amongst voters. Dana Sahae expressed opposition to another tax. Another member of the public attempted to provide comment but experienced technical difficulties through Zoom.

City Council asked the consultant and City staff questions -regarding the City’s current budget deficit, the potential revenue that could be generated, and the sales tax cap, including the potential missed opportunity if the City does not utilize the maximum amount available under the cap.

Following the presentation, the City Council directed staff to proceed with education and outreach related to a potential quarter-cent sales tax measure and return to the Council in July with a recommendation on whether to place a measure on the November 2026 ballot.

ADJOURNMENT –The meeting adjourned at 7:09 p.m.

APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Adam Loraine, Mayor Martin McTaggart, City Clerk

5 of 368

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 1/12/2026 Page 1 6 1
6 5

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Adam Loraine, Mayor
Nicole Fernandez, Deputy Mayor
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
Rob Newsom Jr.

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Regular Meeting Minutes
City Council
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org

January 12, 2026
7:00 PM
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER at 7:18 p.m.

Roll Call

CEREMONIAL

1. HIP Housing Calendar Award Winners — Recognition - Brian Perkins, HIP Housing Board Member introduced the winner of HIP Housing’s annual calendar art contest to be recognized by the City Council.

CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items, 2 through 12, were considered to be routine by the City Council. After the titles of the items were read by the City Clerk, the public was invited to comment and there were no speakers.

Moved: Fernandez, Seconded: Cwirko-Godycki
Ayes: Newsom, Loraine, Fernandez, Cwirko-Godycki, and Diaz Nash Noes: None

2. City Council 2026 Regular Meeting Calendar – Amendment Adopt an amendment to the City Council Regular Meeting schedule for the calendar year 2026 to move the first meeting in October to Monday, October 5, 2026.

3. Fiscal Year 2025-26 Wastewater Treatment Plant Property Insurance — Purchase Authorization Authorize the City Attorney to purchase property insurance for the Wastewater Treatment Plant for the remainder of fiscal year 2025-26, in an amount not to exceed $237,394.02.

4. Ballot Measure Communications Consulting Services for the November 2026 General Election — Agreement Approve an agreement with TeamCivX for ballot measure communications consulting services in the amount of $174,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

5. San Mateo City Employees’ Association Side Letter of Agreement Regarding Retirement Health Savings Account – Approval
Adopt a Resolution to amend the Memorandum of Understanding (”MOU”) with the San Mateo City Employees’ Association (”SMCEA”) to modify the terms of Section 24.11 Retirement Health Savings Account.

Enactment: Resolution No. 1 (2026)

6 of 368

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 1/12/2026 Page 2 6 1
6 5

6. San Mateo Management Employees’ Association Side Letter of Agreement Regarding the Retirement Health Savings Account – Approval
Adopt a Resolution to amend the Memorandum of Understanding (”MOU”) with the San Mateo Management Employees’ Association (”SMMEA”) to modify the terms of Section 26.5- Retirement Health Savings Account.

Enactment: Resolution No. 2 (2026)

7. Updates to Principal and Senior Transportation Planner Job Specs and Senior Planner Salary Schedule — Approval Adopt a Resolution to approve the updated Senior Transportation Planner “Senior” and Principal Transportation Planner “Principal” job specification series and the salary range for the new classification of Senior Transportation Planner.

Enactment: Resolution No. 3 (2026)

8. Sewer Flush Truck Replacement and Stormwater Combination Truck Procurement — Agreements Adopt a Resolution to approve an alternative purchasing procedure and approve purchase contracts with U-Rock Utility Equipment LLC, for the purchase of one (1) new Sewer Equipment Co. of America Model 800-HPR ECO Series IV Flush Truck in an amount not to exceed $379,037.46 and one (1) new Sewer Equipment Co. of America (SECA) SECA 900 ECO 6 YD Combination Truck in an amount not to exceed $640,075.14; establish a contingency reserve in the amount of $25,000.00; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreements in substantially the form presented and issue change orders within the contingency amount.

Enactment: Resolution No. 4 (2026)

9. Local Roadway Safety Plan — Grant Acceptance, Appropriation, Budget Transfer, and Agreement Adopt a Resolution to accept a Transportation Improvement Program Grant Award in the amount of $959,000, authorize an appropriation of $295,400 of the grant funding, and approve a budget transfer of $38,273 of the City’s Measure S funds from the Quick Build Mobility Program project account to the Local Roadway Safety Plan – Priority Package 1 project account in the Capital Project Fund; approve an agreement with CSW/ST2 for design engineering services in the amount of $247,574 for the Local Roadway Safety Plan - Priority Package 1 project; establish a contingency reserve in the amount of $50,000 for the agreement; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented and issue amendments within the approved contingency amount.

Enactment: Resolution No. 5 (2026)

10. Citywide Facilities Condition Assessment Project — Budget Appropriation Adopt a Resolution to authorize a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $25,000 from the unassigned General Fund balance in the Capital Project Fund to the Citywide Facilities Condition Assessment Project in order to address additional work.

Enactment: Resolution No. 6 (2026)

11. Clean Water Program Labor Compliance Consultant – Amendment Approve Amendment No. 2 to the agreement with TSG Enterprises, Inc. DBA The Solis Group for on-call labor compliance services for the Clean Water Program in an amount not to exceed $50,000, for a total amount of $450,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.

7 of 368

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 1/12/2026 Page 3 6 1
6 5

12. Polymer Injection System Project Design and Engineering Services During Construction — Agreement Adopt a Resolution to authorize an appropriation in the amount of $1,200,000 from the Sewer Fund reserves to the Wastewater Treatment Plant Polymer Injection Project in the Capital Projects Fund; approve an alternative purchasing procedure to enter into an agreement with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. to provide professional services for design and engineering services during construction in an amount not to exceed $311,055; establish a contingency amount of $60,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute this agreement and task amendments within the contingency amount in substantially the form presented.

Enactment: Resolution No. 7 (2026)

PUBLIC COMMENT
Tasso Zografos, speaking on behalf of Humboldt Street residents, expressed opposition to the existing bike lanes, stating that residents on Humboldt Street, Idaho Street, and Fremont Street do not support the current configuration and feel the issue has been shifted between neighborhoods without consensus. He also questioned the validity of survey results cited by the City, asserting that the data overstated support due to methodological flaws. Mei Li spoke regarding concerns relating to radio frequencies and potential health related impacts. Claire Stevens commented that the Humboldt Street bike lanes have reduced neighborhood parking, making daily activities more difficult for residents and contributing to isolation, and she requested that residential parking be restored. Another member of the public attempted to provide public comment virtually but was unable to due to technical difficulties.

PUBLIC HEARING

13.2033 La Salle Drive - Zoning Reclassification, Zoning Code Amendment, and Planning Application for an Early Childhood Education Center – Ordinance Introduction
Simin Zakavand, Associate Planner provided a project presentation to the Council, which was accompanied by an applicant presentation.

Public Comment: Tim Wang, Marc Acton, Sophia Tseng, Sarah Meier-Heredia, Erin Haugen, Jason Cruz, and David Siegmund spoke in support of the project.

City Council asked questions to staff and the applicant. After Council discussion, a motion was made to introduce an ordinance for a zoning reclassification that would permit the Carey School to construct a new Early Childhood Education Center with capacity for up to 75 students at 2033 La Salle Drive. The project includes a zoning code amendment to add an Overlay District and updated development standards for an educational facility. Additionally, the City Council adopted a resolution to approve the Special Use Permit (SUP), a Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR), and a Site Development Planning Application (SDPA) to establish and construct the new education facility.

Moved: Fernandez, Seconded: Diaz Nash
Ayes: Newsom, Loraine, Fernandez, Cwirko-Godycki, and Diaz Nash Noes: None
Motion passed 5-0.

NEW BUSINESS

14.Solid Waste 2026 Rate Setting and Proposition 218 Notification — Approval Jack Johnson, Waste Management Supervisor provided a presentation outlining proposed residential and commercial solid waste rates increases for 2026.

8 of 368

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 1/12/2026 Page 4 6 1
6 5
Public Comment: Edgar Ryan Silva commented that while he understood the City’s obligations under Proposition 218, the proposed solid waste, recycling, and compost rate increases would place additional financial strain on households, particularly renters and working families, and he requested clearer justification for the increases, consideration of rate relief options, and assurance that higher costs would result in improved services and environmental outcomes.

The Council asked staff questions regarding financial assistance options, subsidized rates, and the haulers and franchise agreements of other local cities.

The Council authorized staff to mail Proposition 218 notifications, which require a 45-day public noticing period, to all property owners proposing a not-to-exceed rate increase for solid waste, recycling, and compost collection. Following the notice period, a City Council public hearing will be held to receive any protests. A resolution to adopt new rates will be considered thereafter.

15.City Council Appointments to External Agencies and Liaison Roles - Approval Martin McTaggart, City Clerk provided a presentation for the City Council to review and consider the proposed 2026 list of City Council appointments to external agencies, organizations, and liaison roles.

Public Comment: there were no speakers.

Council Members asked questions regarding the appointment process and continuity. Mayor Loraine and Council Member Cwirko-Godycki will meet as a subcommittee to review potential future adjustments to the process. Additionally, the "Reports and Announcements" section of City Council regular meetings will be renamed to include liaison assignment reports from Council Members.

Moved: Fernandez, Seconded: Newsom
Ayes: Newsom, Loraine, Fernandez, and Diaz Nash
Noes: None
Abstain: Cwirko-Godycki
Motion passed 4-0 with 1 abstained.

REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members reported on their various assignments and liaison roles and noted past and future events, along with updates. Council Member Cwirko-Godycki expressed her appreciation for Public Works staff in response to recent storms. She also recognized National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day.

CLOSED SESSION
Before entering Closed Session, the public was have an opportunity to comment before the Council’s consideration of these items. There were no requests to speak on either item. The Council convened to closed session at 10:10 p.m.

16.Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9) Name of case: City of San Mateo v. Rebecca Mary Wilson, aka Rebecca Wilson Swann, San Mateo Superior Court Case No.: 24-CIV-07667

17.Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: one case.

Following the closed session, at 10:42 p.m. the City Attorney reported that the City Council unanimously voted to initiate litigation in one matter. The name of the action, the defendants and the other particulars shall, once formally commenced, be disclosed to any person upon inquiry

9 of 368

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – 1/12/2026 Page 5 6 1
6 5
ADJOURNMENT –The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m.

APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Adam Loraine, Mayor Martin McTaggart, City Clerk

10 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 3 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 10-1511 File ID: 26-10864 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Clerk's Office
MEETING DATE: February 02, 2026
SUBJECT:

Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance - Zoning Code Amendments — Ordinance Adoption RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.19, “Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit – Residential Zones” to address comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to align with current state law, and to address Housing Element programs, and find it exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines.

BACKGROUND:

On January 26, 2026, the City Council introduced an Ordinance (Attachment 1) to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.19, “Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit – Residential Zones” to address comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to align with current state law, and to address Housing Element programs, and find it exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council also amended the Ordinance to allow for discretionary review where an ADU was not in full compliance with “any objective standard” including previously identified standards in the draft ordinance such as height and setbacks. The Council also specified that second-story decks may not “face adjacent residential properties” instead of a requirement to only face the interior of the subject property. A draft ordinance with tracked changes is included as Attachment 2.

If adopted, the Ordinance will become effective 30 days after adoption. In addition, the City is required to submit the adopted Ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within 60 days of adoption for final review and acceptance by the State. If HCD identifies any inconsistencies between the City’s Ordinance and State law, a follow-up code amendment may be required. However, based on prior discussions with HCD and internal review, the draft Ordinance appears to be fully consistent with State law.

Upon adoption of the ADU Ordinance, staff will update all ADU-related handouts, educational materials, and website content to reflect the revised requirements for the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs).

BUDGET IMPACT:

No budget impact is anticipated as a result of this Ordinance adoption.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines because it is an

11 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
accessory dwelling unit ordinance that is implementing the provisions of the Government Code related to ADUs and JADUs.

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Draft ADU Ordinance
Att 2 – Draft ADU Ordinance Tracked Changes

STAFF CONTACT
Chantal Eaton, Deputy City Clerk
[email protected]
(650) 522-7044

12 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. ____ (2026)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN MATEO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 27.19, “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT – RESIDENTIAL ZONES” TO ADDRESS COMMENTS FROM THE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) TO ALIGN WITH CURRENT

STATE LAW, AND TO ADDRESS HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS, AND FIND THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 21080.7 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE AND SECTION 15282(H) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

WHEREAS, an existing Ordinance addressing Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units is codified as Chapter 27.19, as adopted on March 21, 2022; and WHEREAS, several amendments to State Accessory Dwelling Unit law have been adopted since adoption of Chapter 27.19; and
WHEREAS, Policy LU 3.1 - Housing Diversity of the Land Use Element of General Plan 2040, promotes safe, attractive, and walkable residential neighborhoods with diverse types and sizes of homes for individuals, families, and households of all income levels; and
WHEREAS, under Policy H1.4 - Support Increased Accessory Dwelling Unit Development of the Housing Element of General Plan 2040, the City is to amend the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to align with current State law and to resolve any inconsistencies identified by the California Housing and Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2024, the City received a letter from the California Housing and Community Development Department outlining provisions in the City of San Mateo Zoning Ordinance that were inconsistent with State Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations; and
WHEREAS, these changes to State Accessory Dwelling Unit law necessitate amendments to Chapter

27.19; and

WHEREAS, this Ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines because it is an accessory dwelling unit ordinance that is implementing the provisions of the Government Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.

WHEREAS, on December 9, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received all written and oral public comments, and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Ordinance to amend Chapter 27.19.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The title of Chapter 27.19 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

13 of 368

Section 2. The title that precedes Section 27.19.010 of the San Mateo Municipal Code, and that reads, “Article I Accessory Dwelling Unit” is deleted.

Section 3. Section 27.19.020 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.020 Definitions.

The definitions in this Section shall apply only to this Chapter.

(a) “Accessory dwelling unit” (ADU) means an attached or detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, is accessory to the primary residential dwelling unit(s), and includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking facilities and sanitation on the same lot as a Single-Family Dwelling Structure or Multifamily Dwelling Structure is or will be situated. (1) “Attached ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary residential dwelling unit, or portion thereof (including an attached garage or accessory structure). (2)“Conversion ADU” means any accessory dwelling unit created by the conversion of any existing structure or portion thereof. The Conversion ADU may be created using existing structural components of the existing structure, or may be reconstructed to the same extent as the existing structure.
(3)“Detached ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit that is separated from a primary residential dwelling unit.
(4)“New Construction ADU” means any accessory dwelling unit that does not meet the definition and requirements of a Conversion ADU.
(5)“Nonexempt ADU" means an accessory dwelling unit that does not meet the definition of a State Exempt ADU.
(6)“State Exempt ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit that is created pursuant to Government Code Section 66323.
(7)“Multifamily ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure.
(8)“Single-Family ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling Structure.
(b) “ADU Living Area” means the interior conditioned space within an Accessory Dwelling Unit, such as areas used for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation, and may also include attic or basement areas connected to the ADU. ADU Living Area does not include non-habitable spaces such as garages, carports, unconditioned utility rooms, enclosed storage areas not internally accessible by the ADU, or other accessory structures attached to the ADU.

14 of 368

(c) “Junior accessory dwelling unit” (JADU) means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling. (d) “Multifamily Dwelling Structure” means a structure with two or more attached primary residential dwelling units.
(e) “Single-Family Dwelling Structure" means a one-family dwelling primary residential unit that either stands alone on a lot or is detached from other primary residential dwelling unit(s) on the same lot.

Section 4. Section 27.19.030 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.030 Prohibition on Sale and Limitation on Rental.

(a) An ADU shall not be sold separately from the primary residence, except as allowed by Government Code Section 66341.
(b) A JADU shall not be sold separately from the primary residential dwelling unit.

Section 5. Section 27.19.040 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.040 Ministerial Permit Approval.

A permit application for an ADU and/or a JADU is required in order to demonstrate that the unit is in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. If the ADU is in full compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, a ministerial, non-discretionary permit will be issued. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Code, the issuance of a ministerial ADU or JADU permit may not be appealed.

Section 6. Section 27.19.045 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.045 Discretionary Review as Alternative to Ministerial Approval.

(a) As an alternative to ministerial review, an applicant may submit an application for discretionary review of an ADU proposal that is not in full compliance with any objective standard of this Chapter, including but not limited to the height, setback, or daylight plane provisions of this Chapter, and/or for an ADU that proposes a second story deck or balcony exceeding the standards outlined in this Chapter. The discretionary review application shall not be used to increase the maximum allowable floor area of a lot. The application for discretionary approval shall be granted if the Zoning Administrator finds all of the following:
(1) The proposed ADU is consistent with all applicable objective design standards in the adopted R1 Single-Family Dwelling Design Guidelines.
(2) The proposed ADU would not result in a negative impact to public health, safety, or welfare.

15 of 368

(3) If the proposed ADU does not comply with height, setback, or daylight plane standards, there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property that would make compliance with the standard(s) an undue hardship, and the deviations from applicable standards are minimized. (4) If the proposed ADU includes a second story deck larger than 50 square feet, the deck or balcony is located and oriented to minimize direct views into neighboring windows or yard spaces, and screening is incorporated where necessary to minimize such views. (5) The proposed ADU is consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan.

(b) The decision of the Zoning Administrator shall not preclude the ability of an applicant to receive a ministerial permit for an ADU that is in full compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. (c) The decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the City Manager or designee, which may be a hearing officer.

Section 2. Section 27.19.050 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.050 General Requirements.

Applicability. The following shall apply to ADUs and JADUs in all zoning districts that allow for residential uses:

(a) The provisions of this Chapter apply only to ADU Living Area. Accessory structures, such as garages, carports, non-habitable utility rooms, storage areas, or sheds, whether detached or attached to an ADU, shall be subject to the requirements of the underlying zoning district and other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. (b) Development Impact Fees. Development impact fees for ADUs shall be established in an amount set forth by resolution of the City Council. No impact fees shall be charged for ADUs 750 square feet in size or smaller. Any impact fees charged for an ADU over 750 square feet shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary residential dwelling unit. (c) Utility Service. For Conversion ADUs, a separate water connection, a sewer service connection, or power connection is not required. If an ADU is not converted from existing space, the City may require new or separate utility connections.
(d) Utility Fees. For a Conversion ADU, payment of a connection fee or capacity charge is not required.

For an ADU that is separate from an existing structure, the City will require payment of a connection fee or capacity charge that is proportionate to the ADU's burden. An ADU shall not be considered a new residential use for the purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, except when the ADU is constructed with a new primary residential dwelling unit. (e) Address Assignment. An application for a building permit for an ADU must include application for a separate address assignment.

Section 3. Section 27.19.060 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

16 of 368

27.19.060 Single-Family ADU Development Standards.

(a) Applicability. This section applies to ADUs located on a lot with an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling Structure. Number of Units. A lot with an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling Structure may include any combination of the following three types of ADUs, provided that each meets the applicable development standards.
(1) One Attached or Conversion ADU.

(2) One Detached New Construction ADU.

(3) One JADU, provided it is located within the walls of an existing or proposed Single-Family Dwelling Structure.
(b) Maximum Unit Size and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). FAR and unit size maximums for both Attached and Detached ADUs in excess of 800 square feet are governed by the maximum FAR established by the underlying zoning district and remaining floor area allowance available on the lot. Up to 800 square feet of ADU living area, including New Construction State Exempt ADUs, is exempt from the maximum FAR for each lot with a Single- Family Dwelling Structure. This exemption does not apply to JADU living area. In addition, the following shall apply:
(1) An ADU shall not be larger, in terms of living area, than the primary residential dwelling unit. However, when the primary residential dwelling unit is less than or equal to 800 square feet in size, a State Exempt ADU of up to 800 square feet is allowed. (2) A Conversion ADU within the walls of an existing primary dwelling unit or accessory structure is not subject to size requirements. ADU conversions may be expanded up to 150 square feet beyond the existing footprint provided the expansion is used to accommodate ingress and egress to the ADU.
(c) Height. The specific height maximums are applicable to all zoning districts which permit ADUs.

(1) Attached Accessory Dwelling Units. Maximum building height for an attached ADU is 24 feet to top plateline and 32 feet to roof peak as measured from existing grade. (2) Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. Maximum building height for a detached ADU is 18 feet to top plateline and 24 feet to roof peak as measured from existing grade. (d) Setbacks. An ADU shall have setbacks as follows:

(1) No setback shall be required for an existing garage or accessory structure that is converted to an ADU which is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions, footprint, and height as the existing structure; or for a Detached ADU that is proposed in the rear one-third of a lot that otherwise meets all requirements of accessory buildings and structures in required yards of R1 districts pursuant to Chapter 27.70.

17 of 368

(2) A minimum setback of four feet shall be required from the side and rear lot lines for all new ADU construction not meeting the criteria set forth in subsection (1) above, including ADUs constructed above an existing garage.
(3) A minimum setback from the front lot line, as required in the lot's underlying zone district, shall be required for all New Construction ADUs not meeting the criteria set forth in subsection (1) above, including ADUs constructed above an existing garage. No setback is required for a State Exempt ADU.

(e) Unit Access. An ADU must include a separate exterior entrance from the primary residential dwelling unit. An interior access may be provided between the two units, but is not required. (f) ADU and JADU Parking Standards.

(1) General Requirements. No off-street parking shall be required for any ADU or JADU. The required parking for the primary residential dwelling unit(s) must comply with the underlying zoning district’s current standards, except when an existing garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is converted to an ADU or JADU or demolished in conjunction with construction of an ADU. When this occurs, no replacement off-street parking is required for the primary residential dwelling unit.
(2) Voluntary Parking. Off street parking for an ADU or JADU may be provided voluntarily.

Voluntarily provided parking associated with ADU or JADU development must be located entirely on the same lot, and may be provided in a garage, carport, uncovered, or in tandem orientation. Additionally, the following provisions may be applied to create voluntary parking for an ADU or JADU. (A) When a garage or carport is converted to an ADU or JADU, or demolished in conjunction with construction of an ADU, the existing driveway and curb cut are not required to be removed, and may be maintained as parking area.
(B) A maximum of up to two voluntarily provided parking stalls may be provided for each ADU or JADU.
(C) The maximum driveway width for single-car garages may be up to 20 feet to accommodate additional off-street parking.
(D) Uncovered parking for an ADU or JADU may be located in the required front, side, and rear yard setback areas. If a covered parking structure is proposed to provide voluntary parking below a second-story ADU, the parking structure may be located within the footprint of the proposed ADU, provided that it is outside of the front yard setback of the underlying zoning district. When a parking structure is proposed within a required side or rear setback of the underlying zoning district, the plate height of the parking structure shall not exceed 9 feet in height.

18 of 368

(g) Architectural Standards. Nonexempt ADUs shall be designed to comply with the following standards, as applicable:

(1) Be designed to meet the daylight plane requirements of the R-1 zoning district as applied to the nearest adjacent side and rear lot lines.
(2) Provide and maintain obscured glazing on second-story windows up to five feet from the finished floor when the windows are located within five feet of a lot line with an abutting residential lot. (3) When an exterior staircase is proposed, it shall have a setback of at least five feet from the nearest lot line and the size of the second story landing shall be limited to the minimum area required to allow ingress and egress as specified by the California Building Code. (4) Rooftop decks or terraces above any portion of an ADU are prohibited.

(5) When a second-story deck or balcony is proposed within a two-story ADU, the following shall apply:

(A) Second story decks or balconies shall not be larger than 50 square feet in size; and

(B) No portion of a second story deck or balcony shall be located within the setbacks of the underlying zoning, regardless of the ADU setbacks; and (C) Decks shall not face adjacent residential properties.

Section 9. The title that precedes Section 27.19.070 of the San Mateo Municipal Code, and that reads, “Article II Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit” is deleted.

Section 10. Section 27.19.070 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.070 Multifamily ADU Development Standards.

(a) Applicability. This section applies to all ADUs located on lots with existing or proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure(s).
(b) Number of Units Allowed.

(1) On a lot with a proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure, up two new Detached ADUs may be allowed.
(2) On a lot with an existing Multifamily Dwelling Structure, the following ADUs may be permitted in combination:
(A) Up to eight New Construction Detached ADUs may be allowed, provided that the number of ADUs shall not exceed the number of existing primary residential dwelling units on the lot.
(B) Conversion ADUs created by converting non-living space within an existing Multifamily Dwelling Structure. The number of non-living space Conversion ADUs may be at least one, and not more than 25 percent of the number of existing primary residential

19 of 368

dwelling units.

(1) An ADU shall not have a larger living area than the smallest primary residential dwelling unit on a lot. When the smallest primary residential dwelling unit is less than 800 square feet, then a State Exempt ADU of up to 800 square feet is allowed.
(2) A Conversion ADU within the existing space of a Multifamily Dwelling Structure is not subject to size requirements.
(3) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Floor area size maximums for both Attached and Detached ADUs are governed by the floor area maximum established by the underlying zoning district and remaining floor area allowance available on the lot. Up to 800 square feet of ADU Living Area is exempt from total FAR for the lot. The exemption for ADU floor area up to 800 square feet shall be applied individually to each new Detached ADU proposed on a lot with an existing or proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure. (4) In instances when the existing floor area allowance of a lot has been fully utilized, only New Construction State Exempt ADUs of up to 800 square feet are allowed. (d) Height - Maximum building height for a new Detached Multifamily ADU is 18 feet to top plateline and 24 feet to roof peak as measured from existing grade. (e) Setbacks.

(1) For new Detached Multifamily ADUs, a minimum setback of four feet from side and rear property lines is required.
(2) A minimum setback from the front lot line, as required in the lot's underlying zone district, shall be required for all new Multifamily ADUs. No front setback is required for a New Construction Detached State Exempt ADU.
(f) Parking. The single-family ADU development parking standards of this Chapter shall apply to Multifamily ADUs.
(g) Architectural standards. The single-family ADU development architectural standards of this Chapter shall apply to Nonexempt ADUs on lots with an existing or proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure. (h) Separation between structures. New Detached Multifamily ADUs shall be separated from the primary structure by a minimum of four feet, open to the sky. Where multiple new Detached ADUs are proposed, the ADUs may be attached to each other, but must be detached from the primary structure.

20 of 368

Section 4. Section 27.19.080 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.080 JADU Development Standards.

(a) Applicability. The development standards in this section shall apply to all JADUs.

(b) Permitted Zoning Districts. JADUs shall only be constructed on lots zoned to allow single-family residential use, or for which a Single-Family Dwelling Structure exists or is proposed to be built. The residential lot shall not be part of a condominium, townhouse, or other Multi-Family Dwelling Structure. (c) Limit to the Number of JADUs permitted. The number of JADUs is limited to one per residential lot with a Single-Family Residential Dwelling Structure. Lots with Multi-Family Dwelling Structures are not eligible for JADUs.
(d) Setback and Other Zoning Regulations. For purposes of setbacks and other zoning regulations, the JADU shall be considered to be a part of the principal use of subject site and shall be subject to the same requirements of the underlying zoning district.
(e) Maximum Unit Size. The living area of a JADU shall not exceed 500 square feet, including attic and basement areas as defined in Section 27.04.200 for the applicable zoning district. (f) Construct within Existing Structure. The JADU shall be constructed within the walls of the proposed or legally existing Single-Family Dwelling Structure, including an attached garage. Detached accessory structures, including detached garages or carports, are not permitted to be converted into a JADU. (g) Unit Access. A JADU must include:

(1) A separate exterior to serve the JADU only; and

(2) When a JADU shares sanitation facilities or utility controls (such as a thermostat for heating and cooling), an interior entry access between the JADU and the Single-Family Dwelling Structure is required. For a JADU with its own sanitation facilities and utility controls, interior access is not required, but may be provided voluntarily.
(h) Efficiency Food Preparation Area. A JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen that includes the following components:
(1) Cooking facility with appliances; and

(2) Food preparation counter and storage with cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.
(i) Sanitation Facilities. A JADU may include its own separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the primary dwelling unit.
(j) Building and Fire Requirements.

(1) No fire wall separation or noise attenuation measures are required between the main dwelling and the JADU. No fire sprinklers are required for the JADU, unless the associated

21 of 368

improvements meet the threshold for a "substantial remodel" as defined by Chapter 23, Building and Construction, of the San Mateo Municipal Code. The JADU shall have an adjoining door connected to the main living area for fire separation. A smoke alarm shall be required in the JADU and shall be connected to the smoke alarm in the main residence.

(2) The JADU shall be equipped with a carbon monoxide detector.

(k) Utility Service. Separate water connection, a separate sewer service connection, and power connection as water, sewer, and power service are not required for a JADU. (l) Parking. No additional off-street parking is required for a JADU.

(m) Address Assignment. An application for a building permit for a JADU must include application for a separate address assignment.
(n) Owner Occupancy. If the JADU has shared sanitation facilities with the existing structure, owner- occupancy shall be required. The owner may reside in either the remaining portion of the structure or the newly created JADU. Owner-occupancy shall not be required if the JADU has its own sanitation facilities, or if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

Section 12. Section 27.19.090 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.090 JADU Deed Restriction.

(a) Prior to building permit issuance for a JADU, a deed restriction shall be recorded to indicate the following:
(1) Sale of the JADU separately from the single-family residence is prohibited.

(2) The approved size and attributes of the JADU.

(b) A copy of this deed restriction must be given to each prospective occupant.

Section 13. Section 27.19.100 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is deleted.

Section 14. Section 27.19.110 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is deleted.

Section 15. Section 27.19.120 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is deleted.

Section 16. Environmental Determination. In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 27080.7 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, section 15282(h), this action is statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA because it is an accessory dwelling unit Ordinance that is implementing provisions of the Government Code related to ADUs and JAUDs.

22 of 368

Section 17. Severability. In the event any section, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section, clause or provision shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 5. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published in summary in a newspaper of general circulation, posted in the City Clerk's Office, and posted on the City's website, all in accordance with Section 2.15 of the City Charter.

Section 6. Legislative History and Effective Date. This Ordinance was introduced on Clerk to complete., and adopted on Clerk to complete., and shall be effective 30 days after its adoption.

Place attachments here

23 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. ____ (2026)

AN ORDINANCE INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO AMENDAMENDING THE SAN MATEO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 27.19, “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT – RESIDENTIAL ZONES” TO ADDRESS COMMENTS FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT (HCD) TO ALIGN WITH CURRENT STATE LAW, AND TO ADDRESS HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS, AND FIND THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 21080.7 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE AND SECTION 15282(H) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

27.19; and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The title of Chapter 27.19 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

24 of 368

Section 2. The title that precedes Section 27.19.010 of the San Mateo Municipal Code, and that reads, “Article I Accessory Dwelling Unit” is deleted.

Section 3. Section 27.19.020 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.020 Definitions.

The definitions in this Section shall apply only to this Chapter.

25 of 368

Section 4. Section 27.19.030 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.030 Prohibition on Sale and Limitation on Rental.

Section 5. Section 27.19.040 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.040 Ministerial Permit Approval.

Section 6. Section 27.19.045 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.045 Discretionary Review as Alternative to Ministerial Approval.

26 of 368

Section 2. Section 27.19.050 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.050 General Requirements.

Applicability. The following shall apply to ADUs and JADUs in all zoning districts that allow for residential uses:

Section 3. Section 27.19.060 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27 of 368

27.19.060 Single-Family ADU Development Standards.

(2) One Detached New Construction ADU.

28 of 368

29 of 368

(g) Architectural Standards. Nonexempt ADUs shall be designed to comply with the following standards, as applicable:

(5) When a second-story deck or balcony is proposed within a two-story ADU, the following shall apply:

(A) Second story decks or balconies shall not be larger than 50 square feet in size; and

(B) No portion of a second story deck or balcony shall be located within the setbacks of the underlying zoning, regardless of the ADU setbacks; and (C) Decks shall only face the interior of the subject propertynot face adjacent residential properties.

Section 9. The title that precedes Section 27.19.070 of the San Mateo Municipal Code, and that reads, “Article II Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit” is deleted.

Section 10. Section 27.19.070 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.070 Multifamily ADU Development Standards.

(a) Applicability. This section applies to all ADUs located on lots with existing or proposed Multifamily Dwelling Structure(s).
(b) Number of Units Allowed.

30 of 368

Multifamily Dwelling Structure. The number of non-living space Conversion ADUs may be at least one, and not more than 25 percent of the number of existing primary residential dwelling units.

31 of 368

Section 4. Section 27.19.080 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.080 JADU Development Standards.

(a) Applicability. The development standards in this section shall apply to all JADUs.

(1) A separate exterior to serve the JADU only; and

(1) No fire wall separation or noise attenuation measures are required between the main dwelling and the JADU. No fire sprinklers are required for the JADU, unless the associated

32 of 368

(2) The JADU shall be equipped with a carbon monoxide detector.

Section 12. Section 27.19.090 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

27.19.090 JADU Deed Restriction.

(a) Prior to building permit issuance for a JADU, a deed restriction shall be recorded to indicate the following:
(1) Sale of the JADU separately from the single-family residence is prohibited.

(2) The approved size and attributes of the JADU.

(b) A copy of this deed restriction must be given to each prospective occupant.

Section 13. Section 27.19.100 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is deleted.

Section 14. Section 27.19.110 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is deleted.

Section 15. Section 27.19.120 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is deleted.

33 of 368

Section 6. Legislative History and Effective Date. This Ordinance was introduced on Clerk to complete., and adopted on Clerk to complete., and shall be effective 30 days after its adoption.

Place attachments here

34 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 4 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 10-2311 File ID: 26-10850 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Human Resources Department
MEETING DATE: February 02, 2026
SUBJECT:

Salary Schedule Revision for the Senior Transportation Planner — Approval RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to approve the revision to the Salary Schedule for the Senior Transportation Planner classification.

BACKGROUND:

On January 12, 2026, City Council approved the updated Senior Transportation Planner and Principal Transportation Planner job specification series and the salary range for the new classification of Senior Transportation Planner.

Recently, it has come to our attention that the current salary for the Senior Transportation Planner classification is not in alignment with Senior Planner classification for the City. Historically, the salaries for the Planner and Transportation Planner series have always been aligned. Positions in the Planner series are located in the Community Development Department and positions in the Transportation Planner series are located in the Public Works Department. The current salaries are as follows for these two series:

Planner Series Salary Range- Monthly Transportation Planner Series Salary Range- Monthly Principal Planner $13,093.74 - $15,611.19 Principal Transportation Planner $13,093.74 - $15,611.19 Associate Planner $9,498.51 - $11,321.62 Associate Transportation Planner $9,498.51 - $11,321.62 Senior Planner $11,602.02 - $13,840.86 Senior Transportation Planner $10,448.33 - $12,453.76 Although the salary for the Senior Transportation Planner was set 10% above the Associate Transportation Planner, there is a $1,387.10 difference in monthly salary between these two classifications as outlined above. Therefore, the Public Works Department and Human Resources Department recommend that the salary range for the Senior Transportation Planner to be adjusted to $11,602.02-$13,840.86 monthly.

Adjusting the salary range for the Senior Transportation Planner will ensure consistency, equity, and support with recruitment and retention.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact as there is sufficient funding within the current budget to support salary schedule revision ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This revision to the salary schedule for the Senior Transportation Planner is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

35 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
Exhibit A – Merit Salary Schedule

STAFF CONTACT
Yumi Maeda, Senior Human Resource Analyst
[email protected]
(650) 522-7279

36 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. __ (2026)

APPROVING REVISED SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNER CLASSIFICATION

WHEREAS, pursuant to the San Mateo Municipal Code Section 2.57.030(d), approval of new classifications and related job specifications, salary schedules, compensation changes, elimination or reinstatement of positions, reallocation of positions, reclassifications, and revisions of job specifications must be approved by City Council Resolution; and

WHEREAS, on January 12, 2026, City Council approved the updated Senior Transportation Planner and Principal Transportation Planner job specification series and the salary range for the new classification of Senior Transportation Planner; and

WHEREAS historically, the salaries for the Planner and Transportation Planner series have always been aligned; and

WHEREAS, adjusting the salary range for the Senior Transportation Planner to align with the Senior Planner classification will ensure consistency, equity, and support with recruitment and retention; and

WHEREAS, the proposed revised salary schedule for the Senior Transportation Planner is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, the employee associations representing the impacted classifications have been informed of the changes to the salary schedule and have not brought forth any objections or concerns.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that:

1. The revision to the Senior Transportation Planner salary schedule is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment.

2. The revised salary schedule for the classification of the Senior Transportation Planner is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

3. The revised salary schedule for the Senior Transportation Planner is approved.

37 of 368

Exhibit A
SENIOR PLANNER 2133 - CURRENT SALARY RANGE HOURLY BIWEEKLY MONTHLY ANNUAL STEP 1 66.9347 5,354.7800 11,602.0200 139,224.2100
STEP 2 69.9594 5,596.7500 12,126.2900 145,515.4500
STEP 3 73.1444 5,851.5500 12,678.3700 152,140.4100
STEP 4 76.4322 6,114.5700 13,248.2400 158,978.9400
STEP 5 79.8511 6,388.0900 13,840.8600 166,090.2800

SENIOR TRANPORTATION PLANNER - PROPOSED

SALARY RANGE (IN ALIGNMENT WITH SENIOR PLANNER
2133) HOURLY BIWEEKLY MONTHLY ANNUAL
STEP 1 66.9347 5,354.7800 11,602.0200 139,224.2100
STEP 2 69.9594 5,596.7500 12,126.2900 145,515.4500
STEP 3 73.1444 5,851.5500 12,678.3700 152,140.4100
STEP 4 76.4322 6,114.5700 13,248.2400 158,978.9400
STEP 5 79.8511 6,388.0900 13,840.8600 166,090.2800

38 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 1
8 0

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 5 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 18-6114 File ID: 26-10821 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Parks and Recreation Department
MEETING DATE: February 02, 2026
SUBJECT:

Senior Transportation “Get Around” Program — Amendment
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve an amendment to the agreement with Serra Yellow Cab of Daly City, Inc. for the Senior Transportation “Get Around” program to authorize an additional $200,000 for FY 2025–26, for a total amount not to exceed $950,000, and authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.

BACKGROUND:

The Get Around Program provides on-demand transportation services for qualified City of San Mateo residents aged 60 and over. Each month a rider is eligible for eight (8) one-way trips or four (4) round-trips to destinations within the cities of San Mateo, Burlingame, Foster City, Belmont, Hillsborough, San Carlos and Redwood City. Additional locations outside of the cities listed include the Veterans' Hospitals in Menlo Park and Palo Alto and Stanford University Medical Centers. All rides must begin or end in the City of San Mateo.

The City Council approved an agreement with Serra Yellow Cab of Daly City, Inc. on June 2, 2025, in an amount of $250,000, for a one-year term, with the option to extend via two (2) one (1) year extension for a total amount of $750,000.

The Senior Transportation “Get Around” program has been facilitated by the Parks and Recreation Department since January 1, 2018, and continues to grow exponentially, adding an average of 42 new riders per month. Currently there are over 2,000 San Mateo seniors signed up for the program. Rides in Quarter 1 of FY 25-26 reached 3,198, nearly 45% more than Quarter 1 of FY 24-25 which totaled 2,206. The current allocation of $250,000 will be exhausted in February 2026, and staff forecasts an additional $200,000 will be necessary to fund the program through June 30, 2026.

As of January 12, 2026, staff implemented a waiting list for new applications to mitigate the costs associated with adding new riders. Future funding opportunities and cost-saving measures continue to be evaluated to determine funding options to keep the program financially viable.

BUDGET IMPACT:

Funds from Parks and Recreation operating budget through salary savings will cover the additional $200,000 funding in FY 25-26.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This project is not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

39 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 1
8 0

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Amendment

STAFF CONTACT
Zachary Silva, Community Services Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7400

40 of 368

Contract Amendment Page 1 of 2
CAO Approved June 2024
1 2
7 9
0 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND
SERRA YELLOW CAB OF DALY CITY INC., FOR
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR SENIOR “GET AROUND” PROGRAM This Amendment No. 1 is made and entered into this day of February ______, 2026 by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California ("CITY"), and Serra Yellow Cab of Daly City, Inc. ("CONTRACTOR").

WHEREAS, City and Contractor entered into an Agreement for Transportation Services for Senior “Get Around Program” on June 16, 2025.

WHEREAS, City and Contractor wish to amend the Agreement effective ___________ to increase compensation by $200,000 for fiscal year 2025-2026 only.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Section 5 “Payment” of the Agreement is amended to read:

In consideration for the full performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR an amount of up to $450,000 for fiscal year 2025-2026, pursuant to rates stated in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated by reference. The City may amend the Agreement for two (2) one (1) year extensions; July 1, 2026-June 30, 2027 and July 1, 2027-June 30, 2028 for $250,000 each year, for a potential Agreement total of $950,000.

2. Exhibit B of the Agreement is amended to read:

All fees, taxes and services under this Agreement shall not exceed $450,000 for fiscal year 2025-2026. Compensation shall not exceed $250,0000 per fiscal year for 2026-2027 and 2027-2028, if the City exercises its option to extend the Agreement. Total compensation pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed $950,000.

3. The remaining terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF SAN MATEO and CONTRACTOR have executed this Amendment No. 1 on___________________.

41 of 368

Contract Amendment Page 2 of 2
CAO Approved June 2024
1 2
7 9
0 CITY OF SAN MATEO CONTRACTOR
Joanne Magrini
Director, Parks and Recreation
Date Talib Salamin
Serra Yellow Cab of Daly City Inc.

President
Date

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Mazarin Vakharia
Assistant City Attorney
Date

42 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 6 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 18-6113 File ID: 26-10840 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Parks and Recreation Department
MEETING DATE: February 02, 2026
SUBJECT:

Audio Solutions Special Events Support — Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to approve an alternate purchasing procedure; approve an agreement in an amount not to exceed $64,750.00 with Thor Audio Solutions for sound, stage, dance floor and support services at city-wide special events from July 22, 2024-December 31, 2025, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement substantially in the form presented.

BACKGROUND:

On July 22, 2024, the City Manager approved a contract in the amount of $95,000 with Thor Audio Solutions to provide staging, sound, dance floors, and event logistics support for Citywide events from July 22, 2024-December 21, 2025. Due to additional stage requirements towards the end of the event season the actual costs for the contract term were $158,370.00, which exceeded the amount authorized by contract. Specifically, the scope did not calculate the per cost event accurately to accommodate additional events as intended. The contract also expired on December 31, 2025. To reflect the actual costs of services provided for the contract term, and in order to reimburse the vendor for services already rendered, a new contract is required. The City Council is being asked to approve this new contract because the total value of services provided by this vendor exceeds $100,000.

Pursuant to San Mateo Municipal Code Section 3.60.050(b), the City may use any purchasing procedures approved by the City Council, if it makes a finding concurrent with the award of the contract that the procedures are in the best interest of the City. This agreement is for services already rendered that were related to an existing vendor who had the technical knowledge to continue providing services for event support services. Thus, staff recommends approval of the agreement in an amount not to exceed $64,750.00 which is in the City’s best interests.

BUDGET IMPACT:

Funding for this amendment is budgeted in the events budget for FY2025-2026.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This item is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

43 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
Att 2 – Agreement

STAFF CONTACT
Zachary Silva, Community Services Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7400

44 of 368

1 2
8 3
2 CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. (2026)

APPROVING AN ALTERNATIVE PURCHASING PROCEDURE FOR AN AGREEMENT WITH THOR AUDIO SOLUTIONS FOR EVENT EQUIPMENT SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $64,750.00 FOR FY2025- 2026
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo entered into a contract on July 22, 2024 with Thor Audio Solutions to provide event equipment services and the contract; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo the contract expired on December 31, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City’s original contract was for $95,000 and actual services rendered amounted to a total of $158,370.00. $93,620 of the original contract has been paid resulting in a $64,750.00 difference, due to additional events and stage requirements during this time period; and WHEREAS, the City requests additional contract authority from City Council in an amount not to exceed $64,750.00 for services rendered in fiscal years 2024-2025 and 2025-26; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Sections 3.60.050(b) provides that exceptions to the City Council award procedures are possible if the Council makes a finding concurrent with the award that calling for bids for that particular agreement is impracticable, unavailing, or impossible; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends approval of the additional agreement with Thor Audio Solutions for services rendered during the contract term in an amount not to exceed $64,750.00.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY FINDS and RESOLVES that:

1. This agreement is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

2. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 3.60.050(b), calling for bids would be impracticable, unavailing, or impossible because Thor Audio Solutions has already rendered services.

45 of 368

Contract for Services Page 1 of 12
Rev 12/22

AGREEMENT WITH PERRY THORWALDSON, SOLE PROPRIETOR OF THOR AUDIO SOLUTIONS

FOR EVENT EQUIPMENT SERVICES FOR

CITY OF SAN MATEO SPECIAL EVENTS

This Agreement, made and entered into this day of____________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California ("CITY"), and Perry Thorwaldson, Sole Proprietor of Thor Audio Solutions, a ("CONTRACTOR"), whose address is 945 Berryessa Road, Suite 4, San Jose, CA 95133.

RECITALS:

A. CITY desires certain event equipment services hereinafter described.

B. CITY desires to engage CONTRACTOR to provide these event equipment services by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services and CONTRACTOR has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:

SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES
.

The scope of services to be performed by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement is as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 2 - DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR

CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of all work furnished by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in its work.

CONTRACTOR represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of CONTRACTOR.

CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with the City’s minimum wage ordinance as codified in Municipal Code Chapter 5.92, which differs from the state minimum wage and includes a Consumer Price Index escalator.

Specific Event Duties for the Central Park Music Series:

CONTRACTOR will provide all sound equipment necessary for a complete concert set-up as outlined in the Request for Proposal.

46 of 368

Contract for Services Page 2 of 12
Rev 12/22
CONTRACTOR will be provided vehicular access to enter into park from the 5th Avenue entrance at determined date and time with City.

CONTRACTOR will have venue available to performer’s personnel for set up a minimum of two hours prior to scheduled performance.

All set up must be completed no later than 30 minutes prior to scheduled performance.

CONTRACTOR will complete sound break down and be exited from area 2 hours after event ends.

CONTRACTOR is allowed to park in maintenance yard of park for the duration of the event.

CONTRACTOR must limit vehicles to asphalt pathways; vehicles not allowed on lawn or landscaped areas.

SECTION 3 - DUTIES OF CITY

CITY shall provide pertinent information regarding its requirements for the project.

CITY shall examine documents submitted by CONTRACTOR and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of CONTRACTOR'S work.

Specific Event Duties for the Central Park Music Series:

CITY will keep grass cut short to allow dance floor to lie flat, and will not water 48 hours prior to event to prevent damage to lawn.

CITY will provide gate code into Central Park to CONTRACTOR.

SECTION 4 - TERM

The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence on Friday, July 17, 2024 and be completed on March 31, 2026

SECTION 5 - PAYMENT

Payment shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request upon completion and CITY approval of the work performed. In consideration for the full performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR a fee not to exceed $64,750 pursuant to rates stated in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated by reference.

47 of 368

Contract for Services Page 3 of 12
Rev 12/22
SECTION 6 - TERMINATION

Without limitation to such rights or remedies as CITY shall otherwise have by law, CITY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend work on the Project for any reason, upon ten (10) days' written notice to CON TRACTOR. CONTRACTOR agrees to cease all work under this Agreement upon receipt of said written notice.

SECTION 7 - OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS

All documents prepared by CONTRACTOR in the performance of this Agreement are and shall be the property of CITY, whether the project for which they are made is executed or not.

SECTION 8 - CONFIDENTIALITY

All reports and documents prepared by CONTRACTOR in connection with the performance of this Agreement are confidential until released by CITY to the public. CONTRACTOR shall not make any such documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by CONTRACTOR or CITY without the written consent of CITY before any such release.

SECTION 9 - INTEREST OF CONTRACTOR

CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services under this Agreement.

SECTION 10 - CONTRACTOR'S STATUS

It is expressly agreed that in the performance of the services required under this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent contractor as defined in Labor Code Section 3353, under control of the CITY as to the result of the work but not the means by which the result is accomplished. Nothing herein shall be construed to make CONTRACTOR an agent or employee of CITY while providing services under this Agreement.

SECTION 11 - INDEMNITY

CONTRACTOR agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of CONTRACTOR’s performance of this Agreement, except for those claims arising out of CITY’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. CONTRACTOR agrees to defend City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims. The CONTRACTOR’S duty to indemnify shall survive expiration or early termination of this Agreement.

48 of 368

Contract for Services Page 4 of 12
Rev 12/22
SECTION 12 - INSURANCE

Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract the insurance specified in Exhibit C to this Agreement.

SECTION 13 - NONASSIGNABILITY

Both parties hereto recognize that this Agreement is for the personal services of CONTRACTOR and cannot be transferred, assigned, or subcontracted by CONTRACTOR without the prior written consent of CITY.

SECTION 14 - RELIANCE UPON SKILL OF CONTRACTOR

It is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that CONTRACTOR is skilled in the performance of the work agreed to be done under this Agreement and that CITY relies upon the skill of CONTRACTOR to do and perform the work in the most skillful manner, and CONTRACTOR agrees to thus perform the work. The acceptance of CONTRACTOR's work by CITY does not operate as a release of CONTRACTOR from said obligation.

SECTION 15 - WAIVERS

The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any provisions of any ordinance or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, condition, ordinance, or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any applicable law or ordinance.

SECTION 16 - COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES

Attorney fees in total amount not exceeding $5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. The above $5000 limit is the total of attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions. It is the intent of this provision that neither party shall have to pay the other more than $5000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement.

SECTION 17 - NON-DISCRIMINATION

CONTRACTOR warrants that it is an Equal Opportunity Employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither CONTRACTOR nor any of its subcontractors shall discriminate in the employment of any person because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or age, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

49 of 368

Contract for Services Page 5 of 12
Rev 12/22
SECTION 18 - MEDIATION

Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the State Mediation and Conciliation Service, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a blind draw.

The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation process, once commenced by a meeting with the mediator, shall last until agreement is reached by the parties but not more than 60 days, unless the maximum time is extended by the parties.

SECTION 19 - LITIGATION

CONTRACTOR shall testify at CITY's request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with CONTRACTOR's services under this Agreement. Unless the action is brought by CONTRACTOR, or is based upon CONTRACTOR's wrongdoing, CITY shall compensate CONTRACTOR for preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at CONTRACTOR's standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony.

SECTION 20 - NOTICES

All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To CITY: Alex Khojikian
City Manager
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

To CONTRACTOR: Thor Audio Solutions
Attn: Perry Thorwaldson
945 Berryessa Road Suite 4
San Jose, CA 95133

SECTION 21 - AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL
UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT

This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and CONTRACTOR and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.

This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and CONTRACTOR.

50 of 368

Contract for Services Page 6 of 12
Rev 12/22

SECTION 22 - GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE

This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and, in the event of litigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo.

51 of 368

Contract for Services Page 7 of 12
Rev 12/22
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF SAN MATEO and Thor Audio Solutions have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CONTRACTOR

Alex Khojikian
City Manager

Date Perry Thorwaldson
President
Thor Audio Solutions

Date

APPROVED AS TO FORM

Mazarin Vakharia
Assistant City Attorney
Date

Attachments:

Exhibit A: Scope of Services
Exhibit B: Payment Rates
Exhibit C: Insurance Requirements

52 of 368

Contract for Services Page 8 of 12
Rev 12/22

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES

Event services could include but not limited to:

• 4th of July in the Park
o Thursday, July 4, 2024
o Friday, July 4, 2025

• Central Park Music Series
o Thursdays, July 11 – August 8, 2024 (skip July 4)
o Thursdays, June 19 – August 7, 2025

• Dia de los Muertos
o Saturday, October 12, 2024
o Saturday, October 11, 2025

• Boo’s on B Street
o Saturday, October 26, 2024
o Saturday, October 25, 2025

Type of requirements will vary per event and will be decided by CITY.

Staging Requirements

Staging support services must meet the following minimum specifications:
• Set up and take down of vendor owned 20’ x 20’ stage with elevated (minimum 3’) stage floor and skirting
• Set up of vendor owned stair unit with safety railing on stage • Set up of vendor provided rear backdrop truss with display capability for two (2) 20’ x 2.5’ onstage banners
• ADA Ramp or elevator

Tent Requirements

• Set up and take down of vendor provided 10’ x 10’ tent booths with zip-in walls • Includes one (1) 10’ x 10’ tent with zip in walls that serves as “backstage” dressing area for performers
• Includes ten (10) 10’ x 10’ vendor provided tents to serve as food booths that comply with the County of San Mateo Health regulations

Dance Floor Requirements

Dance floor support services must meet the following minimum specifications:

53 of 368

Contract for Services Page 9 of 12
Rev 12/22
• One (1) 20’ x 25’ dance floor with minimum 1” subflooring • One pedestrian pathway leading to the dance floor from crowd (approximately 95’ feet long)

Audio/Visual Support Requirements

The audio system must be capable of producing clear, quality sound for an outdoor audience of up to 3,000 people while being respectful of residents located near the park/area.

Audio support services must meet the following minimum specifications:

• Onsite sound engineer – same individual each week
• Front of House mix
• 24-channel mixing equipment with full effects support • Eight (8) onstage monitors with a minimum of six (6) separate mixes • All necessary audio cables and speaker cables

54 of 368

Contract for Services Page 10 of 12
Rev 12/22

EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT RATES

Total cost may change based on needs of event and availability of items and staff. CITY may change, modify and adjust needs per event and services will be agreed upon CITY and CONTRACTOR up to 24 hours prior to the event.

Staging
Built Stage $2,880 per event
Mobile Stage $3,550 per event

Tents
10 food service, 1 band w/ zipper $1,210 per event

Dance Floor
20’ x 25’ $1,860 per event

Audio/Visual
Speakers, Sound engineer, etc. $3,300 per event

All payments will be made payable to Thor Audio Solutions and paid within 30 days after services rendered.

55 of 368

Contract for Services Page 11 of 12
Rev 12/22

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE

Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 07 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products -completed operations, personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Contractor has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non -owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $4,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

If the contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the contractor.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Additional Insured Status
The City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as insureds on the auto policy for liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor; and on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, or agents shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the City.

56 of 368

Contract for Services Page 12 of 12
Rev 12/22
Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be nece ssary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

57 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 7 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: 10-4661 File ID: 25-10798 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: February 02, 2026
SUBJECT:

Humboldt Bike Lanes Alternative — Update
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a presentation from staff on efforts to explore potential alternatives to a portion of the Humboldt Street bike lanes and receive direction/recommendation from City Council.

BACKGROUND:

In 2020, the City Council adopted the Bicycle Master Plan (BMP), which identifies projects and programs organized around five goals: Connectivity, Safety and Comfort, Community, Equity, and Ridership. All BMP projects were subsequently prioritized, resulting in more than 100 planned improvements. The Humboldt Street bike lane segment ranked among the top three priorities citywide. The following timeline summarizes how the Humboldt Street bike lanes were constructed, community response to the project, and how it led to additional outreach looking into the feasibility of an alternative route:
July 2020 – The program year for the FY 2020-21 federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A portion of these funds was allocated towards street and sidewalk improvements, with a goal of repairing deteriorated streets, as well as providing accessibility and public safety improvements to streets and sidewalks in the CDBG Priority Neighborhood.

Specifically, City Council tasked Public Works with prioritizing implementation of its bike master plan, as noted in the 2020-21 Annual Action Plan (AAP) to HUD. The project, which included improvements to target this goal and to help implement the bike master plan, was titled the North Central Bike Lanes Project (Project). May 2021 – Adoption of the 2021-22 AAP to HUD, which discussed planned use of funding for pedestrian and bicycle improvements for the Project, showing continued progress towards meeting the goal of street and sidewalk improvements in a CDBG priority neighborhood.
July 2021 – Design completed for the North Central Bike Lanes Project. November 2021 – Construction began on the paving and pedestrian improvements portion of the North Central Bike Lanes Project.
February 2022 – City Council authorized installation of the bike lanes on Humboldt Street as part of the North Central Bike Lanes Project. The Project included, but was not limited to, approximately 1.3 miles of Class II bicycle lanes on Humboldt Street between 5th Avenue and Peninsula Avenue and required the removal of approximately 170 parking spaces on Humboldt Street.
July 2022 – Construction of the North Central Bike Lanes Project was completed. August 2022 – March 2023 – Residents reported that the parking loss associated with the new bike lanes was having a significant negative impact on the North Central neighborhood, especially those residents living directly on Humboldt Street.
May 2023 – City Council appropriated funds for a new initiative, the North Central Complete Streets Plan, to address circulation and parking impacts resulting from the North Central Bike Lanes Project.

58 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
June 2023 – May 2024 – Through outreach for the North Central Complete Streets Plan and other community contacts, staff continued to receive feedback highlighting ongoing parking loss impacts caused by the 2022 bike lane installation on Humboldt Street.

At the June 17, 2024, City Council meeting, residents reiterated ongoing concerns about difficulty finding parking in the North Central neighborhood that was exacerbated by the Project. City Council directed staff to begin investigating additional ways to address community concerns. In response, staff hosted two workshops: In October 2024, staff met with the smaller North Central Lived Experience Group, which was formed as part of the North Central Complete Streets Plan (NCCSP), to discuss the bike lanes on Humboldt Street and explore potential alternatives that might help alleviate impacts. In December 2024, staff held a larger community workshop at the Martin Luther King Jr. Center, where more than 110 residents attended in person to provide feedback on the bike lanes on Humboldt Street, post-installation.

PHASE I DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL
On February 3, 2025, City Council held a Study Session where staff presented the feedback from the October and December 2024 meetings as well as the NCCSP and sought Council direction on how to address community impacts resulting from the Project. Staff presented the five (5) following (paraphrased) alternatives for Council consideration:
Alternative #1 - Keep As-Is: Retains the Class II bike lanes on Humboldt Street and do not restore any parking.

Alternative #2 - Bicycle Boulevard on Humboldt Street: Removal of the existing Class II bike lanes on Humboldt Street, replacement with a bike boulevard with level 2 and 3 traffic calming devices, and restoration of approximately 170 parking spaces on Humboldt Street from Peninsula Avenue to 5th Avenue.

Alternative #3 - Partial Removal of Bike Lanes, and Establishment of a Bike Boulevard on a Parallel Street: This alternative was broken down into a short-term plan and a long-term plan. Humboldt Street Parking Restoration (2nd Avenue to Indian Avenue Only): In the short-term restore approximately 100 parking spaces on Humboldt Street from 2nd Avenue to Indian Avenue and establish a north-south street parallel to Humboldt Street as a pilot bike boulevard between 2nd Avenue and Indian Avenue.
Pilot Parallel Bike Boulevard: Implementation of a pilot bike boulevard on a different street (Idaho Street or Fremont Street) after community vetting.
Long-Term Plan: In the long-term perform a connectivity study in the North Central neighborhood to reanalyze destinations within the community and see how to improve bike connectivity north of Indian Avenue and south of 2nd Avenue and further within the North Central neighborhood.
Alternative #4 - Restore Parking with No Bike Infrastructure: Remove bike lanes and restore approximately 170 parking spaces on Humboldt Street from Peninsula Avenue to 5th Avenue. Alternative #5 - Streetlighting Upgrades: Upgrade existing cobrahead streetlight fixtures to brighter fixtures to help address community concerns about low lighting while assessing negative effects of additional light on residential properties.

City Council directed staff to further explore the feasibility and community support surrounding Alternatives 3 and

5. In particular, the City Council was interested in piloting the streetlighting upgrades associated with Alternative 5, and they were interested in engaging the community further, especially the residents who live on Fremont and Idaho Street, to understand whether the community was in support of Alternative 3.

59 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO

PHASE II ENGAGEMENT
Phase II evaluated the feasibility of Alternatives 3 and 5 through an extensive and inclusive community engagement process. The strategy centered on three public workshops and one pilot streetlighting demonstration, all designed to gather direct public input. To ensure broad participation, staff implemented a multi-faceted outreach campaign that included:

Partnering with trusted local networks to amplify awareness Mailing over 35,000 notices to residents and stakeholders Distributing more than 1,000 flyers along the corridor and at City facilities Conducting four citywide surveys
Placing over 140 A-frame signs throughout the North Central community Performing targeted door-to-door canvassing
Sustained digital promotion via Nextdoor, Instagram, Facebook, X, the City’s website, and community partner networks
Meetings with administrators and faculty from Fiesta Gardens International School and San Mateo High School

This comprehensive effort generated over 50,000 digital and in-person engagements (likes, shares, comments, views, and QR code scans), successfully driving community participation at in-person and virtual workshops and providing critical feedback. Recognizing the linguistic and cultural diversity of the North Central community, all engagement activities prioritized accessibility and inclusion:

Workshops were held in person at accessible, familiar venues, including the Martin Luther King Jr.

Center and Fiesta Gardens Elementary School
Evening sessions included childcare, food, and refreshments Virtual attendance options were optimized for mobile devices and multi-tasking participants All materials and presentations were provided in English, Spanish, and Chinese Live interpretation in Spanish and Chinese was offered at all in-person and virtual workshops Surveys were available in English, Spanish, and Chinese, both online and in print

This inclusive, multilingual, and multi-channel approach ensured meaningful participation from a broad cross- section of the community throughout Phase II. Below is a summary of each of the three workshops and the streetlighting pilot efforts. Copies of the presentation slides and concept designs presented at these workshops are also available on the City’s website: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4871/Community-Workshop-Humboldt- Street-Bike-.

Workshop No. 1 - Initial Feedback
The first community workshop focused on gathering input on current travel patterns and experiences along Humboldt Street, Idaho Street, and Fremont Street. A total of 56 participants signed in at the registration table, with several additional attendees who did not sign in but completed surveys. The session began with a staff presentation outlining the project goals and City Council direction, followed by facilitated small- group discussions that followed a structured set of questions to understand the impacts of the existing Humboldt Street bike lanes and current usage of the three corridors. Discussion groups reported key findings back to identify common themes.

Summary of Meeting: Overall, the first community workshop was energetic and well-attended, with robust participation throughout the evening with approximately 60 attendees. A total of 58 in-person surveys were completed, and 155 post-meeting online surveys were received, resulting in 213 responses overall.

The survey included questions to help staff understand existing uses of Humboldt Street, Idaho Street, and Fremont Street, such as for commuting, recreation, or school travel, and by what mode (bike, walking, or vehicle). The results of this survey were presented back to the community at the second community meeting

60 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
on August 25, 2025 (slides 12-14). A copy of the presentation slides is available on the City’s website:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4871/Community-Workshop-Humboldt-Street-Bike-.

Participants repeatedly emphasized that the removal of on-street parking to accommodate the existing Humboldt Street bike lanes has created a significant burden on residents and surrounding neighborhoods.

Streetlighting improvements along the Humboldt corridor were very well received, with widespread agreement that upgraded lighting would substantially enhance safety and visibility for all users. There was no clear consensus on whether Idaho Street or Fremont Street would be the preferred location for a bike boulevard. Strong concerns were raised about implementing a bike boulevard on either street due to their narrow roadway widths, existing vehicle speeds, traffic congestion, and limited visibility. Several attendees proposed Amphlett Boulevard as a viable alternative route that should be considered for bicycle facilities.

Overall, the feedback highlighted a strong community desire to address parking impacts, improve safety through better lighting, and carefully evaluate any new bicycle route to avoid shifting problems to already constrained local streets.

Workshop No. 2 - Draft Concept Designs
Building on the feedback from Workshop No. 1, the second workshop presented draft concept designs that addressed the community’s priorities of not removing more parking beyond what is required under State daylighting laws, meaningful speed reduction, and enhanced safety for all users. The draft concepts featured two parallel bicycle boulevard alternatives to the existing Humboldt Street facility, both running from Indian Avenue to 2nd Avenue: Idaho Street Bike Boulevard and Fremont Street Bike Boulevard. Each option incorporated traffic-calming measures designed to lower vehicle speeds and improved safety while preserving on-street parking. Participants engaged in group discussions guided by a knowledgeable facilitator and used visual aids. Dedicated scribes captured detailed feedback. The structured format allowed residents to examine the proposed treatments in detail, ask technical questions, and provide targeted input on each corridor, setting the stage for final refinement of the preferred alternative.

Summary of Meeting: The second workshop, attended by 38 in-person residents and 9 virtual participants with more than 70 survey respondents, centered on the proposed traffic-calming measures for both the Idaho Street and Fremont Street bike boulevard alternatives. Attendees showed strong interest in examining the specific treatments presented for each corridor. Staff noted specific participant preferences for these treatments, based upon feedback received at the meeting and through the survey following the meeting, for incorporation into the bike boulevard concept designs:
For the Idaho Street alternative, participants immediately and consistently expressed a clear preference for speed humps over rumble strips.
The six proposed intersection safety treatments—developed in direct response to Workshop No. 1 feedback emphasizing intersection safety on Idaho Street—were very well received. High-visibility crosswalks and the introduction of four-way stops at key locations were also strongly supported for both alternatives.
Feedback on curb extensions was mixed; several residents noted that they can make turning movements more difficult for larger vehicles, while traffic circles were viewed favorably as an alternative calming tool.

Overall, the proposed calming measures for both alternatives received positive feedback, with participants acknowledging that the designs are projected to reduce operating speeds from the current 25 mph to approximately 15–18 mph. However, skepticism remained about whether those speed reductions would be fully achieved once constructed. Concerns about driveway visibility when vehicles back out were raised during both the question-and-answer period and table discussions. There was notable support for creating a bike boulevard on either Idaho Street or Fremont Street, with many citing the anticipated reduction in vehicle speeds and volumes as a significant benefit. At the same time, there was equally strong sentiment against removing the existing bike lanes on Humboldt Street, with many participants stating they would not support any alternative that eliminates the current bicycle facility.

61 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO

Workshop No. 3 - Final Concept Design
This third and final workshop incorporated all feedback received from Workshop No. 2 and presented refined final concept designs for both the Idaho Street and Fremont Street bike boulevard alternatives. The primary objective was to obtain clear feedback from the community on their preferred outcome:

Implementing the Idaho Street bike boulevard;
Implementing the Fremont Street bike boulevard; or
Retaining the existing Class II bike lanes on Humboldt Street in their current configuration

Staff clarified to participants in attendance as well as in the survey that the bike boulevard alternatives proposed for Idaho Street and Fremont Street did not involve removal of parking on these streets (beyond what may be required by State daylighting laws), as this was a point of confusion for some community members.

The session included a concise, high-level staff presentation that highlighted the most significant changes made to the bike boulevard concept designs in response to Workshop No. 2 feedback, summarized results from the streetlighting pilot demonstration, and strongly encouraged participants to complete a focused four-question survey designed to capture the community’s final preferences for the future of bicycle facilities on Humboldt Street. The streamlined format and clear choice presented in the survey allowed staff to gather decisive input to bring to the Commission and City Council. As this was the final survey of Phase II, staff significantly expanded distribution beyond the in-person, virtual, and online options by mailing approximately 4,500 prepaid-postage survey mailers to every household and business in the North Central community.

Summary of Meeting: The third and final workshop was attended by 41 residents in person and 10 virtually.

Driveway visibility emerged as a recurring concern, with several participants noting increased bicycle usage on the narrower Idaho and Fremont corridors could exacerbate sight-line issues for vehicles backing out.

While participants expressed appreciation for the substantial speed-reduction and safety enhancements incorporated into both final alternative designs, a notable portion of attendees maintained that either option would still represent a downgrade from the existing protected Class II bike lanes on Humboldt Street and reiterated their preference to keep the current facility unchanged.

Summary of Survey Results:

As a follow up to this meeting, more than 400+ individuals submitted surveys (either in-person, online, or mailed). In the survey, staff presented three clear options (as listed below) and asked participants to rank them from most preferred to least preferred (1 = most preferred and 3 = least preferred):

Keep Existing on Humboldt Street - Retain the existing Class II bike lanes on Humboldt Street in their current configuration; or
Idaho Street Alternative - Remove the Humboldt Street bike lanes, restore approximately 100 on- street parking spaces from Indian Avenue to 2nd Avenue, and implement the refined Idaho Street bike boulevard; or
Fremont Street Alternative - Remove the Humboldt Street bike lanes, restore the same parking segment, and implement the refined Fremont Street bike boulevard.

Below are the results for the final survey as part of this effort broken into each distribution format (in- person, online, or mailed). Because it was possible for someone to take the survey via multiple formats (in- person, online, and mailed), these results are presented separately, and summarized by format, rather than presented collectively. All results within each format category have been reviewed and any duplicates or attempts to take the online survey multiple times have been removed from the summary below, but the results of the online survey results including the duplicates are also included in Attachment 3 (see Tables 3A

62 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
and 4A). Please note some survey participants did not fill out every question, so the results are based on the responses that were provided by participants. Full detailed survey results of each distribution format are provided in Attachment 3.

In-Person Survey Results
Staff received a total of 40 surveys at the workshop with 34 from residents of the North Central neighborhood. When asked directly which of the three alternatives they support, 35% of North Central respondents oppose keeping the existing bike lanes on Humboldt Street, with 65% in support of retaining them. Among residents who live directly on Humboldt Street, the split is more drastic: 0% oppose keeping and 100% support keeping the bike lanes, noting that two in-person respondents lived on Humboldt Street. The priority ranking indicates a preference across all groups to keep the existing bike lanes on Humboldt Street compared to the other alternatives. This demonstrates consistent neighborhood-wide sentiment to maintain the current Humboldt Street configuration.

Online Results
Staff received a total of 219 online surveys, with 99 survey responses from residents of the North Central neighborhood. When asked directly which of the three alternatives they support, 27% of North Central respondents oppose keeping the existing bike lanes on Humboldt Street, with 73% supporting retaining them. Among residents who live directly on Humboldt Street, the split is nearly identical: 26% oppose and 74% support keeping the bike lanes. The priority ranking indicates a preference across all groups to keep the existing bike lanes on Humboldt Street compared to the other alternatives. This demonstrates consistent neighborhood-wide online sentiment for maintaining the current Humboldt Street configuration. These results are consistent with the in- person survey results.

Staff also reviewed the survey findings inclusive of duplicate IP addresses (Tables 3A and 4A of Attachment 3) and determined that the findings did not significantly change, where the majority of responses were in support of keeping the bike lanes.
Mailed Results
Staff distributed prepaid postage mailed surveys to the North Central neighborhood and received a total of 150 survey responses. Of these, 42 (28%) were located on Humboldt Street, 13 (9%) were located on Idaho Street, 19 (13%) were located on Fremont Street, and 76 (51%) were located in the greater North Central area. Other communities outside of North Central were not sent a mailed survey.

When asked directly which of the three alternatives they support, 68% of North Central respondents oppose keeping the existing bike lanes on Humboldt Street, with only 32% in support of retaining them. Among residents who live directly on Humboldt Street, the split is similar: 66% oppose and 34% support keeping the bike lanes. Idaho Street residents in particular were highly opposed to a bike boulevard on Idaho Street. This demonstrates consistent neighborhood-wide mailed survey sentiment against maintaining the current Humboldt Street configuration. These results diverged noticeably from the in-person and online surveys.

Priority Ranking Summary: When respondents were instead asked to rank the three alternatives from most to least preferred (1 = most preferred, 3 = least preferred), the results varied between North Central and Humboldt Street residents.

Overall North Central residents ranked the options as follows:

1. Keep the existing bike lanes on Humboldt Street (highest average ranking)

63 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO

2. Fremont Street bike boulevard alternative

3. Idaho Street bike boulevard alternative (lowest average ranking)

Humboldt Street and Idaho Street residents specifically ranked the alternatives differently:

1. Fremont Street bike boulevard alternative

2. Keep the existing bike lanes on Humboldt Street

3. Idaho Street bike boulevard alternative (least preferred)

This shift between the responses to questions #1-#3 and the ranked-choice question suggests that while a clear majority actively oppose keeping the Humboldt configuration unchanged, many still view it as preferable to the bike boulevard options when forced to rank all three alternatives. A detailed table comparing the survey question results versus ranked choice is provided in Attachment

3. Streetlight Pilot
The City conducted a streetlighting pilot between 9/17/25 and 10/15/25. The streetlighting pilot was designed to gather direct community feedback on appropriate lighting levels and fixture styles for Humboldt Street and for a potential bike boulevard alternative. Two demonstration locations were established:

oHumboldt Street: Three cobrahead fixtures were installed side-by-side for comparison — the existing standard cobrahead, a medium-intensity version, and a high-intensity version. oIdaho Street: Two pedestrian-scale fixtures were displayed — the existing pedestrian-scale standard and a high-intensity version. (A medium-intensity pedestrian-scale option was not included because the City does not currently have an approved standard for that output level.)

Residents were able to view the fixtures at night and provide input on preferred brightness, glare, color temperature, and overall suitability for each corridor. Feedback from this pilot was summarized and presented at Workshop No. 3 to help inform final lighting recommendations.

Survey Summary: Staff received a total of 71 survey responses. Of these, 63% preferred the high-brightness option for pedestrian-scale lights, while 46% preferred the high-brightness option for roadway streetlight fixtures. Full detailed survey results are provided in Attachment 3 (Table 7 and 8) School Engagement
On January 23, 2025, the San Mateo-Foster City School District Board unanimously adopted a resolution strongly supporting retention of the existing Class II bike lanes on Humboldt Street. The resolution describes the Humboldt corridor as one of the most vital bicycle segments in the City of San Mateo and states that removal of the lanes would pose a threat to safety. On February 1, 2025, staff also received a letter from the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) of the San Mateo City School District (SMFCSD) stating their position to keep the bike lanes on Humboldt.

During Phase II outreach, staff met separately with administrators and faculty from San Mateo High School and Fiesta Gardens International School. Both schools emphasized that safety must remain the highest priority in any final decision. Fiesta Gardens International School representatives acknowledged the parking loss caused by the Humboldt bike lanes and noted that the already-constrained on-street parking supply in the surrounding neighborhood indirectly affects staff, families, and visitors. They welcomed any additional speed-calming measures on Indian Avenue, which experiences heavy vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic before and after school.

64 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Phase II Engagement Summary
Overall, the engagement efforts made for this entire process were comprehensive and consistent. The feedback received was mixed, but there are some common themes, as listed below:

Support for measures to slow speeds and volumes in neighborhood streets are welcomed, but not at the trade-off of removing parking or existing bicycle infrastructure. Streetlighting upgrades are well supported as the community perceives it as having a safety benefit. When looking at the overall priority ranking survey results during and after workshop #3, there is consistent support for retaining the bike lanes on Humboldt Street by in-person and online survey respondents. Mailed survey responses indicated residents living on Humboldt and Idaho Streets preferred the Fremont Street bike boulevard over retaining the Humboldt Street bike lanes.

FINAL FREMONT AND IDAHO STREET ALTERNATIVE AND STREETLIGHT UPGRADE

Existing Bicycle Usage Data: During Phase II, staff conducted weekday bicycle counts to establish baseline ridership and travel patterns on the three study corridors: Humboldt Street, Idaho Street, and Fremont Street. Counts were performed at multiple key intersections during the combined AM + PM peak periods (7:00–9:00 AM and 4:00–6:00 PM).

Key findings are as follows, presented as total weekday AM+PM peak hour bicycle trips for each street, across all study intersections:
Humboldt Street (Peninsula Avenue to 3rd Avenue, 7 intersections):
o343 total intersection bicycle trips
oDirectional split: 68% north–south travel, 32% east–west travel (reflecting strong through- movement demand along the corridor).
Idaho Street (Indian Avenue to 2nd Avenue, 4 intersections):
o124 total intersection bicycle trips during the same combined peak periods. oDirectional split: 43% north-south on Idaho Street and 57% east-west Fremont Street (Indian Avenue to 2nd Avenue, 4 intersections):
o226 total intersection bicycle trips during the same combined peak periods. oDirectional split: 37% north-south travel on Fremont Street, 63% east-west travel These counts confirm that Humboldt Street currently carries a large number of bicycle volumes. The data helped inform the design of traffic-calming treatments, intersection improvements, and diversion assumptions in the final alternatives. Detailed intersection-by-intersection counts are included in Attachment 3 (Table 9).

Potential Idaho Street Alternative
The final bicycle facility concept for Idaho Street, as presented to the community, proposes a potential bike boulevard alternative along Idaho Street between Indian Avenue and 2nd Avenue. The potential alternative route is approximately 4,000 feet long, compared to the existing 3,200-foot bike facility on Humboldt Street over the same general alignment. This alternative incorporates traffic calming and safety improvements along the entire corridor.

Safety enhancements are provided at seven intersections and include two new traffic circles at Monte Diablo Avenue and Indian Avenue and high-visibility crosswalks at all seven intersections. Additionally, eight speed humps are proposed along Idaho Street, with a total of ten-speed humps throughout the connecting route. Combined, these measures are projected to reduce prevailing vehicle speeds from approximately 25 mph to 15–18 mph and lower peak-hour traffic volumes from 130–289 vehicles per hour to 31–150 vehicles per hour. The final proposed concept can be found in Attachment 1 – Final Idaho Street Alternative. Cost Estimate: $1.37M: This cost includes restoration of Humboldt Street from Indian Avenue to 2 nd Avenue to before bike lanes were installed, the design work needed to bring the 15% concept designs to construction, construction and inspection services and a contingency. It should be noted that safety enhancements are proposed at the intersection of Indian Avenue and Humboldt Street as part of a funded and planned project (Local Roadway Safety Plan Priority Package 1) and therefore not included in the cost

65 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
estimate.

Potential Fremont Street Alternative
The final bicycle facility concept for Fremont Street, as presented to the community, proposes a bike boulevard along Fremont Street between Indian Avenue and 2nd Avenue. The existing bike facility on Humboldt Street is approximately 3,200 feet long; the new proposed route along Fremont Street extends roughly 4,700 feet before reconnecting to the existing Class II bike lane on Humboldt Street. This alternative includes safety improvements at ten intersections. Proposed treatments include high-visibility crosswalks, all-way stops, centerline hardening, and curb extensions at Monte Diablo Avenue. In total, ten speed cushions are proposed, along with high-visibility crosswalks at Cypress Avenue, Tilton Avenue, both Monte Diablo Avenue intersections, Santa Inez Avenue, and Indian Avenue. Additionally, the proposal converts 2nd Avenue between S. Grant Avenue and Fremont Street to westbound-only motor vehicle traffic, allowing contraflow (two-way) bicycle travel on that segment. Combined, these measures are projected to reduce existing vehicle speeds on Fremont Street from 23–26 mph to 15–18 mph and lower peak-hour traffic volumes from 100–200 vehicles per hour to 50–120 vehicles per hour. The final proposed concept can be found in Attachment 2 – Final Fremont Street Alternative. Cost Estimate: $1.32M: This cost includes restoration of Humboldt Street from Indian Avenue to 2 nd Avenue to before bike lanes were installed, the design work needed to bring the 15% concept designs to construction, construction and inspection services and a contingency. It should be noted that safety enhancements are proposed at the intersection of Indian Avenue and Humboldt Street as part of a funded and planned project (Local Roadway Safety Plan Priority Package 1) and therefore not included in the cost estimate.

Streetlighting Upgrade
Humboldt Street – The limits of the streetlighting upgrade on Humboldt Street will be from Peninsula Avenue to 5th Avenue. This segment has approximately 44 existing cobrahead roadway streetlights and 20 pedestrian scale lights. To upgrade all 66 streetlights, it is estimated to cost approximately $94,000.

Idaho Street – The limits of the streetlighting upgrade on Idaho Street is from Indian Avenue to 2 nd Avenue. This segment has approximately 18 cobrahead roadway streetlights and 9 pedestrian scale lights.

To upgrade all 27 streetlights will cost approximately $40,500.

Fremont Street – The limits of the streetlighting upgrade on Fremont Street will be from Indian Avenue to 2nd Avenue, the same path as the proposed bike alternative. This segment has approximately 25 cobrahead roadway streetlights and 9 pedestrian scale lights. To upgrade all 34 lights would cost approximately $47,500.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Permit Parking Program
Staff have received feedback from the public as early as October 2024 and during the Phase II engagement effort that there was interest in creating a permit parking program on and near Humboldt Street to help alleviate the parking issue in the community. At the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission Meeting on December 10, 2026, commissioners also expressed an interest in advancing a permit parking program in North Central.

The City’s current Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP) policy would require amendments to meet the needs of North Central. To better clarify potential amendments that would be needed to the City’s current RPPP policy, a summary table is included below.

Current Policy Potential North Central Policy Amendment Current policy restricts RPPPs to areas within
residential neighborhoods where on-street parking is
impacted by parked cars from non-residents, or
Allow implementation of a Permit Parking Program or
RPPP in North Central with consideration that

66 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
parking generators such as a school, business,
commercial district or commercial use.

Humboldt Street was impacted by a significant loss of
parking from the North Central Bike Lanes Project.

Commercial vehicles are not permitted to park in
RPPP areas.

Some community members in North Central rely on
on-street parking to park commercial business
vehicles. A Permit Parking Program in North Central
could optionally allow parking of both residential and
commercial vehicles.

Other considerations when developing a Permit Parking Program are as follows:
oIf advanced, staff would evaluate the appropriate geographic extent of the program. Because the program is intended to address impacts associated with the North Central Bike Lanes Project, staff would consider including Humboldt Street and nearby adjacent blocks. The program area would be refined to balance effectiveness, equity, and administrative feasibility while targeting areas most directly affected by the project.
oFor the program to be effective, a per-house limit on issued permits would need to be determined.

Staff estimate there are on average 2-3+ vehicles per household, exceeding the availability of on- street parking supply. It is important to note that most residential parking permit programs are designed to manage who may park on a street, not to guarantee a space for every permitted vehicle. While a permit parking program wouldn’t add parking capacity to North Central, it could be designed to offer impacted residents a “leg up” in finding parking amongst available spaces. oAn estimated initial capital investment from $10,000 - $40,000+ is necessary to establish signage throughout the community (various depending on program area). On-going costs will include permit issuance, permit renewal, enforcement, and sign maintenance which is yet to be defined. North Central Private Site Parking Leases
Per City Council feedback at the February 3, 2025, meeting and multiple comments from the North Central community expressing interest in increasing the available parking supply, staff explored pursuing private parking lot leases with private property owners. The table below summarizes the properties contacted and the owners’ responses.

Private Site Leases Matrix
Property Interest Dialogue
San Mateo High School No There are too many evening events including Adult School night classes. Will not be able to provide consistent supply.

San Mateo High School
District Offices
No There are too many evening events including Adult School night classes. Will not be able to provide consistent supply.

Fiesta Gardens
International
School
No San Mateo Foster City School District does not rent out spaces for overnight parking.

Sturge Presbyterian
Church
No The lot is used for evening events and food distribution events for the neighborhood in partnership with Second
Harvest.

Community Baptist
Church
Unresponsive Staff reached out five times via phone and twice in person.

State of California
Administrative Office of
the Courts
No The Judicial Council already has an agreement with a local organization for after hours and weekend/holiday use of the Central Branch lot, so spaces are not available for regular overnight use.

67 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Army National Guard
Office
Maybe There are concerns over security specifically in the back gated area. Staff are primarily on-site at night during the weekend so availability will be limited. Front parking lot might potentially be available depending on leasing
compensation.

Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV)
Maybe Leases will be on a non-exclusive basis; agreements are negotiated at market rate and limit the types of use and hours of use. Staff often arrive around 6AM so vehicles will need to be out of the lot before 6AM. Insurance as well as daily routine cleanup will be required.
Other Humboldt Projects
Outside of the Humboldt Bike Lane Alternative effort, the City currently has two other active safety improvement projects on Humboldt Street and identified additional traffic calming measures that could be implemented.

oPoplar/Humboldt Traffic Signal Improvement: This project was completed in late September 2025 and installed protected left turns at the Poplar Avenue and Humboldt Street intersection. This project was listed as the top priority project out of 10 in the City’s adopted Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).
oLocal Roadway Safety Plan Priority Package 1: This project was awarded approximately $1 million in federal funding to implement Priority Projects 1, 2, 4, and 6 from the City’s adopted LRSP. Priority Project 4 specifically includes safety improvements at three intersections along Humboldt Street (Humboldt Street/Indian Avenue, Humboldt Street/E. Santa Inez Avenue, and Humboldt Street/Tilton Avenue). Improvements include, but are not limited to, all-way stop control, intersection lighting upgrades, raised crosswalks, curb extensions, and enhanced sight-distance improvements. The project will start the design phase in early 2026. oOther Humboldt Street Calming Measures: Based on consistent community feedback in support of additional traffic calming measures, staff explored whether additional safety enhancements along Humboldt Street between Peninsula Avenue and 2nd Avenue could be implemented. Staff identified the option of installing two raised crosswalks between Peninsula Avenue and Poplar Avenue, one at the existing crossing at the San Mateo Superior Court and the other at the existing crossing at College Way. When combined with all other ongoing Humboldt Street projects, these additional measures are projected to reduce prevailing vehicle speeds from the current 24–31 mph to approximately 22–26 mph. The two proposed raise crosswalks are estimated to cost approximately $130,000, for which there is currently not any identified funding.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING The City of San Mateo receives annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding from the HUD. To qualify for these funds, the City follows a structured review and approval process. Each year, the City prepares and submits an AAP to HUD for approval prior to the allocation of funds. Prior to submission to HUD, the AAP draft is published for a 30-day public comment period and is presented to the Community Relations Commission for review and recommendation, followed by approval by the City Council.

The original North Central Bike Lanes Project, which included installation of Class II bike lanes on Humboldt Street from 2nd Avenue to Indian Avenue, had a total construction contract value of approximately $1.5 million. Of this amount, an estimated $273,000 in CDBG funds was used specifically for the bike lane installation on Humboldt Street from 2nd Avenue to Indian Avenue.

Should the bike lanes be removed, the portion of CDBG funds expended on the bike lanes (approximately $273,000) would need to be credited back to the City’s local CDBG account. HUD may require these funds to be returned to HUD first before being reprogrammed back to the City’s CDBG account.

68 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO

In other words, the City Council would need to reallocate funds in the amount of $273,000 from another funding source to replace the CDBG funds expended on the bike lanes and restore the City’s local CDBG account in accordance with HUD requirements. These reallocated funds would then become available for redistribution to other eligible projects within the City of San Mateo, in full compliance with HUD program requirements and national objectives.

POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES
Staff is providing a range of potential alternatives for Council consideration to address community concerns about safety and the loss of parking on Humboldt Street, as described below. These alternatives take into consideration the feedback from community engagement process, including the consistent and widespread support for additional traffic calming/safety measures and enhanced lighting and the more mixed feedback on keeping/removing the Humboldt Street bike lanes vs. installing bike boulevards on Idaho or Fremont Streets. Note that three of the four alternatives below include streetlighting upgrades, and their associated costs are reflected in the totals shown for each respective alternative. If the Council decides to pursue streetlighting upgrades independently from the alternatives below, the estimated cost per street is provided in the table below.

Streetlighting Upgrade – Estimated Cost by Street
Street Limits Estimated Cost
Idaho Street 2nd Avenue – Indian Avenue $40,500
Humboldt Street Peninsula Avenue – 5th Avenue $94,000
Fremont Street 2nd Avenue – Indian Avenue $47,500
Alternative #1 - Keep As-Is
This alternative retains the Class II bike lanes on Humboldt Street and does not restore any parking. This option maintains existing bike infrastructure, which allows for consistent North-South bike travel from 5th Avenue to Peninsula Avenue on Humboldt Street. This option does not address the comments from the community about the need to increase parking supply.
oCost Estimate: $0

Alternative #2 – Keep-As-Is with Additional Humboldt Street Calming Measures + Streetlighting Upgrades + Explore Permit Parking Program
This alternative retains the existing Class II bike lanes on Humboldt Street (no parking restoration) and includes the following additional improvements not provided in the LRSP Priority 1 project: streetlighting upgrades along the entire Humboldt Street corridor from Peninsula Avenue to 5th Avenue and implementation of enhanced traffic-calming measures on Humboldt Street beyond the scope of the LRSP Priority Package 1 improvements. More specifically, these improvements include the installation of two raised crosswalks between Peninsula Avenue and Poplar Avenue. As part of this alternative, staff will further explore the establishment of a permit parking program tailored to the North Central neighborhood. oCost Estimate: $295,000 (Includes design, construction and inspection services, including $40,000 estimated initial capital costs for a permit parking program.)

Alternative #3 – Idaho Street Bike Boulevard + Streetlighting Upgrades This alternative would install a bike boulevard on Idaho Street from Indian Avenue to 2nd Avenue, upgrade streetlights on Humboldt Street from Peninsula Avenue to 5th Avenue and upgrade streetlights on Idaho Street from Indian Avenue to 2nd Avenue. This alternative would also remove a segment of the existing Class II bicycle facility on Humboldt Street from Indian Avenue to 2nd Avenue and restore approximately 100 parking spaces in that same segment. This alternative is estimated to lower vehicle speeds on Idaho Street

69 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
from 25mph to 15-18mph and lower peak-hour traffic volumes from 100–200 vehicles per hour to 50–120 vehicles per hour.
oCost Estimate: $1.5M (Includes Humboldt Street roadway restoration to pre-bike-lane condition, Idaho Street bike boulevard installation, streetlighting upgrades on both corridors as described, advancement of 15% concept designs to construction-ready documents, construction, inspection services, and contingency. Additionally, $273,000 would need to be appropriated back into the CDBG local account for removal of the Humboldt bike lanes, as described above. While this is an additional cost, it is funds that would be available for reinvestment within the City’s CDBG areas.)

Alternative #4 – Fremont Street Bike Boulevard + Streetlighting Upgrades This alternative would install a bike boulevard on Fremont Street from Indian Avenue to 2nd Avenue, upgrade streetlights on Humboldt Street from Peninsula Avenue to 5th Avenue and on Fremont Street from Indian Avenue to 2nd Avenue. This alternative would also remove a segment of the existing Class II bicycle facility on Humboldt Street from Indian Avenue to 2nd Avenue and restore approximately 100 parking spaces in that same segment. This alternative is estimated to lower vehicle speeds on Idaho Street from 25mph to 15- 18mph and lower peak-hour traffic volumes from 100–200 vehicles per hour to 50–120 vehicles per hour. oCost Estimate: $1.46M (Includes Humboldt Street roadway restoration to pre-bike-lane condition, Fremont Street bike boulevard installation, streetlighting upgrades on both corridors as described, advancement of 15% concept designs to construction-ready documents, construction, inspection services, and contingency. Additionally, $273,000 would need to be appropriated back into the CDBG local account for removal of the Humboldt bike lanes, as described above. While this is an additional cost, it is funds that would be available for reinvestment within the City’s CDBG areas.)

Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission Feedback
On December 10, 2025, City staff presented the Humboldt Street Bike Lane Alternatives Project (Phase II) to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission (Commission) for feedback and a recommendation to the City Council. The Agenda Report was substantially similar to this report (although this report was updated to address questions raised at and subsequent to that meeting) and staff presentation provided a comprehensive overview of the Project history and the City Council's direction from the February 3, 2025, meeting. The item received a total of 31 public comments during the Commission meeting. Comments reflected a range of perspectives, from strong emphasis on maintaining safety through retention of the bike lanes on Humboldt Street (21 commenters) to support for removing the bike lanes and restoring parking without implementing an alternative bicycle connection. Commissioner feedback was largely consistent in favoring retention of the bike lanes on Humboldt Street, while also advocating for enhancements such as improved street lighting and measures to provide additional parking relief for the North Central community. Following discussion, the Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend Alternative #2: Retain the existing bike lanes on Humboldt Street (Keep-As-Is), with the addition of traffic calming measures, streetlighting upgrades, and exploration of a Residential Permit Parking Program to address community parking needs.

Staff received various questions from Council members and the public after the Commission meeting. Staff provided a summary of questions and answers in Attachment 4.

NEXT STEPS:
February 2, 2026 (this meeting): City Council to provide a recommendation on which alternative to advance as it relates to the Humboldt Street Bike Lanes.
Depending upon the alternative selected, staff would return to City Council to appropriate funding for the

70 of 368

CITY OF SAN MATEO
selected alternative as soon as administratively feasible. After funding is appropriated, staff will begin implementation steps for the selected alternative, as appropriate.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no budgetary impact on this item as staff is seeking a recommendation from City Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This item is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Idaho Street Alternative Final Concept Design
Att 2 – Fremont Street Alternative Final Concept Design Att 3 – Workshop 3 Survey Results, Streetlighting Pilot Survey Results, and Existing Bicycle Usage Detail Results Att 4 – Humboldt Bike Lanes Question and Answers Post 12/10/2025 Commission Meeting Att 5 – Public Comment

STAFF CONTACT
Jay Yu, Engineering Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7323

71 of 368

INDIAN AVEN IDAHO STE SANTA INEZ AVEN HUMBOLDT STINDIAN AVEMONTE DIABLO AVEN IDAHO STTILTON AVEN HUMBOLDT STS HUMBOLDT STCYPRESS AVE2ND AVES IDAHO STHARDENED CENTERLINETRAFFIC CIRCLESPEED HUMPSHIGH-VISIBILITYCROSSWALKSSPEED HUMPSHARDENED CENTERLINEHIGH-VISIBILITYCROSSWALKSSPEED HUMPSSPEED HUMPS

BIKE BLVD SIGNBIKE BLVD SIGNBIKE BLVD SIGNBIKE BLVD SIGNHIGH-VISIBILITYCROSSWALKS

TRAFFIC CIRCLEPAINTED REDCURBBIKE BLVDPAVEMENTMARKINGSPAINTED REDCURB PAINTED REDCURB PAINTED REDCURB UPGRADE FROM2-WAY STOP TOALL-WAY STOP
UPGRADE FROM2-WAY STOP TOALL-WAY STOP UPGRADE FROM2-WAY STOP TOALL-WAY STOPRELOCATE EXISTING STOP SIGNSFROM IDAHO STREETAPPROACHES TO TILTON AVEAPPROACHESUPGRADE FROM2-WAY STOP TOALL-WAY STOPRELOCATE EXISTING STOPSIGNS FROM IDAHO STREETAPPROACHES TO SANTA INEZAVE APPROACHESBIKE BLVDPAVEMENTMARKINGSBIKE BLVDPAVEMENTMARKINGSBIKE BLVDPAVEMENTMARKINGSNEW STOP SIGNNEW STOP SIGN

NEW STOP SIGNNEW STOP SIGN

NEW STOP SIGN

NEW STOP SIGNHIGH-VISIBILITYCROSSWALKSHIGH-VISIBILITYCROSSWALKSHIGH-VISIBILITYCROSSWALKSNEW STOP SIGN

NEW STOP SIGNPAINTED REDCURBDIRECTIONAL SIGN(LEFT)BIKE BLVD SIGNBIKE BLVD SIGN

DIRECTIONAL SIGN(LEFT)BIKE BLVD SIGNDIRECTIONAL SIGN(RIGHT)

BIKE BLVD SIGNWAYFINDING SIGNWAYFINDING SIGNBIKE BLVD SIGNBIKE BLVD SIGNNEW STOP SIGNNEW STOP SIGNDIRECTIONAL SIGN(LEFT)DIRECTIONAL SIGN(RIGHT)BIKE BLVD SIGNPAINTED CURBEXTENSIONSHIGH-VISIBILITYCROSSWALKSDIRECTIONAL SIGN(RIGHT)DIRECTIONAL SIGN(RIGHT)HARDENED CENTERLINESPEED HUMPSSPEED HUMPSDIRECTIONAL SIGN(RIGHT)WAYFINDINGSIGN 0'1 INCH = 80'40'20'8'40 FT
sandis.netbuild on.

North Humboldt Bike Lane Alternative ProjectProposed Concepts EXISTING STOP SIGNNEW STOP SIGNL(*(N'L(*(N'
1 TRAFFIC CIRCLE23BIKE BLVD PAVEMENTMARKINGS456
5 64 3B 2C1 NEW RED CURB MARKING (TO EMPHASIZE EXISTINGPARKING RESTRICTIONS)

BIKE BLVDDIRECTIONAL SIGN
CCBCC51AA2 2 2BBBB BB BB B3 3 3 3 34 4555 5ACCC
5WHAT WE HEARD:THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE DESIGNS WERETHE MOST FAVORED AT THE MONTEDIABLO AND THE INDIANINTERSECTIONS, BUT CONCERNSWERE EXPRESSED OVER BEING ABLETO TURN AROUND THE CIRCLES INTHE SMALL INTERSECTIONS.IMPACT ON DESIGN:THE TRAFFIC CIRCLES WEREIMPLEMENTED INTO THECONCEPTS AND THE SIZE OFTHE CIRCLES WERE DESIGNEDTO ALLOW FOR TURNINGMOVEMENTS.WHAT WE HEARD:54% OF NORTH CENTRALRESIDENTS PREFERRED SPEEDHUMPS COMPARED TO 13% WHOPREFERRED RUMBLE STRIPS.IMPACT ON DESIGN:THE CONCEPTS USE SPEEDHUMPS AS THE PRIMARYSOURCE OF TRAFFIC CALMINGON THE PROJECT CORRIDOR,AND THE SIDE-STREETS.WHAT WE HEARD:THE NORTH CENTRALCOMMUNITY LIKES SPEEDHUMPS, BUT RESIDENTS ONIDAHO FELT THE ORIGINALDESIGN HAD TOO MANY.IMPACT TO DESIGN:THE NUMBER OF SPEEDHUMPS WERE REDUCED, BUTENOUGH WERE MAINTAINEDTO STILL CREATE A PREDICTEDSPEED WITHIN THE LIMITS OFA COMFORTABLE CORRIDORFOR ALL USERS.

AWAYFINDING SIGNC
BBIKE BLVD SIGNSPEED HUMPSHARDENEDCENTERLINEHIGH-VISIBILITYCROSSWALKSPAINTED CURBEXTENSIONSIDAHO ROUTENOTE:ALL RED CURB MARKINGS SHOWN ARE TO REINFORCE EXISTING PARKINGRESTRICTIONS, AND WILL NOT REMOVE ANY EXISTING PARKING.MANY OF THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE A RESULT OF AB 413, WHICH RESTRICTSPARKING ON THE APPROACH OF A CROSSWALK. THIS WAS SIGNED INTO LAWAND ENACTED ON JANUARY 1, 2025. THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS INCREASESAFETY FOR ALL ROADWAY USERS (VEHICLES, BICYCLISTS, AND ESPECIALLY) ASIT INCREASES VISIBILITY AT INTERSECTIONS. THE RESTRICTIONS ESTABLISHEDBY THIS LAW ARE CONSIDERED TO BE IN EFFECT EVEN WHEN CURB MARKINGSAND SIGNS ARE NOT PRESENT. THE MARKINGS PROPOSED IN THESE CONCEPTSARE INTENDED TO EMPHASIZE THE EXISTING RESTRICTIONS.

72 of 368

N HUMBOLDT ST

INDIAN AVE

N GRANT ST

N FREMONT ST

E SANTA INEZ AVE

MONTE DIABLO AVE

N FREMONT ST

TILTON AVE

CYPRESS AVE
2ND AVE

S HUMBOLDT ST

S GRANT ST
2ND AVE

FIESTA GARDENS

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
A A
1 1
1 1
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
2 2
2 2
3 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
5 5

SPEED HUMPS

BIKE BLVD

PAVEMENT

MARKINGS

HIGH-VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS

SPEED HUMPS

BIKE BLVD

PAVEMENT

MARKINGS

HIGH-VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS

PAINTED CURB EXTENSIONS

HARDENED CENTERLINE

SPEED HUMPS

HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS

SPEED HUMPSBIKE BLVD

PAVEMENT

MARKINGS

HIGH-VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS

SLOW STREETS

PAINTED CURB

EXTENSIONS

BIKE BLVD SIGNBIKE BLVD SIGN

BIKE BLVD SIGN

BIKE BLVD

PAVEMENT

MARKINGS

BIKE BLVD SIGN

NEW STOP SIGN

NEW STOP SIGN NEW STOP SIGN

BIKE BLVD SIGN

PAINTED RED CURB

BIKE BLVD SIGN

PAINTED RED CURB

BIKE BLVD SIGN

HIGH-VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS

HIGH-VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS

HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS

HIGH-VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS

HIGH-VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS

CONTRAFLOW BIKE LANE

WITH FLEXIBLE

DELINEATORS SEPARATION

SLOW STREETS SIGN

NEW STOP SIGN

PAINTED RED CURB

DIRECTIONAL SIGN
(RIGHT)

BIKE BLVD SIGN

DIRECTIONAL SIGN (LEFT)

WAYFINDING SIGN

PAINTED RED CURB

DIRECTIONAL SIGN
(LEFT)

DIRECTIONAL SIGN
(RIGHT)

PAINTED RED CURB PAINTED RED CURB

DIRECTIONAL SIGN
(RIGHT)

SLOW STREETS
SIGN

SLOW STREETS SIGN

DIRECTIONAL SIGN
(LEFT)

DIRECTIONAL SIGN
(RIGHT)

ONE-WAY

DO NOT ENTER
SIGNS

ONE-WAY
SIGNS

BIKE BLVD SIGN

DIRECTIONAL SIGN
(RIGHT)

DIRECTIONAL SIGN
(LEFT)
C
B A
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
B
D
4'5' 5'
22' CURB TO

CURB WIDTH
34' ROW
2ND AVE.

S FREMONT ST. TO S. GRANT ST.

PARKING
10'7'

SECTION A-A
sandis.net
build on.

North Humboldt Bike Lane Alternative Project
Proposed Concepts
1 BIKE BLVD PAVEMENT

MARKINGS
2 SPEED HUMPS 3 HARDENED

CENTERLINE
4 HIGH-VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS
5 PAINTED CURB

EXTENSIONS

FREMONT ROUTE

ONE-WAY STREET CONVERSION

WITH CONTRAFLOW BIKE LANE
0'
1 INCH = 40 FT
8' 20' 40' 80'

EXISTING STOP SIGN

NEW STOP SIGN
L(*(NDL(*(ND

BIKE BLVD

DIRECTIONAL SIGN
C

B BIKE BLVD SIGN

D SLOW STREETS SIGN

A WAYFINDING SIGN
NOTE:

ALL RED CURB MARKINGS SHOWN ARE TO REINFORCE EXISTING PARKING RESTRICTIONS, AND WILL NOT REMOVE ANY EXISTING PARKING.

MANY OF THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE A RESULT OF AB 413, WHICH RESTRICTS PARKING ON THE APPROACH OF A CROSSWALK. THIS WAS SIGNED INTO LAW AND ENACTED ON JANUARY 1, 2025. THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS INCREASE SAFETY FOR ALL ROADWAY USERS (VEHICLES, BICYCLISTS, AND ESPECIALLY) AS IT INCREASES VISIBILITY AT INTERSECTIONS. THE

RESTRICTIONS ESTABLISHED BY THIS LAW ARE CONSIDERED TO BE IN EFFECT EVEN WHEN CURB MARKINGS AND SIGNS ARE NOT PRESENT. THE MARKINGS PROPOSED IN THESE CONCEPTS ARE INTENDED TO EMPHASIZE THE EXISTING RESTRICTIONS.

WHAT WE HEARD:

MOST NORTH CENTRAL
RESIDENTS (73%) AND
FREMONT RESIDENTS (57%)

FELT THAT THE NUMBER OF

SPEED HUMPS ON FREMONT
WERE ABOUT RIGHT.

IMPACT ON DESIGN:

WE HAVE MAINTAINED THE

NUMBER OF SPEED HUMPS

ON FREMONT FROM THE

PREVIOUS ITERATION OF THE

CONCEPTS IN ORDER TO

MEET THE NEED DESIRED
REDUCED SPEEDS.

WHAT WE HEARD:

DURING THE SECOND PUBLIC

MEETING, WE HEARD MANY

CONCERNS ABOUT A LACK OF

VISIBILITY AT DRIVEWAYS

DUE TO PARKED CARS,

CREATING A SENSE OF, AND

POTENTIAL FOR, DANGEROUS

RIDING CONDITIONS FOR
BICYCLISTS.

IMPACT ON DESIGN:

THE DESIGN INCLUDES BIKE

BOULEVARD PAVEMENT

MARKINGS MORE CENTERED

IN THE ROADWAY,

ENCOURAGING BICYCLISTS

TO RIDE IN THE CENTER OF
THE CORRIDOR. THIS WILL

MAKE THEM MORE VISIBLE

TO VEHICLES EXITING
DRIVEWAYS. THIS WILL HAVE

MORE VISIBILITY THAN EVEN

THE BIKE LANES ON

HUMBOLDT, WHICH HAVE

REPORTED TO HAVE THE

SAME ISSUES WHERE

PARKING IS ADJACENT TO
DRIVEWAYS.

WHAT WE HEARD:

MOST NORTH CENTRAL
RESIDENTS (71%) AND
FREMONT RESIDENTS (75%)

FELT NUETRAL TO VERY

SUPPORTIVE OF THE

CURRENT CONCEPT DESIGN

FOR THE MONTE DIABLO
INTERSECTIONS.

IMPACT ON DESIGN:

WE HAVE MAINTAINED THE

SAME DESIGN AS THE

PREVIOUS CONCEPT

ITERATIONS, AND ADDED
MORE DETAILED ELEMENTS.

NEW RED CURB MARKING
(TO EMPHASIZE EXISTING

PARKING RESTRICTIONS)

73 of 368

Attachment 3 – Workshop 3, Streetlighting Pilot Survey and Existing Bicycle Usage Detailed Results

Page 1 of 5 ends

Table 1: In-Person Community Feedback Survey Results

Q#1 Do you support
the Idaho Street
Alternative?
Q#2 Do you support
the Fremont Street
Alternative?
Q#3 Do you support
keeping the bike lanes on
Humboldt Street?
Yes No Yes No Yes No
All North Central Residents 35% (11) 65% (20) 30% (9) 70% (21) 65% (20) 35% (11) Humboldt Street Residents 0% (0) 100% (2) 0% (0) 100% (2) 100% (2) 0% (0) Idaho Street Residents 67% (2) 33% (1) 0% (0) 100% (2) 33% (1) 67% (2) Fremont Street Residents 21% (3) 79% (11) 8% (1) 92% (12) 77% (10) 23% (3) Other Communities 33% (2) 67% (4) 33% (2) 67% (4) 67% (4) 33% (2)

Table 2: In-Person Priority Ranking Results

Max
Possible
Points
Idaho Street
Alternative
Fremont Street
Alternative
Keep Bike Lanes on
Humboldt
Rank Points Rank Points Rank Points
All North Central Residents 72 #2 43 #3 36 #1 65
Humboldt Street Residents 6 #2 4 #3 2 #1 6
Idaho Street Residents 6 #3 3 #2 4 #1 5
Fremont Street Residents 30 #2 20 #2 20 #1 28
Other Communities 15 #2 9 #3 8 #1 13
Note: 1 = most preferred and 3 = least preferred; #1 = 3 points, #2 = 2 points, #3 = 1 point

74 of 368

Attachment 3 – Workshop 3, Streetlighting Pilot Survey and Existing Bicycle Usage Detailed Results

Page 2 of 5 ends

Table 3: Online Community Feedback Survey Results

Q#1 Do you support
the Idaho Street
Alternative?
Q#2 Do you support
the Fremont Street
Alternative?
Q#3 Do you support
keeping the bike lanes on
Humboldt Street?
Yes No Yes No Yes No
All North Central Residents 27% (27) 73% (72) 33% (33) 67% (66) 73% (72) 27% (27) Humboldt Street Residents 22% (9) 78% (32) 17% (7) 83% (34) 74% (29) 26% (10) Idaho Street Residents 45% (5) 55% (6) 55% (6) 45% (5) 56% (5) 44% (4) Fremont Street Residents 23% (3) 77% (10) 46% (6) 54% (7) 77% (10) 23% (3) Other Communities 30% (36) 70% (84) 29% (35) 71% (85) 85% (102) 15% (18)

Table 3A - Online Community Feedback Survey Results
(Including duplicate IP Addresses)

Q#1 Do you support
the Idaho Street
Alternative?
Q#2 Do you support
the Fremont Street
Alternative?
Q#3 Do you support
keeping the bike lanes on
Humboldt Street?
Yes No Yes No Yes No
All North Central Residents 25% (30) 75% (91) 31% (38) 69% (83) 74% (90) 26% (31) Humboldt Street Residents 17% (9) 83% (45) 13% (7) 87% (47) 81% (42) 19% (10) Idaho Street Residents 38% (5) 62% (8) 46% (6) 54% (7) 64% (7) 36% (4) Fremont Street Residents 12.5% (3) 87.5% (21) 25% (6) 75% (18) 87.5% (21) 12.5% (3) Other Communities 28% (45) 72% (113) 29% (46) 71% (112) 85% (134) 15% (24)

75 of 368

Attachment 3 – Workshop 3, Streetlighting Pilot Survey and Existing Bicycle Usage Detailed Results

Page 3 of 5 ends

Table 4: Online Priority Ranking Results

Max
Possible
Points
Idaho Street
Alternative
Fremont Street
Alternative
Keep Bike Lanes on
Humboldt
Rank Points Rank Points Rank Points
All North Central Residents 276 #2 183 #3 169 #1 242
Humboldt Street Residents 117 #2 75 #3 57 #1 102
Idaho Street Residents 27 #2 18 #3 17 #1 19
Fremont Street Residents 42 #3 22 #2 26 #1 30
Other Communities 360 #2 232 #3 178 #1 310
Note: 1 = most preferred and 3 = least preferred; #1 = 3 points, #2 = 2 points, #3 = 1 point

Table 4A: Online Priority Ranking Results
(Including duplicate IP addresses)

Max
Possible
Points
Idaho Street
Alternative
Fremont Street
Alternative
Keep Bike Lanes on
Humboldt
Rank Points Rank Points Rank Points
All North Central Residents 342 #2 218 #3 208 #1 306
Humboldt Street Residents 156 #2 98 #3 73 #1 141
Idaho Street Residents 33 #3 20 #2 21 #1 25
Fremont Street Residents 75 #3 40 #2 41 #1 63
Other Communities 411 #2 260 #3 206 #1 356
Note: 1 = most preferred and 3 = least preferred; #1 = 3 points, #2 = 2 points, #3 = 1 point

76 of 368

Attachment 3 – Workshop 3, Streetlighting Pilot Survey and Existing Bicycle Usage Detailed Results

Page 4 of 5 ends

Table 5: Mailed Community Feedback Survey Results

Q#1 Do you support the
Idaho Street
Alternative?
Q#2 Do you support the
Fremont Street
Alternative?
Q#3 Do you support
keeping the bike lanes
on Humboldt Street?
Yes No Yes No Yes No
All North Central Residents 44% (64) 55% (79) 47% (68) 53% (78) 32% (49) 68% (96) Humboldt Street Residents 42.5% (17) 57.5% (23) 57.5% (23) 42.5% (17) 34% (14) 66% (27) Idaho Street Residents 8% (1) 92% (11) 50% (6) 50% (6) 33% (4) 67% (8) Fremont Street Residents 50% (9) 50% (9) 21% (4) 79% (15) 41% (7) 59% (10)

Table 6: Mailed Priority Ranking Results

Max
Possible
Points
Idaho Street
Alternative
Fremont Street
Alternative
Keep Bike Lanes on
Humboldt
Rank Points Rank Points Rank Points
All North Central Residents 276 #3 176 #2 179 #1 197
Humboldt Street Residents 84 #3 51 #1 59 #2 58
Idaho Street Residents 33 #3 14 #1 27 #2 25
Fremont Street Residents 42 #2 30 #3 19 #1 35
Note: 1 = most preferred and 3 = least preferred; #1 = 3 points, #2 = 2 points, #3 = 1 point

Table 7: Pedestrian Scale Lighting Survey Results
Existing Lighting High Brightness No Preference
North Central Residents 25% (16) 64% (40) 11% (7)
Other San Mateo Communities 38% (3) 62% (5) 0% (0)
Overall 27% (19) 63% (45) 10% (7)

Table 8: Roadway Lighting (Cobrahead) Survey Results
Existing Lighting Medium Brightness High Brightness No Preference North Central Residents 16% (10) 28% (18) 46% (29) 10% (6) Other San Mateo Communities 12% (1) 25% (2) 50% (4) 13% (1) Overall 16% (11) 28% (20) 46% (33) 10% (7)

77 of 368

Attachment 3 – Workshop 3, Streetlighting Pilot Survey and Existing Bicycle Usage Detailed Results

Page 5 of 5 ends

Table 9: Existing Bicycle Trips Per Intersection (Weekday AM+PM Peak Hours) Peninsula
Ave.

E. Poplar
Ave.

Indian
Ave.

Monte
Diablo Ave.

Tilton
Ave.
2nd
Ave.
3rd Ave.

Humboldt Street 41 21 59 63 68 60 31
Idaho Street N/A N/A 11 63 32 18 N/A
Fremont Street N/A N/A 21 67 47 91 13

78 of 368

1 2
8 1
9 ATTACHMENT 4

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING HUMBOLDT BIKE LANES ALTERNATIVES POST 12/10/25 SUSTAINABILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMISSION MEETING Background
City staff presented the Humboldt Bike Lanes Alternatives to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission on December 10, 2025, seeking feedback in advance of the upcoming City Council meeting on February 2, 2026.

Since the meeting, several questions have been raised by Council members and members of the public. For any questions not directly addressed by information in the Agenda Report, staff have consolidated those questions and corresponding responses below to provide clarity and ensure consistent information is available to the public and decision-makers.

Questions and Answers

1. It was mentioned in the 12/10/2025 commission meeting that City staff removed duplicate IP addresses from the Workshop 3 – Survey. What was the justification for this?
Answer: City staff removed duplicate IP addresses from the Workshop 3 Survey results to help ensure the integrity and accuracy of the public input process.

There have been multiple concerns raised from the public about potential attempts by individuals to submit duplicate or fraudulent responses to skew the data. Removing duplicates based on IP addresses is a standard practice in online surveys to prevent one person or entity from artificially inflating results, while still preserving legitimate unique submissions. This approach is consistent with the pre-paid mailed survey process, which limits responses to one per household. This step was taken transparently to maintain the reliability of the survey data presented to the Commission. However, in order to understand what the impact the duplicate IP addresses may have had on the findings, staff have also included, as Tables 3A and 4A of Attachment 3, the results without these surveys removed. The findings were similar before and after the screening of duplicate IP addresses.

2. What action items from the 12/10/2025 Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission meeting are staff following up on?
Answer: Staff are incorporating commission feedback into the agenda report and presentation to City Council in February 2026. At the February 2026 meeting, staff will be asking City Council for further direction given both community and commission feedback.

3.Has staff considered converting streets in North Central into one-way streets? How feasible would this be? What is the cost? What are the potential downstream impacts by converting one street to one way, against the broader area etc.?

79 of 368

1 2
8 1
9 Answer: From the City’s outreach on both the North Central Complete Streets Plan (NCCSP) as well as our recent outreach effort, conversion of one-way streets is an idea of potential interest to the community for East-West direction (but not North-South direction) streets. Conversion of streets to one-way is feasible but is not a concept that can be studied lightly and not without significant cost. It would take a complex traffic and circulation study to evaluate the cost and potential downstream impacts to North Central and the surrounding neighborhoods. The cost to convert Humboldt to a one-way street could exceed $10 million to cover the cost of the traffic and circulation study, new traffic signals, revised signage and striping, and community outreach/engagement. As such, staff believes this option is financially infeasible.

4. There was a comment from one of the commissioners regarding asking elected officials at the state level to follow up and see if the DMV parking lot can be used for overnight parking. Are we following up with state representatives? oAnswer: Though we heard from one of the commissioners that they would like to pursue this further with state representatives, we have heard strong feedback from the community when vetting this further that the DMV parking lot is too far to walk from Humboldt Street and the 6AM exit timeframe is highly restrictive. DMV representatives have also been clear and responsive about their requirements for overnight parking, without the need to escalate to state representatives. These requirements are summarized in the Agenda Report to the SIC and the presentation:
Leases will be on a non-exclusive basis; agreements are negotiated at market rate and limit the types of use and hours of use. Staff often arrive around 6AM so vehicles will need to be out of the lot before 6AM.

Insurance as well as daily routine cleanup will be required.

Staff does not believe this meets the needs of the community and that further exploration is not warranted.

5. There is confusion regarding the feasibility of implementing a residential parking permit program in the North Central area. Can the City confirm its current official policy on residential parking permits, and if a permit parking program can be used in North Central?
Answer: City Council can direct staff to return with amendments to the existing permit parking program to meet the needs of North Central or create a new program. A permit parking program wouldn’t add parking capacity to North Central, but it would offer residents a “leg up” in finding parking amongst available spaces. Staff anticipate some additional vetting and community outreach would be necessary to confirm the extents and elements of the permit parking program. Please note that vehicles are not permitted to park in a bike lane, and the permit parking program would not affect this. Parking spaces would only be allocated from legal parking spaces.

80 of 368

1 2
8 1
9 6.Would it be possible to get all the public comments made to City Council on this topic over the last 12 months?
Answer: Public comments submitted for the 2/3/25 City Council Meeting and 12/10/25 Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission Meeting are included as part of the agenda packets for these meetings (links are below). Any other public comments written over the past 12 months not included as part of these meetings will be included as an attachment to the agenda packet for the February 2026 City Council meeting.

7.Can you provide a list of all recorded meetings that have taken place from when the bike lane was voted on (i.e. previous council meetings), through to any discussions that have happened to the Council going forward? Answer: Links are provided below. The gray highlighted rows weren’t exclusively about the North Central Bike Lanes Project, but did include discussion of this project.

December 10,
2025
S&I Humbolt Bike Lanes
Alternatives – Update HTML Packet Link
July 9, 2025 S&I Bicycle and Pedestrian
Projects Update HTML Packet Link
February 3, 2025 Council
Meeting
North Central Bike Lanes
Project — Direction HTML Packet Link
March 20, 2023 Council
Meeting
Complete Streets Plan -
Introduction and Community
Engagement
HTML Packet Link
February 22,
2022
Council
Meeting
North Central Bike Lanes -
Update HTML Packet Link
February 9, 2022 S&I North Central Bike Lanes -
Update HTML Packet Link
April 6, 2020 Council
Meeting
2020 Bicycle Master Plan –
Adoption HTML Packet Link
For the agenda packets, use our public meeting portal at:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/3971/Agendas-Minutes-Public-Meeting-Portal For any Legislative Record, use this link: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4588/Search- Legislative-Records

81 of 368

1 2
8 1
9 8. Has the City considered removing the sidewalks on Humboldt Street to create more space? Is there any state law that prohibits this? Answer: Removing sidewalk is financially infeasible. It will involve the demolition of the existing sidewalk, planter strip and relocation of the overhead utility poles.

This option is estimated to cost over $2.5M for construction and that is just for the 2nd Avenue to Indian Avenue and does not include utility relocation costs. No specific state law prohibits sidewalk removal in general; however, such actions must comply with applicable California codes (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act requirements for accessible pathways, California Vehicle Code, and local complete streets policies). Given the substantial financial implications and the City's current budget constraints, staff does not recommend pursuing this approach.

9. Did the project team collect data on existing speeds on Humboldt? Fremont and Idaho?
As part of the Humboldt Bike Lanes Alternative project, the project team collected speed data on Humboldt Street, Idaho Street and Fremont Street to determine appropriate calming measures to reduce speeds on roadways to make it suitable for a bicycle boulevard. The existing speeds for the three roadways from Indian Avenue to 2nd Avenue are shown below:
i. Humboldt: 24 – 30mph
ii. Idaho Street: 23-25mph
iii. Fremont Street: 23-26mph

10. What’s the latest on partial restoration of parking? What would that look like? Answer: The direction provided by Council on February 3, 2025 was to explore, through a community vetting process, whether bike boulevards from Indian to 2nd Avenue on either Idaho or Fremont could provide equivalent safety and connectivity to the existing bike lanes. If implemented, this could restore approximately 100 parking spaces. There is no way to restore parking on Humboldt without removing the bike lanes on Humboldt Street.

11. Why didn’t we consider Amphlett Blvd for a Bike Lane? Did City Staff ever look at this as an option?
Answer: City Council direction from February 3, 2025, specifically focused exploration on Idaho Street and Fremont Street as potential bike boulevard alternatives. Staff prioritized these streets accordingly during community outreach efforts. During the first community workshop in June 2025, participants were invited to suggest additional roadways for consideration. While there was no broad consensus on alternatives, a few small groups and some survey respondents expressed interest in Amphlett Boulevard as a bike boulevard

82 of 368

1 2
8 1
9 option. In response, staff conducted a high-level evaluation of Amphlett Boulevard's suitability for a bike boulevard. Key findings include:
oThe street is highly commercial, with frequent large-vehicle access from driveways.
oIt is farther from Humboldt Street (reducing direct connectivity). oIt serves as a designated truck route.
oAverage speeds from 2nd Avenue to Indian Avenue are approximately 36 mph, well above the recommended maximum of 20 mph for bike boulevards per guidelines from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

Due to these factors—particularly the elevated vehicle speeds—staff determined that Amphlett Boulevard is not a viable route for a bike boulevard. Regarding dedicated bike lanes (rather than a bike boulevard), this would require removal of a significant number of on-street parking spaces (approximately 90), rendering it nonviable as an alternative to the Humboldt Street bike lanes.

12. How much would it cost to build a parking garage at MLK Center? Answer: A parking garage at MLK Center is not financially feasible given the City’s budget constraints. For context, the recently complete Kiku Parking Garage, which is an above-ground parking garage in downtown San Mateo, cost approximately $25M. Presuming a subsurface garage beneath the playing fields at the King Center, costs would likely be even greater.

83 of 368

1 From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 8:28 AM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: Support for Keeping the Humboldt Street Bike Lanes

From: MARIA LUCILLE ALEGRIA >
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 8:12 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Keeping the Humboldt Street Bike Lanes

Dear Members of the San Mateo City Council,
I am a resident of San Mateo and live in the Parkside neighborhood. I am also a teacher at San Mateo High School, and I regularly commute by bicycle using the Humboldt Street bike lanes. I am writing to express my strong support for keeping these bike lanes in place.

As part of this discussion, I reviewed the proposed alternatives and attempted to ride to work using Idaho Street instead of Humboldt. That experience made it very clear why the Humboldt bike lanes are so important. Idaho Street felt incredibly unsafe: there was not enough space for two cars to pass comfortably, and I frequently found myself squeezed between moving vehicles. At one point, I felt forced onto the sidewalk simply to protect my own safety. This is not a viable or safe option for cyclists, nor is it fair to pedestrians.

The Humboldt Street bike lanes provide a critical, safer route for people like me who rely on them to commute. They make it possible for residents to choose alternatives to driving, which benefits traffic flow, public health, and the environment. Removing them would push cyclists onto streets that are not designed to safely accommodate both cars and bikes, increasing risk for everyone.

I understand that parking is a real concern in many parts of San Mateo. However, I do not believe the bike lanes are the cause of this problem. Parking shortages are largely the result of zoning changes that allowed multi-family housing on single-family lots without requiring sufficient parking. Eliminating bike lanes is a short-sighted response to a much larger and more complex issue—one that is tied to housing policy and affordability, not bicycle infrastructure.

I respectfully urge the City Council to keep the Humboldt Street bike lanes and to continue prioritizing safe,

Malu Alegria

84 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 12:26 PM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: Humboldt Street Decision

From: TJ Blair
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 9:30 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Nicole Blair
Subject: Humboldt Street Decision

Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,

Please fix the bike lane mistake on Humboldt Street and restore parking now.

There's no shame in fixing something you didn't break. San Mateo's North Central neighborhood has been the victim of more than a century of neglect and poor planning choices by previous administrations. The neighborhood continues to suffer from the legacy of exclusionary land use and zoning policies and the history of segregation in our city is reflected in demographic disparities, economic differences, and inadequate investment in infrastructure compared to more affluent neighborhoods. The high- density
population coupled with poor planning has meant that the area had a lack of adequate parking even before the bike lane project. For example, we have churches, businesses, and multi-family residences that have no or very little dedicated parking. We have two- and three-bedroom homes that have a dozen people (or more) living in them. The current City Council didn't create these problems, but you have a responsibility to mitigate them.

The decision to expend HUD CDBG funding on a project that removed parking for hundreds of residents and benefits a very few, mostly affluent people who don't even live in the neighborhood was wrong. In principle, most people in the neighborhood are not opposed to bike lanes, but this would not have been the highest priority for us - more
like a "nice to have". The fact that a prior Council voted to impose the parking removal on us at the wee hours of the morning, in a vote that was not properly on the meeting agenda, and was done over the objection of many residents in the neighborhood was bad enough. That the project used funds that would have improved the quality of life had they been used for their intended purpose only adds insult to injury. YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY To RIGHT THESE WRONGS NOW.

85 of 368

2 In addition to this sad history, the city has frequently relied on incomplete and misleading data to support its choices. The counts of bicycle usage of the new bike lanes was so sloppy and poorly thought out as to be laughable. Anyone living or traveling through the corridor on a regular basis can tell you that the bike lanes are very rarely used by anyone. If these bike lanes were being used by residents of the neighborhood on a regular basis in a sustained way, we may be having a different conversation. But because they serve almost no benefit to local residents, your choice should be easy.

CHOOSE INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL RECTIFY NEGLECT AND DISPARITIES, NOT AMPLIFY THEM.

The fact that some of the loudest proponents of this bike lane project are not residents of the North Central neighborhood, or even of our city, should give you pause. The Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC) who pushed for this project, for example, are mostly not local and not familiar with our local issues or history-but they are skilled at manipulating local politics to have their will imposed. They are people with a single purpose and often have blinders on about what else is important besides bikable and walkable communities which, while a laudable goal, does little to improve the quality of life for people who cannot walk or bike to work and are more concerned with day-to- day
living than "nice to haves". Unbroken sidewalks, adequate street lighting, more and safer parks, pedestrian safety, more convenient parking -- all are things we would want before a bike lane. But the SVBC (and others) have shown through their disingenuous arguments that they don't care about anything besides having more bike lanes. LISTEN TO RESIDENTS OF OUR CITY OVER OUTSIDE SPECIAL INTERESTS.

The misleading arguments that have come from SVBC members and others have made outrageous and insulting claims. They frame parking as "vehicle storage" that only benefits car owners while forgetting that our streets and roads were paid for by gas taxes and many residents of our overcrowded neighborhood have few choices. They imply that residents of North Central are acting as if they are "entitled" to the parking in front of their homes which is a straw man designed to make us look selfish and completely misunderstands the living conditions in the community. And finally, advocates hint that the majority of residents in the neighborhood support the bike lanes which was not true when they were installed and unlikely to be true now.

Bicycling advocates love the safety argument. But safety measures on our streets are not "once size fits all" and, in fact, it is known that bike lanes can reduce safety in some contexts. Advocates argue that children will be unsafe if the lanes are removed but, in the years since the bike lanes were installed, I've never seen a child (and have seen very few adults) using the lanes. Anecdotal, but it points to a likelihood that the safety gained by the lanes is marginal. Safety improvements should be data-driven, not aspirational and we really don't have trustable data either on the safety of the area before or after the bike lane installation. Safety can be improved in many ways: speed reduction measures, stop sign daylighting, lower speeds with ENFORCEMENT, and shared streets (bike boulevards). Cyclist behavior is also a driver of accidents and something cyclists rarely talk about and I think we've all seen cyclists so blatantly disregarding traffic rules that it seems to be an epidemic.

One of my children was hit by a car while walking in a crosswalk in our neighborhood

86 of 368

3 when he was a teen. He was only mildly injured but the accident was not caused by lack of vicinity due to parking. Poor street lighting, and lax traffic enforcement in the area were likely culprits. The point being that, had the money spent on this luxury amenity for a few affluent people been properly spent on the kinds of projects the neighborhood needs, we would be safer. Cycling advocates ignore this inconvenient fact. Additionally, the removal of parking has created secondary safety risks including:
 Drivers circle longer looking for parking creating more congestion and distraction.  Residents double-parking, blocking sightlines, or stopping in travel lanes.  Elderly or disabled residents may walk farther, increasing fall or injury risk.

STOP RELYING ON INCOMPLETE/MISLEADING DATA AND SCARE TACTICS.

Yes, it will cost some money to right this wrong. But it's high time to rip this Band-Aid off and not fall victim to defective sunk costs arguments. While the city's failure to act over the last several years might not bother anyone else, residents of North Central continue to be severely affected and have their property values impacted on a daily basis. As you know, the full cost of the initial project did not come primarily from local tax revenue - so arguments stating a "loss" of that full amount are incorrect. Sure, it's a bad look to have to re-
do something so visible and expensive, but at this point, what are we waiting for? The project was poorly planned, poorly implemented, badly communicated, not fully thought through, and based on faulty data and assumptions.

I would love our city to be safer, more walkable, bike-friendly, and comfortable for all. Dedicated bike lanes are certainly a component of such a vision and, in many applications, are important improvements to the transportation infrastructure. This project has not been an example of that because it was ill- conceived, rushed, and pushed into being by people with an extremist agenda who lack connection to or understanding of the impacted community.

RESTORE PARKING NOW.

Thank you for your service to our city.

Todd Blair
.

San Mateo,

87 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2:56 PM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: Bike Lane issue in North Central

From: Brown, Brenda
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 1:56 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc:

Subject: Bike Lane issue in North Central

February 18, 2025

To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Brenda Brown, I am 79 years old, born
and raised in San Mateo. I am a homeowner and
have lived in North Central all of my life.

I am writing
to you regarding the bike lane issue facing our
community.

You have no idea how frustrating it is to come home
and there is no space to park my car especially
when relatives and friends come to visit me, and
they have nowhere to park. People from other
neighborhoods park their cars or trucks some for

88 of 368

2 days, I assume because they have nowhere to park
because the bike lanes are taking up parking
spaces. I have even witnessed people drive up with
one car, move that parked car and replace with the
car they drove up in.

As a taxpayer and a property taxpayer I would urge
you to reevaluate the bike lane issue in North
Central and to eliminate the parking issue that faces
our community.

Thank you for your consideration.

Brenda Brown

89 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 7:35 AM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Christina Horrisberger; Alex Khojikian
Subject: Fw: Bike Lanes

Get Outlook for iOS
From: joyce burns
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 6:11:52 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Bike Lanes

Attention, Mayor Lorraine and City Council members. I was unable to attend last night’s gathering regarding removal of the bike lanes in North Central San Mateo. These lanes must be removed and removed before something disastrous happens.

1) The streets are too narrow to accommodate bike lanes and yet allow normal use for vehicles and drivers, walkers and delivery vehicles. Blocked roads cause frustration and unsafe movement of pedestrians, bikers, vehicles.
2) The bike lanes are causing congestion, preventing normal transit. Risky driving behavior occurs when lanes are blocked.
3) The bike lanes are interfering with normal parking patterns which causes hardship for the residents—especially seniors who need to have parking near their homes due to mobility handicaps and carrying big, bulky, heavy items and parents trying to herd young children
and carry burdens.

Vehicles that are parked away from the owners’ residences are more like to be broken into causing more crime and damage.
4) Bike lanes are causing double parking which delays traffic and causes unsafe driving patterns. Double parking also causes bike riders to move into traffic where there are not expected and not being watched for— someone will
get badly injured.

We need safe places for bikers, but this must be balanced out by the need for the safety and conveniences of the great majority of vehicles that most people rely upon.

THE NEEDS OF THE MAJORITY MUST COME FIRST!

Please, City Council take care of the needs of the great majority of San Mateo’s residents. Act now for North Central San Mateo! And consider the chaos caused by the North Central bike lanes before putting bike lanes in other areas of San Mateo that were not properly planned to accommodate bike lanes.

Joyce and Leo Burns

90 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 6:46 AM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: Fw: Bike Lanes once again

Get Outlook for iOS
From: michael caggiano
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2026 10:37 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>
Subject: Bike Lanes once again

Dear Boardmembers,

Here we are again. Well, I will just reiterate what I advocated for, some years back. Restoration of the lost parking for Humboldt should proceed apace. Bikes even with striped lanes are still not a safe place for riders when the speed differential with car traffic is as great as it is, on the present arterials like Humboldt, Delaware and Poplar and even San Mateo Drive. Using parallel side streets where that speed differential is far smaller is the way to go.

In addition, I still think we can persuade the North Central community to think seriously about more "one way side streets" to enable riders to have more space to share with the cars that will always be with us, but both cars and bikes would have more breathing room all around. The excuse I've gotten over the years is that folks will speed more. Well, there's nothing to stop that behavior everywhere else in town as well. So, I think the additional space is a good trade off, in my opinion.

Oh, and I nearly forgot. Get rid of those Bulb-outs (Bicycle Demolition Devices) as they are inherently dangerous for bikers. Another bad idea to begin with. Well, we all make mistakes so don't feel bad.

Cheers all, and I hope you don't spend another long long night.

Your neighbor, Mike Caggiano
North Central

91 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 10:21 AM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Deryk Daquigan; Jay Yu Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: North central bike lanes
FYI.

From:

Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 9:02 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>
Subject: North central bike lanes

Dear all Councilmembers,

I'm just making a short and previously mentioned suggestion. Looking at North Central as a unique creature in the City, I have two reoccurring ideas. One being keeping high volume and relatively high speed vehicles separate from bicycle traffic, and the other being converting all the side streets in our area to "one way", leaving the main streets as they are WITHOUT encouraging bike traffic on them.

That would leave bikers to simply share the road on side streets and have their option of going against or with traffic. I'd think it better to rely on two pairs of eyeballs than one. Plus, the speed differential is much reduced as autos don't travel as fast on side streets (hopefully). So there you have it.

Safe streets and no loss of parking.

Thanks for your attention.

Regards all, Mike Caggiano
HANCSM Boardmember

92 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Case, Daniel (Euler Hermes USA) < >
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 5:38 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Lisa Diaz Nash; Adam Loraine; Rob Newsom; Danielle Cwirko- Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Planning Commission; Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission; PR Commission Mailbox; City Mgr
Cc:

D C
Subject: Strong Opposition to Bike Lane Removal – Prioritize Safety and Sustainability Internal

Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the council’s decision to remove the Humboldt Street bike lanes in favor of restoring parking spaces. This decision is a step backward for the city’s commitment to safety, sustainability, and equitable transportation access.

The bike lanes were installed as part of a federally funded safety initiative in response to serious traffic incidents, including a tragic crash that left a cyclist in a coma. Removing them not only disregards the safety of cyclists and pedestrians but also undermines efforts to create a more sustainable and accessible city for all residents—especially those without cars, who make up a significant percentage of the North Central neighborhood’s population.

Additionally, the proposed alternative—a "bike boulevard" without designated lanes—fails to provide meaningful protection for cyclists. Shared roadways do not offer the same level of safety as dedicated infrastructure, and removing bike lanes will discourage active transportation at a time when cities across the country are investing in more bike- friendly solutions, not fewer.

Rather than spending taxpayer dollars to dismantle existing, functional infrastructure, I urge the council to prioritize safe, multimodal transportation options that serve all residents, not just those with cars. San Mateo has an opportunity to lead by example, fostering a city that is forward-thinking and inclusive. Please reconsider this decision and work toward solutions that prioritize safety, sustainability, and equity.

Sincerely,
Daniel Case

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this message, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential, may be legally privileged, and intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. Be aware that the use of any confidential or personal information may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws. If you are not the intended recipient, do not further disseminate this message. If this message was received in error, please notify the sender and delete it.

93 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 1:16 PM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: Comment on Humboldt bike lane
FYI.

From: Katrina Castillo
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2025 10:10 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Comment on Humboldt bike lane

Hello City Council,

I am a North Central resident and writing to say how disappointed I am that the council is beginning the process to remove the Humboldt bike lanes. It's disheartening to me that the council is prioritizing spending funds that could be spent elsewhere, on any number of things the city needs, and instead is making Humboldt less safe for cyclists. I urge you to reconsider, or at least look into alternatives to balance the parking concerns and safety concerns, instead removing the lanes entirely.

Thank you for your attention.

Katrina Castillo

94 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 9:21 AM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: Keep the Humboldt bike lane

From: Jacob Chamoun
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 8:43 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Keep the Humboldt bike lane

Hi San Mateo city council,

I'm a resident of the North Central neighborhood who uses the Humboldt bike lane to pick up my 2 year old toddler from daycare.

The proposals to remove the bike lane increase the risk of me or my family getting killed or maimed.

I urge you to pursue the unanimous recommendation of the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission to explore a residential parking permit program (RPPP) for North Central so that (1) the challenging parking situation is addressed for the whole neighborhood, not just Humboldt street and (2) those who have the greatest need to park a vehicle in the public right of way are able to, and not just those who own and park a lot of cars like commercial businesses.

Jacob Chamoun

95 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Belinda Chlouber
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 10:57 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Bike Lanes
Hi,

I strongly oppose taking out any bike lanes. I'm not sure why San Mateo is so bad about creating safe bike lanes and streets but it's very disappointing. I realize we have a strong and vocal property rights group here but it's not all about each individual property owner's rights. We have to think about our collective rights. Bikes are far better for the environment, and it's a future we should embrace.

If we need one-way streets to create safer streets with bike lanes. Then that is what we should do. I'm sure there are solutions other than taking out bike lanes entirely. Other cities have good bike lanes. I was just in Chico--they have fantastic bike lanes. Just ask them what needs to be done.

Thank you for all your hard work. I know it's not easy--especially since we have some difficult people in this town.

Belinda

Belinda Chlouber

website
email

Social Media

Fine Art, paintings, mixed media and prints inspired by nature, and poetry.

~ Find Joy in the everyday, while crafting a life rich through nature, beauty and compassion.

96 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 12:34 PM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Christina Horrisberger; Alex Khojikian
Subject: FW: Humboldt St bike lane removal

From: AJ
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 8:54 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Humboldt St bike lane removal

Dear City Council:

I urge you to keep the bike lanes intact on Humboldt Street. Considering that there are 3 schools in in the immediate area serving 10,000 students, removing the bike lanes would make an already dangerous road even more lethal for students riding their bikes to school. I also want to remind the council that no bicyclist is as well armored as a driver in a car, whether the car is moving swiftly or not.

Regards,

AJ cho

Sent via - email that plants trees.

97 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 9:15 AM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: San Mateo Bike Lanes - Humboldt

From: Tim D
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 9:06 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: San Mateo Bike Lanes - Humboldt

Dear City Council,

As a homeowner and resident of San Mateo I’d like to express support for more bike lanes and not the removal of the precious few we have.

My daughter attended school off of Humboldt ave at the current location of fiesta gardens elementary school for several years. We both biked and drove her to and from school and we found that driving brought traffic frustration which would sometimes lead to dangerous conditions around children. Biking, before the bike lanes, proved dangerous but also flexible and rewarding. The lack of protected lanes limited my willingness to use our bikes, unfortunately.

I should clarify that I am a cyclist. I spent years commuting across San Mateo from north Delaware St and later Burlingame down to my office at the crossroads (92 and 101). I’m no stranger to bike commuting and managing traffic across varying road conditions. But things are different when you have a child in toe and you need improved infrastructure to accommodate the needs of those less experienced.

With improved road conditions and expanded bike lane connectivity across our neighborhoods, we have an opportunity to improve San Mateo’s culture and accessibility for all ages. Sacrificing the few bike lanes we have for increased parking spaces would take us in the opposite direction.

Thank you for hearing my voice,
Tim Durkin

98 of 368

99 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Lander Foquet
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2025 9:07 AM
To: Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission
Subject: Humboldt Ave Bike lanes support
Dear committee members,

Thank you very much for voting to keep the bike lanes on Humboldt.

I use these lanes almost daily for my commute into San Mateo to take my daughter to preschool, and my colleague uses them daily for his commute to SSF. It is disappointing that some residents prioritize having more parking spaces over maintaining a safe neighborhood, especially since every house on the street has ample parking in front of their own garage.

I appreciate your support in this matter.

Sincerely,
Lander Foquet

100 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 2:57 PM
To: Jay Yu; Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Christina Horrisberger Cc: Alex Khojikian
Subject: FW: Humboldt Street Bike Lane

From: James Ford
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 2:55 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Humboldt Street Bike Lane

Good Afternoon City Council,

My name is James Ford, and I am a District 1 resident. I am writing to share feedback on the council's recent direction to start the process of removing the bicycle lane on Humboldt Street from Second Avenue to Indian Avenue. I attended the December 4th, 2024 workshop at the Dr. MLK Jr. Community Center and can sympathize with the North Central community for the tangible hardship posed by the loss of roughly 200 parking spaces. At the same time, I cannot help but be disappointed by the council's decision to remove the lanes, especially given the lanes' proximity to San Mateo High, College Park Elementary, and the San Mateo Adult School. I worry that this choice will negatively impact the young families and students who spoke in favor of preserving the lanes at Monday's meeting; in addition, removing the lanes may make it more difficult for San Mateo to secure grants for street safety improvements in the future. On the subject of safe routes to school, I highly recommend San Mateo School District Trustee Maggie Trinh's thought-provoking letter to the editor in the San Mateo Daily Journal from this past Monday.

If we want families to feel comfortable sending their kids to school and to extracurricular activities by bike or by foot, the city must invest in both improved traffic enforcement of speeding motorists and enhanced street infrastructure, which includes a commitment to building out the city's 2020 bicycle master plan. In turn, these vital improvements engender a greater sense of confidence in the safety of our local streets.

Thank you,
James

101 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Chantal Eaton
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 3:42 PM
To: Jay Yu
Cc: Kathleen O'Brien; Matt Fabry; Kathleen O'Brien; Alex Khojikian Subject: FW: Public Comment in regards to Humboldt Street bike lane removal Attachments: 20250126_I have a Dream … and San Mateo is creating a nightmare - RWCPulse.pdf; 20250211_Rumble in the Jungle.pdf
Hi all,
Please see comment below.

Best,
Chantal

From: Gerd S from RWC
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 3:17 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment in regards to Humboldt Street bike lane removal

...

To the clerk of the City of San Mateo.

It's really hard to watch how San Mateo Democrats keep messing this up.

It has been defined in the City's transportation plans, housing plans, age-friendly plans, general plans or the of course various climate action and sustainability plans that San Mateo needs more bike lanes. This was also determined by the San Mateo County Grand Jury report of 2002 and 2022.

So shame on San Mateo Democrats for failing our children for such a long time.

So what do local newspapers report?
For one "Bicycle Boulevards" don't work.In fact they have led to more crashes and collisions. They might work for some of these MAMILs or WILMAs - however they don't work for children, senior citizens and they become unusable at night time.

In the end it comes down to the fact that NC is an Equity Priority Zone, which translates to "if children in affluent neighborhoods deserve bike lanes, then children in low-income neighborhoods deserve them even more so."
Any other decision is discrimination. MLK is watching you. ...

102 of 368

103 of 368

104 of 368

105 of 368

106 of 368

107 of 368

108 of 368

109 of 368

PEEKING AT PLANS
Blog: I have a Dream … and San Mateo is creating a nightmare Sadly my Dream isn’t shared by the County of San Mateo or the San Mateo City Council. byGerd Stieler
January 21, 2025 11:06 amUpdated January 24, 2025 11:09 am Lorraine Motel in Memphis. Courtesy: Gerd Stieler Credit: Gerd Stieler It’s Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. week, a great time to talk about education and Safe-Routes-To-School. Last week, we discussed that “School Choice” has nothing to do with educational opportunity but was born out of all kinds of ulterior motives. This week, we do a reality check on our county’s Democrats. Have they been using “Equity” mostly just in pre-election slogans, or can they actually follow through after election season is over? We will be talking about “Safe Routes To School” and “Slow Streets,” but most of all, we will be talking about the equity problem of “Bicycle Boulevards.” “The time is always right to do what is right.” [MLK]
Time to get your program and your popcorn; this is a Drama in Four Acts.

Act 1: C/CAG is sharing the Dream
“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.” [MLK] In 2023, San Mateo County politicians were introduced to The Dream. They were taught how their old ways were rotten and that they had to change. Apparently, the politicians that were summoned to take the equity training were Diane Papan, Gina Papan, David Canepa, Lisa Gauthier, Davina Hurt, Karen Cunningham, John Goodwin, Stacy Jimenez, Christine Krolik, Alicia Aguirre, Michael Salazar, Adam Rak, Rich Hedges, Warren Slocum, Mark Nagales, Rico E. Medina, and a few more. It is unclear how San Mateo’s City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) decided that these people need the training. However, in the end, those students were explicitly mentioned in the disclaimer. We can also assume the framework has been read and ratified by all members of C/CAG, all city managers, all city council members and all San Mateo Democrats until an opposing paper with opposing views is ratified next time. Without this process, the Equity Framework wouldn’t be worth
the paper it wasn’t printed on.

If any of the old and newly elected San Mateo County Democrats want to speak out against Equity … speak now or forever hold your peace.

Question: Can you explain the plans behind Transportation Equity again? That is what this blog is for. So, after years and years of shirking the topic, the County finally took on the challenge of Equity and deserves our praise. Let us all look at the history of systemic racism in this county and how our county leaders are reckoning with said sad history.

In San Mateo County and across the nation, people of color and other underserved and underrepresented populations have and continue to face persistently unequal economic, health, and quality of life outcomes. Public and private institutions have historically contributed to these inequities through laws, policies, investment decisions, and other actions. C/CAG is taking steps to address Equity issues in San Mateo County. [C/CAG] Can I get a Hallelujah for C/CAG, “historical inequities,” and “taking steps”? “Equity entails removing systemic barriers and providing customized forms and levels of engagement and support for underserved and impacted communities to remedy past harms and underinvestment.” [C/CAG] Can I get a Hallelujah for C/CAG and “systemic barriers”? “C/CAG’ s project team conducted Equity Focus Area (EF A) mapping and data analysis based on C/CAG’ s program area themes, to identify social, economic, environmental, health, and quality of life inequities in the county” [C/CAG] Can I get a Hallelujah for “Equity Focus Areas”?
“My community has been underserved and neglected. We don’t have any public parks. We don’t have bike lanes. The lighting is scarce, and some streets are extremely dark at night. Sidewalks are non-existent in some streets. The community is dissected by two train tracks, therefore divided by those and other physical divisions.” [EFA Leader] Can I get an extra loud Hallelujah for “bike lanes in underserved and neglected communities”? Now we are all finally on the same page about the fact that Equity requires bike lanes in Equity Focus Areas. Amen. It looks like the County of San Mateo is finally getting it together and is really serious about equity – starting now! … wait, wait. Starting now!
1/26/25, 9:19 AM Blog: I have a Dream … and San Mateo is creating a nightmare - Redwood City Pulse https://www.rwcpulse.com/blogs/peeking-at-plans/2025/01/21/blog-i-have-a-dream-and-san-mateo-is-creating-a-nightmare/ 1/4

110 of 368

Act 2: Alexander von Humboldt comes on stage
While the county was still working on an Equity Framework benefitting the Equity Focus Area (EFA) called the North Central neighborhood, San Mateo was prepared and pushed ahead. Mayor Rick Bonilla and his staff used grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to undo some of the injustices done to North Central by previous city councils.

In the racist past of this county, money from grants like this would often go to inner-city highways, jails or parking lots. But not this time. This time, the city promised to install bike lanes on various streets, most prominently on Humboldt Street. North Humboldt Street leads to several schools and connects this neighborhood through the 3rd Avenue bike lanes to recreational opportunities along the Bay. San Mateo’s Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission also endorsed this Safe-Routes-To-School project. The commission cited the health, safety and environmental benefits for the neighborhood. So, basically, it is all the good stuff we would expect from a solid bike infrastructure project.

Nothing is controversial about better health, better education, less car violence, more safety, less air pollution, less congestion, and environmental benefits for low-income children, at least not for your average liberal San Mateo Democrat. So, in the end, then-Mayor Rick Bonilla pushed it through the council with a vote of 3:2. The two council members opposing equity for an Equity Focus Area (EFA) were council members Amourence Lee and Diane Papan – which might have been the reason Diane Papan received the special C/CAG equity training in the first place. “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” [MLK] Anyways, in the end, three city council members did what was right and expected of them, and Humboldt Street in the North Central Equity Priority Area got the long-promised safety upgrades. The kids finally received their equity bike lanes.

Question: Can we quickly dive into the Equity Framework, please.

Oh, sure, we can do that. So, according to C/CAG and the County Board of Supervisors, San Mateo County has several Equity Focus Areas (EFA). The North Central neighborhood is certainly one. Redwood City along El Camino Real and Woodside Road is also one. Big parts of North Fair Oaks, East Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto are also there. All these areas are along the 101 highway and have to deal with more car violence, more noise pollution, more air pollution and therefore higher rates of childhood asthma than other neighborhoods. Anybody attacking those areas is basically attacking Equity and promoting what is known as Systemic Racism.

All C/CAG politicians and city councils were introduced to all the numbers and were made aware of this injustice. And, of course, every present and future council member has promised to remedy this bad situation driven by systemic racism in our city halls – at least during election season, they did.

So, what qualifies a neighborhood to become an Equity Focus Area (EFA):

Zero-Vehicle Households (15% threshold)
Low-Income (28% threshold)
People with a Disability (12% threshold)
Seniors 75 Years and Over (8% threshold)
Single Parent Families (18% threshold)
Limited English Proficiency (12% threshold)
Rent-Burdened Households (14% threshold)
People of Color (70% threshold)
From that, we can tell that the North Central neighborhood has many low-income households with no car access. There are plenty of people with disabilities and seniors who can’t or shouldn’t drive anymore. EFA means that rent-burdened households, seniors with little retirement savings and single-parent families deserve better alternatives so they don’t have to waste all that money on vehicles.

Why this last part is so essential becomes more apparent once you consider today’s cost of owning and driving a car. A new car costs on average >$50,000, a used car >$30,000 and insurance in California is on average >$2,300, with another adjustment coming from SB1107. The yearly cost of owning a car is now >$12,000, and the per-mile cost easily exceeds $2 for many models (source: AAA).

So just to make sure everyone gets the message: Equity Priority Areas (EPA), Equity Focus Areas (EFA), Community of Concerns (CoCs) – and whatever new names and definitions the county can invent for this – require and deserve bike lanes.

Act 3: San Mateo County is still creating the same old nightmares Of course, the report and the training happened way back in 2023 and before the elections. Let’s see if Equity is still in 2024 and after the election. So 2024 came and went, and just when the year changed to 2025, city manager Alex Khojikian and the San Mateo city council made the New Year’s resolution to put more equity focus on the Equity Focus Area of North Central. Unfortunately, they are using the reverse psychology story again. They are walking back equity like they did with the infamous
Equity HOT Lanes.

Our streets are made for Transportation. That is why San Mateo’s municipal code requires 2-4 spots for cars in garages and driveways. But instead of enforcing the rules, the city manager shirks his responsibility and takes the easy route. He thinks it’s OK to take valuable transportation space away from children and give it to the violators with cars. He wants to use more gas tax dollars to subsidize private car storage of a Home/Car Owner Association with too many cars. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” [MLK] In America, this kind of behavior is called Systemic Racism in Urban Planning – you know, the thing these guys promised in 2023 to never, ever do again. Plenty of solutions would focus on the bike lanes and compromise between parking and driving lanes. What makes it very questionable is that the city manager and council did not make any strides even to consider any of those solutions. No, they seem to be aiming right at school children and working-class people and with no sign of any remorse or ethics.

Act 4: What actually is Alex Khojikian proposing?
Alex Khojikian is proposing the same failed infrastructure that he proposed as assistant city manager here in Redwood City. He is running the same Big Bikeway Bluff city manager Melissa Stevenson-Diaz has been pulling off in Redwood City. Redwood City’s “solutions” come with nice names like “Slow Streets” (without making them slow), “Bike Routes” (unsuitable for children or older cyclists), and “Bike Boulevards” (that have zero benefits for cyclists). But these solutions never provide more safety.

So we in Redwood City already know that what Alex Khojikian is proposing is not safe for children. 1/26/25, 9:19 AM Blog: I have a Dream … and San Mateo is creating a nightmare - Redwood City Pulse https://www.rwcpulse.com/blogs/peeking-at-plans/2025/01/21/blog-i-have-a-dream-and-san-mateo-is-creating-a-nightmare/ 2/4

111 of 368

Walk Bike Cupertino agrees: Class III lanes (Bike Boulevards) oer no protection at all and Class IV lanes and Class I trails oer the most.

Any responsible city manager would aim toward the right side of this picture. That is what America’s Bicycle Capital has been doing for 50 years. That is what Europeans and their Vision Zero plans are suggesting as well. Now, when a city manager moves to the left side of this picture – there is a name for that. Whenever children in a low-income neighborhood are concerned, going left is what America calls Systemic Racism in Urban Planning. We have seen this kind of behavior in Redwood City on Vera Avenue Bike Boulevard and Roosevelt Avenue Bike Route. In both cases old plans showed bike lanes and cycle tracks, but in the end all the kids got were “sharrows” aka “sharing the road” aka “non-infrastructure” aka “not safe” aka “systemic racism”.

The only viable “Bicycle Boulevard” in all of America … … is currently in Berkeley. Not on Bryant Street in Palo Alto, Morro Street in San Luis Obispo, Silver Avenue in Albuquerque, or Berkeley.

Google Maps shows the intersection of two Berkeley Bike Boulevards. Both have bike lanes, both streets have only one parking lane, and there is plenty of high-density housing in this area, too. High-density housing requires high-density transportation options like these bike lanes.
source: Google Maps (https://maps.app.goo.gl/kMXersWEyXCGeMuF9) After years and years of experimentation, Berkeley finally got smart and found the only solution to making their “Bike Boulevards” viable. At the intersection of Milvia Street and Channing Way, we see two Berkeley Bicycle Boulevards, and both have nice green bike lanes now. We can see a mix of classes II, IIb, and IV , but no class III anymore. Berkeley recognized that they had to move more to the right side of the Cupertino chart to be safer.

Let’s repeat that: only real bike lanes work!
If Berkeley is saying that affluent school children and college students deserve bike lanes to be safer, then the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) should make that a county-wide rule. “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” [MLK] Would the Good Reverend be happy with San Mateo?
Q: Would the Good Reverend be happy with C/CAG?
A: He would agree that Equity Frameworks mean nothing if they are not lived and enforced.

Q: Would the Good Reverend be happy with the County Board of Supervisors (BOS)? A: He would agree that if BOS can attack a supposedly independent Sheriff, why not go after systemic racism committed by city managers? Q: Would the Good Reverend be happy with the City of San Mateo? A: This depends on Vision Zero city sides with the children, their bike lanes, the rich Home/Car Owner Association (HCOA), and their private car storage. … To Be Continued
This is a watershed moment for San Mateo Democrats. Let’s take a breather and let’s see how this is developing in February.

Actors to watch on the city council of San Mateo:

Mayor Rob Newsom Jr.

Deputy Mayor Adam Loraine
Lisa Diaz Nash
Nicole Fernandez (newly elected)
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki (newly elected)
1/26/25, 9:19 AM Blog: I have a Dream … and San Mateo is creating a nightmare - Redwood City Pulse https://www.rwcpulse.com/blogs/peeking-at-plans/2025/01/21/blog-i-have-a-dream-and-san-mateo-is-creating-a-nightmare/ 3/4

112 of 368

David Canepa (Board President)
Noelia Corzo (Vice President)
Ray Mueller (from Menlo Park – a rich community where leaders did provide bike lanes for children from affluent families) Lisa Gauthier (newly elected from East Palo Alto – an EFA where leaders did not provide bike lanes for children from low-income families) Jackie Speier (newly elected)
“In order to improve on Equity, you actually have to improve on Equity” [Zarathustra]
More Information
C/CAG’s Equity Action Plan
C/CAG’s Equity Framework Report and Training
C/CAG’s reverse equity story about HOT Lanes
Blog: Squatters, Rankers, and Dead Parkers
Blog: RIP or RSVP to Parking
Some history of “Bicycle Boulevards”
Editor’s Note: The views and opinions expressed in all blog posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Redwood City Pulse or its staff.

Blog: The Big Bikeway Blu
1/26/25, 9:19 AM Blog: I have a Dream … and San Mateo is creating a nightmare - Redwood City Pulse https://www.rwcpulse.com/blogs/peeking-at-plans/2025/01/21/blog-i-have-a-dream-and-san-mateo-is-creating-a-nightmare/ 4/4

113 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 12:31 PM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: 2/2/26 Council Meeting, My Email Bounced/unable to deliver at any address for "Mayor"

From: Douglas Handerson
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:57 PM
To: City Mgr <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 2/2/26 Council Meeting, My Email Bounced/unable to deliver at any address for "Mayor"

January 26, 2026

This is to ensure that the letter of which I tried to send copies to each City Council member and the Mayor, from my phone, regarding the February 2, 2026 agenda item on Humboldt Bike Lanes, reaches our current Mayor, Adam Loraine, especially since it deals with broader city Infrastructure issues than just the Humboldt yay or nay decision next Monday.

The server responded to each of these three addresses for the Mayor, rejecting the send.

I think the correct one is [email protected]
.

But even that one was returned, unable to deliver.

Perhaps the City Clerk might help confirm whether all email routes for messages to the Mayor are functioning properly, please.

The original email's heading is "Council's February 2nd Humboldt decision making.

Council and Mayor Loraine, please let me know if you have not received that email.

The main recipient was Jon Mays, btw., and the City decision-makers were copied.

Doug Handerson

114 of 368

2 115 of 368

January 26, 2026

The server responded to each of these three addresses for the Mayor, rejecting the send.

I think the correct one is [email protected]
.

But even that one was returned, unable to deliver.

Perhaps the City Clerk might help confirm whether all email routes for messages to the Mayor are functioning properly, please.

The original email's heading is "Council's February 2nd Humboldt decision making.

Council and Mayor Loraine, please let me know if you have not received that email.

The main recipient was Jon Mays, btw., and the City decision-makers were copied.

Doug Handerson

116 of 368

2 117 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 8:43 AM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Christina Horrisberger; Alex Khojikian
Subject: FW: Humboldt bike lanes

From: Martin Harband
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 7:49 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Humboldt bike lanes

We oppose bike lanes on Humboldt.

Thank you
Martin Harband

Martin Harband

118 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 1:00 PM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu; Bethany Lopez Subject: FW: Humboldt Street bike lanes
Hi there,

Please see the below email forwarded to City Council.

Best wishes,
Martin

From: Martin Harband
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 11:21 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Humboldt Street bike lanes

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Martin Harband
Date: Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 11:19 AM
Subject: Humboldt Street bike lanes
To: <[email protected]>

Please add this comment to the "Community Feedback " on safe-walking/ biking design concepts for Humboldt, Idaho and Fremont Streets.

Bike lanes should be removed from North Humboldt Street.

Bikes lanes should be installed on the lesser traveled streets in San Mateo, and not on the major automobile traffic streets. This is common sense. and will save lives ! Thank you.

Martin Harband.

--
Martin Harband

119 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 3:16 PM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: Please Do Not Remove Bicycle Infrastructure FYI.

From: Jackson Hotaling
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 3:10 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Please Do Not Remove Bicycle Infrastructure

Hello,

Please do not remove bicycle infrastructure in favor of street parking. This is a step in the wrong direction if the goal is for the city to promote increased safety, healthier people, a stronger economy, and a cleaner environment.

Thank you,
Jackson Hotaling

120 of 368

Dear Mayor Loraine and Members of the San Mateo City Council, On behalf of Sustainable San Mateo County (SSMC), I would like to thank you for your continued leadership and commitment to sustainability. Your efforts to make San Mateo a more resilient and forward-thinking city do not go unnoticed. I am writing today regarding the upcoming February 2nd decision on the Humboldt Street bike lanes . SSMC’s mission is centered on fostering a sustainable, equitable and healthy San Mateo County for everyone.

Central to this mission is our steadfast support for active transportation infrastructure. It is through this lens of long-term sustainability and equity that we view the current discussion regarding the Humboldt Street corridor and request you reject any proposal that includes removal of any portion of those bike lanes.

Prioritizing Student Safety: Humboldt Street represents the longest stretch of bike lanes in San Mateo and is a critical component of the Youth-Based High Injury Network . With three schools in the vicinity and approximately 10,000 students navigating this corridor, the safety implications are profound. Protecting our youth as they commute to school is not just a policy preference; it is a fundamental responsibility.

A Matter of Equity and Inclusion: This corridor sits within an Equity Priority Area . For many residents, the bike lane is not a recreational luxury, but a vital artery for commuting to work and accessing essential services. In an area where a high proportion of residents cannot afford a car, removing safe cycling infrastructure in favor of street parking effectively prioritizes vehicle storage over the mobility and safety of our most vulnerable neighbors.

Climate Goals and Regional Leadership: The proposed removal of these lanes to install on-street parking runs contrary to our shared goals of reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Furthermore, the eyes of the region—and the nation—are on San Mateo. As other cities in the county look to your decision as a bellwether, removing these lanes could create a "chilling effect" on active transportation projects across San Mateo County.

Acknowledging the Challenges: We recognize that community solutions are complex.

Balancing the needs of local residents with the safety of the broader public is a difficult task that requires nuanced leadership. However, true sustainability requires us to lean into these challenges by choosing solutions that foster long-term health, safety and equity for all residents.

We thank you for considering the long-term impact of this decision on the future of San Mateo.

We look forward to seeing the City Council uphold its commitment to a sustainable and equitable transportation network.

Sincerely,
Sarah Hubbard, Executive Director

121 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 12:27 PM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: Letter of Support re Humboldt Bike Lanes
Attachments: 2026 02 02 LOS Humboldt Bike Lanes for SSMC.pdf

From: Sarah Hubbard
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 9:57 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Mike Swire
Subject: Letter of Support re Humboldt Bike Lanes

Please see the attached letter from Sustainable San Mateo County related to the Council's February 2nd meeting regarding bike lanes along Humboldt Street.

Best,
Sarah

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Sarah Hubbard (she/her)

Set up a time to speak with me here

궁놓궎 궏 궐 궑 궒 놖 놗 궓 궔궕놔 놘놕 袨袩袪被袬袭 Get tickets now! The 27th Annual Sustainability Awards Celebration is set for March 25, 2026 from 5 - 7 p.m. in South San Francisco. Sponsorships available now.

122 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 7:34 AM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: Fw: Humboldt Bike Lanes - Please keep!

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Chris Jenny
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 9:11:51 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Humboldt Bike Lanes - Please keep!

Hi there Council,

We may be a bit of a silent majority here but there are plenty of us that live on Humboldt St that LOVE the bike lanes. I am a huge proponent of cycling and how it can help curtail traffic and pollution. We ought to be leaning into this more. I have been h
it by a car on a bike before and would appreciate anything the city can do to help make clean and efficient transportation safer.

Please keep the bike lanes in place and spend the $2 million continuing to improve our city elsewhere!

Chris Jenny

123 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Maurine Killough
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 10:59 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Restore Humboldt street parking
Dear Mayor Loraine and City Council Members:

I am a longtime San Mateo resident and am a cyclist and a driver. As much as we wish everyone rode bikes we cannot but we all do drive cars and need parking. To strip away parking for all the residents on N. Humboldt for only a very, very few cyclists is totally unfair. I have seen video of the streets showing no cyclists for hours, yet the residents have given up precious parking rights for nothing.

As a cyclist, I never use that street! I stand with the residents who were surprised by this excessive act.

Please listen to those residents and to common sense and restore parking on N Humboldt Street. We are a community and need to join together on solutions that serve us all and make sense.

Thank you for taking action on this to restore functionality in that neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Maurine Killough

Maurine Killough
You are not IN the Universe you ARE the universe—an intrinsic part of it.

Ultimately you are not a person, but a focal point where the universe is becoming conscious of itself. What an amazing miracle.—Eckhart Tolle

124 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Erin Livingston >
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 11:52 AM
To: Martin McTaggart
Subject: Please approve the Delaware Safe Routes to School Project as Originally Recommended By City Engineers
City Clerk Martin McTaggart,
Thank you for your efforts to keep the streets of San Mateo safe, especially for those who don't drive. I am writing to ask you to approve the Delaware Safe Routes to School Project as originally proposed by the City's traffic engineers. This design maximizes safety and comfort for residents and students who walk and bike, especially around several schools.

I urge the Council not to water down experts' original design in the interest of higher auto speeds. Auto congestion is currently tolerable, even on days when the Events Center is busy.

As we add housing units in this area, we need to make it safe for people to get around on foot and bike. Failure to do so will result in far more auto congestion, especially due to parents not feeling safe letting their kids walk , bike, or take transit to school.

Thank you for your consideration and please let me know whether you support the project in its current, safest form.

Erin Livingston

125 of 368

From: Allison MacQueen Felder
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 12:24 PM
To: Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]> Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: I Support the Humboldt Bike Lanes

Hello City Council,

Please include this public comment in the packet for the upcoming 2/2/26 City Council Meeting.

I am a San Mateo resident and support keeping the Humboldt bike lanes for the following reasons:

The Humboldt Bike Lanes…
 Create a safe, continuous bike network across San Mateo, connecting homes, schools, downtowns, and bus/train transit as the #2 project on the San Mateo Bike Master Plan  Are directly connected to the only 3 bike routes over the 101 in San Mateo (Peninsula Ave, Monte Diablo Ave, 3rd Ave), connecting eastern and western San Mateo  Provide essential protection on a truck route where overserved speeds are 35 mph—well above the 25mph speed limit (source: SM Dept of Public Works)
 Improve driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety on a corridor that was once the 5th most dangerous street in San Mateo County for all sources of travel (source: CCAG)  Are widely used, with over 10,000 bike trips per month (source: SM Dept of Public Works)  Enable Safe Routes to Schools for 4 schools serving 10,000+ students, including the new Fiesta Gardens K–8 school, the first neighborhood school in North Central in over 20 years  Reduce greenhouse gases and vehicle miles traveled, key priorities for the City of San Mateo, San Mateo County, and the State of California
 Are supported by the majority of residents on Humboldt St, North Central and across San Mateo (source: SM Dept of Public Works)
 Are supported by 17 PTAs, SMFCSD board members, and the City of San Mateo Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission
 Save taxpayer money—removal would cost $1.3M+ and would jeopardize future grant funding  Preserve safety—removing the middle section would create dangerous, disconnected bike lanes  Further San Mateo’s commitment to Vision Zero made in 2015 and embedded into the City of San Mateo’s 2040 General Plan in 2024
Please vote to prioritize safety and sustainable transportation in the City of San Mateo on February 2nd.

Allison MacQueen

126 of 368

2 Co-Lead, Move San Mateo
North Shoreview (District 2) Resident

127 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Allison MacQueen Felder
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 8:02 PM
To: Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission
Subject: Thank you - Humboldt
Hello S&I Commission,
Thank you for your service and thank you for your votes last night to preserve safe routes to school and safe multi-modal transport in San Mateo via the 1.5 mile Humboldt bike lanes.

I use the lanes twice daily
to get to Caltrain to get to work and on the weekends to get to downtown San Mateo and Burlingame. They are vital to my personal safety.

Bicycle use is growing, folks are figuring out there is a healthy, sustainable and inexpensive way to get around San Mateo and surrounding areas. Preserving and growing bicycle infrastructure helps tip the calculus for folks to consider multimodal transportation options.

Allison MacQueen
North Shoreview resident

128 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:00 AM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Christina Horrisberger; Alex Khojikian
Subject: FW: Bike lanes vs. parking on Humboldt

-----Original Message-----
From: Dana Miller
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:55 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Bike lanes vs. parking on Humboldt

Dear Council members, I would like to respecƞully make a recommendaƟon to the council as to the maƩer of parking removal and bike lanes on North Humboldt St. As an avid bicyclist and homeowner near Humboldt, It has been my opinion for several decades that the most eﬃcient way through San Mateo is to use either Delaware St.(south of Tilton) and or San Mateo Ave/California ave.(North of Tilton). Humboldt on the other hand is very ineﬃcient due to stop signs at the majority of blocks. As far as Humboldt goes, the most ideal soluƟon for all parƟes would be to restore the parking and make the enƟre lane a bike lane. In terms of safety, bicyclist deserve safe bicycle lanes and more emphasis should be applied to thoroughfare lanes, and in neighborhoods, just make the enƟre lane a bike lane.

I would also like to request that crosswalks be installed on Eldorado St. at 4th ave and 3rd ave. Both intersecƟons are located next to businesses that have large volumes of customers and limited parking. Many customers park across the street and try to cross in the mornings when it’s dark. It’s a very unsafe situaƟon for both pedestrians and drivers. Last and least is I would like to request the El Dorado St. sign (misspelled)at 4th and Eldorado St. be replaced with the correctly spelled Eldorado Street.

Thank You Dana Miller
Sent from my iPad

129 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 12:32 PM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: Keep Humboldt bike lanes

-----Original Message-----
From: Flower Miller
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 6:44 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Keep Humboldt bike lanes

Hello City Council,
Please help to keep the Humboldt bike lanes. We have a lot of families in and out of our neighborhood (North Shoreview) who use these safe bike lanes to get to school and work on a daily basis. Our children will also use these bike lanes when they go to high school.

Our community’s safety is very important. We don’t need any accidents and deaths because we’re not giving them the safety that they need.

Thank you for your Ɵme.

Kind Regards,
Flower Miller
North Shoreview neighborhood

130 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Kolja Schluetter
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2025 5:04 PM
To: Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission
Cc: Alex Khojikian
Subject: Thank You for Your Leadership on the Humboldt Bike Lanes Hello San Mateo Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission,

Merry Christmas. I wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation for the Commission’s recent decision regarding the Humboldt bike lanes. Commissioner Narita’s remarks were particularly inspiring and clearly articulated the core issues at stake.

Thank you for your thoughtful and diligent work. It has not gone unnoticed and is deeply appreciated.

Best regards,

Kolja Schluetter

131 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 12:29 PM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: Please Preserve the Humboldt Bike Lanes

From: Sean Schochet
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 4:10 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Please Preserve the Humboldt Bike Lanes

Dear City Council,

I’m writing to urge you to vote to preserve the Humboldt bike lanes.

Removing them would waste public money already spent on planning and construction, with no clear benefit. Keeping the lanes is the more fiscally responsible choice.

This is also about the future of our city. Safe bike infrastructure reduces congestion, improves public health, and supports environmental sustainability. It reflects smart, forward-thinking planning rather than doubling down on an outdated, car- only approach.

Public streets are shared assets, not private extensions of adjacent properties. The Humboldt bike lanes serve the broader community and help create a safer, more livable city for everyone.

I hope you will vote to keep them in place.

Sincerely,
Sean

Sean Schochet
Pronouns: he/him/his
Upper School SEL Teacher

132 of 368

2 Hillsborough Campus
Grades PreK-8

San Mateo Campus
Grades 9-12

133 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: sean schochet
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 9:17 PM
To: Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission
Subject: Thank you!
Hi,

I really appreciate you, the commissioners, in putting your support behind a better San Mateo. Your comments were music to my ears. I bike to work and want my children to safely bike to school - currently they don’t due to street safety on Alameda de las Pulgas). You are sending the correct message for a sustainable future that prioritizes safety of children over past conveniences and comforts for some.

Kimi really spoke volumes about the unlearning necessary to change our community’s mindset to better the future with shared values in a beloved community.

I so appreciate it! Please make Alameda de las Pulgas a priority in the near future (slowing cars down, safe pedestrian crossings between 26th and 20th, and a separated bike lane).

Thank you for your awesome service to this great city!

-Sean
(Resident and teacher in SM)

134 of 368

From: Tiffany F Siu
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 5:05 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: North Central resident supporting the Humboldt St bike lanes

Hello,

I am a North Central resident (live at the intersection of N Eldorado and Indian Ave) and support keeping the bike lanes.

During the spring and summer, my family and I use the bike lanes multiple times a week. We do outings as a family on the weekend and frequently use the bike to drop my daughter off at preschool.

Prior to the installation of the bike lanes, we avoided going down Humboldt St by car. With both sides having parked cards and then two lanes of traffic, you could not drive down smoothly and would need to yield if another car was coming in the opposite direction. It was very crowded! I'd also like to call out that there have been too many pedestrian deaths by car recently, I truly believe visibility is a key factor here.

When cars lack visibility, it increases the chance that a vehicle strikes a biker or p edestrian. Putting more
parked cars on that street and keeping it two lanes will in my opinion, increase the risk of pedestrian injury or worst fatality.

This was before I moved to the neighborhood, but I believe a bicyclist was badly injured while on Humboldt due to a collision from a car? Wasn't that a factor in exploring the installation of the bike lane?

I suggest that we look into, how do we move large vehicles used for commercial business off Humboldt and into permit parking. Many residents have noted that many large parked vehicles don't move often which exacerbates this issue. I myself have had to report many vehicles on my street that do not move for over 5 days.

I'd also like to call out that I attended a sunstainability and infrastructure meeting in December where the survey results of North Central residents were shared, keeping the bike lanes was the leading option.

Thank you for reading.

135 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Katherine Sheehan
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 3:00 PM
To: Jay Yu
Cc: Matt Fabry
Subject: FW: msm-middle-school-bike-routes Immediate Action Needed: Humboldt St Bike Lanes
Jay,

This references a resolution by the SMFCSD Board of Trustees.

Kat

From: On Behalf Of
Allison MacQueen Felder
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 10:13 AM
To:

Subject: msm-middle-school-bike-routes Immediate Action Needed: Humboldt St Bike Lanes

Hello SMFCSD Bicycle Community,

The San Mateo City Council is considering proposals to remove the Humboldt St Bike Lanes, which are

1.6 miles long, constructed in 2022, directly link to 4 schools, and indirectly support bicycle transit across SMFCSD schools.
 The SMFCSD Board of Trustees voted 5-0 on 1/23 to support a resolution in support of preserving the Humboldt St Bike Lanes in San Mateo.
 SMFCSD District PTA is leading an effort for school site PTA Associations to vote on this letter in support of the Humboldt St Bike Lanes. 6 PTAs have brought it to a vote and 6 have affirmed support of the letter (Fiesta Gardens,Sunnybrae, LEAD, Meadow Heights, George Hall, North Shoreview Montessori), with other schools in progress. Nudge your PTA President to bring this to a vote at your next PTA meeting.
 Sign a petition to support Safe Routes to School and preserve the Humboldt St bike lanes.  Send a message regarding this topic to the San Mateo City Council, you can email them at:
[email protected]
 The San Mateo Council will be discussing this issue at a meeting on Monday Feb 3 at 7pm at City Hall (with opportunity for public comment either in person or via Zoom). Zoom:
https://cityofsanmateo-org.zoom.us/j/88220205790?pwd=Ff2osKnCL8jnizzEQGu5hx1hLeJ3v1.1 3rd & Norfolk Intersection safety improvements approved by San Mateo City Council  This long-awaited project improves pedestrian and bicycle safety while speeding vehicle flow through the intersection. This intersection connects to 8 SMFCSD schools, the bay trail, creekside trail, and downtown San Mateo. Great news!
 More information on the project
 Hoping it will be complete by the start of the 2025-2026 school year, but definitely will be completed by the end of 2025!

Park Smart, Park Safe Be mindful when parking near crosswalks!

136 of 368

2  AB 413 - Daylighting Law Starting January 1, 2025, it is illegal in California to park within 20 feet of the vehicle approach of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, even if a red curb is not present, or 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present. Click HERE to learn more about this new law.

Thank you for encouraging your child to bike to school in SMFCSD! Heather Wolnick & Allison MacQueen
SMFCSD Parents

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bike routes for Middle School" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

To view this discussion visit

137 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 7:35 AM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Christina Horrisberger; Alex Khojikian
Subject: Fw: Restore Parking to N Humboldt St

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Francie
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 6:02:40 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Restore Parking to N Humboldt St

Dear Mayor Loraine and City Council Members,

I’m requesting that you restore parking on N Humboldt Street for the benefit of that community and show that you have compassion for the residents and neighbors of North Central. The idea that removing street parking in front of homes and then give residents the option of parking at the King Center, blocks away for many, and only for certain hours, is shameful.

One cyclist and homeowner near Humboldt, suggested a much safer solution that works for All is to just make the entire lane a bike lane and return parking! Further stating that Humboldt is not a good thoroughfare due to its stop signs etc so the few bicyclist are likely local residents with short trips. San Mateo Ave/California Ave has always been the best for long distance cyclist with a short jog over to Delaware for the southern half of San Mateo all the way to Old County and beyond.

Organized special interest groups should not have more say about a residential area than the people who live there. Please listen to the neighbors and constituents in North Central, explore other options for bicyclists, and restore street parking on N Humboldt St. Don’t mislead residents and say this is being considered, and then do nothing. Please do the right thing and make the residents of this community your priority when you are evaluating options to fix this problem.

Sincerely,
Francie Souza
Resident of Central Neighborhood
Member of SMU
Board Member of CNA

Sent from my iPhone

138 of 368

Miguel G.

North Central ·
6 Aug
·Edited
·

The parking situation on Humboldt is grossly preventable. I witnessed

multiple neighbors with empty driveways and parking garages waiting to tak
e a parking spot not even minutes after the cleaning truck passed.

I’
d love more parking, but I agr
ee with Michael that people are using
the str
eet as their personal storage. Most parking on the street is cars that ar
en’t moved all month outside of street cleaning da
y, and they’re
10 feet away waiting for their spot again.

We don’t have a parking shortage, we ha
ve an issue with people
having 3+ cars and parking them without moving them. I’m usually not home during these hours but I was sick and had to mov
e my car, and it
was gross t
o see how many people were doing this. On Humboldt and
the surrounding str
eets.

Given the loss of the other side of Humboldt St parking, the city needs to do something about all these cars that stay parked for months in the same place, only moving feet awa
y on cleaning days.

Here
’s a picture at 12:50pm, 5 minutes after cleaner passed and the str
eet was already full.

139 of 368

80 COMMENTS
Christine Cook 1w · North Central
Agree, we’re likely to lose the Humboldt bik
e lane for completely
unfounded reasons. What’s worse (aside from the money squander), is that this sends a message about the extent t
o which the city (and
our neighbors) value safety, and sets a precedent for the future bik e of
lanes in San Mateo. I appreciate that you spoke up about what you saw
, there’s too much misinformation cir
culating ….

Reply
Share

140 of 368

8 Michael Swire 1w · Edited · Bay Meadows
Thanks for the hard data,
Miguel . Facts are important. The City
hasn't even done a parking study to gauge the issue, but is willing t o
spend $3 million of taxpayer money anyway.

Reply
Share
6 Miguel G. Author 1w
· North Central
Michael
I just wish there was a path forward in between wher
e maybe
bike lanes are k
ept but cars are checked mor
e often or a parking pass
system to prevent hoarding parking space. I’
m sure it would help many
of us that want parking back to not mind the bike lanes given there’ d
be more parking if it wasn’t hoarded
Reply
Share

141 of 368

9 Dylan J. 1w · North Central
Miguel an audit/parking study would make sense as a ﬁrst step, followed by potentially a permit progr
am. But far too many people
think that it’s the city’s responsibility to pr
ovide free storage (in front of
their house) for their third, fourth, etc car. It’s especially egregious if their gar
age is empty or ﬁlled with junk and the driveway is unused.

People on Nextdoor also lo
ve to complain about traﬃc and parking
pain, but then see no issue with advocating for policies that will increase car dependence e.g. rip up bik
e lanes.

Reply
Share
9 Miguel G. Author 1w
· North Central
I suppor
ted bringing parking back before, but I didn’t realize how

avoidable this problem was until now. So many people just leav e their
cars sitting there and won’t move them. It’s weir
d how common that
is.

Those of us who drive every da
y have to park far away because of it. I
used to blame the bike lanes, but it’s really people with too many cars,

some they barely even use.

142 of 368

Reply
Share
15 Kevin Simpson 1w · North Central
Miguel and so many commercial vehicles. Why does any business get fr
ee parking in a residential zone? Other businesses hav e to
obtain parking for their vehicles as sort of that cost and is bet it is a tax write off as a business expense. A parking permit program would

take care of this.

Reply
Share
6 Miguel G. Author 1w
· North Central
Kevin
yeah I noticed like 5-10 commercial trucks and v
ans that take up
2 cars worth of space.

143 of 368

2 Teresa S. 1w · Borel
This problem is all over san mateo and Belmont. You ev
er try and visit
someone living on carlmont dr. In Belmont? Its terrible at night to ﬁnd parking. Y
ou have t
o walk very far to your apt. Everyone has 2 cars
mostly because let's say roommates and husband or wife' s. Can't be
helped . The seniors have to walk so far to get to ther e apts.

Reply
Share
3 Miguel G. Author 1w
· North Central
T
eresa it can be helped by making sure the cars are mo ving and not staying in one spot for weeks at a time. That’s what I noticed is what

takes up the spots and screws o
ver those that need to driv
e daily
Reply
Share
1 Bennett Lee 1w ·
Parkside

144 of 368

It always amazes me that people refuse to park their cars on their own driveways or garages… BUT they are the ﬁrst to report & complain here about their cars being sideswiped, hit & run, vandalized, burglarized, or damaged while it was parked vulnerable on the street! 🤷‍♂️ Reply
Share
4 Bryan Ackley 1w · Burlingame Park
Unfortunately every family member has to ha
ve a car. The average
family in SM county is 2.5 people living at a residence. If everyone has

2 cars per family parked on the street and the average is ar ound 14
houses per block , meaning that one block has 28 cars to park on the street that can only hold 19 to 25 cars because on any one block because there are many no parking z
ones too. I can count families
that ha
ve more than 2 cars, in some cases we are talking 4 or 5 cars per family
. In my neighborhood alone there are 4 residents with 4 or mor
e cars on the street. The answers are out there but no one likes

the options,
Reply
Share

145 of 368

1 Dylan J. 1w · North Central
Bryan and those answers out there include actually utilizing garages and driv
eways for parking, instead of acting like it’
s the city’
s
responsibility to provide street parking for e
very car.

I would also challenge the premise that “every family member has t o
have a car.”
Reply

Share
12 Kevin Simpson 1w · Edited ·
North Central
Folks near me go e
ven further—they r
outinely use a spot that will hold
two cars easily with one car parked in the middle all day and often all night. Further out several use tr
ash cans and cones (and threats) to
keep anyone from using spots near their houses. Meanwhile very

large commercial trucks—I’m talking dump truck size— sit all day in

146 of 368

spots that could accommodate two cars, despite the ban on commercial vehicles in residential zones.

And for this people want to throw the many cyclists and scooter riders inclusion kids, workers who can
’t afford cars, and other to the mercy

of drivers who have mowed down two people on Humboldt in just the last two months.

Share
10 Aaron Dodge 1w
· Parkside
It's preventable if you r
eplaced all the S#IttY neighbors with good
ones.

Reply
Share
2 Christine Cook 1w · E
dited · North Central

147 of 368

Maybe the city should incentivize anyone who has a car the size of a loaf of bread?
Everything is massive now. In 2015 ﬁ
ve cars could park along my
street frontage. Now it’
s only four. Sometimes less 🤣
Reply
Share
3 Matthew Gallegos 1w · North Shoreview
We deal with parking and speeding issues in North Shoreview all the time, as well as commuters using the neighborhood close t o the
freeway for parking and commuting on this side of the bay. The City hasn
't done a thing. Parking permits are the answer for impacted neighborhoods. They did this on the other side of 101 on 3r d condo's
and has work
ed well.

Reply
Share
7 Miguel G. Author 1w
· North Central
Matthew
parking permits would do wonders here
Reply
Share

148 of 368

5 David H. 6d · Hayward Park
The current city parking permit program doesn't guarantee any one a
place to park. It does stop people that don't live in the area fr om
parking there though. I think the city needs a better parking permit program that actually addresses the limited on street parking we hav e.

If one person has multiple cars stored on the street its unfair to their neighbors also looking for parking.

Reply
Share
3 Sally Ehrhard 1w
· North Central
Yea I used to live there at Woodlak
e facing right onto humble for six
years and for eight years at one other apartment at Woodlake

altogether I lived at Woodlake since 2005 and three diff erent
apartments and parking was always an issue… Most often you would end up parking way on the south side of the apar
tment complex right
next to San Mateo high school football ﬁ
eld and then you’d have t o

149 of 368

walk half a mile to get back to your apartment It was deﬁnitely a big pain in the neck, especially if you’re carrying groceries and everything but I do kind of miss living there, but the owner was selling the apartment and he knew the rent would go up much higher after whoever bought it would decide on the r
ent and it would’ve been way

out of my league so I have been out of there for one year and I’m living

in my car.!!!!
Reply
Share
Colin Madere 1w · Centr
al
Thanks for reporting what you’ve seen about this. It’s impor tant the
city council, especially Nicole Fernandez, your district representative,

hear this kind of observation. Must be infuriating to see how much space there could be and know ther
e are a small number of people
taking up so much public space.

Share
3 Michael Ragan 1w
· Indian Springs Park
Miguel, I think you fail to realize one important fact, the bik e lanes that
were installed on Humboldt was based on the premise that hundreds of bikes would be using that for tr
ansportation. But the facts that Taso
is pr
oviding clearly clariﬁes the lack of bicycle trips along that corridor .

150 of 368

So the issue is was a loss of 200 parking spots at a cost of $2 million and the anger and frustration of those homeowners justiﬁed. Miguel, please listen to the neighborhood and what they want would be a better wa
y to approach this dilemma
Reply
Share

1 Miguel G. Author 1w
· North Central
Michael
i live here! you don’t e
ven live on Humboldt !! The gaslighting
is crazy. Homeowners have driv
eways and garages. The issue is
parking hoarding which leaves only a few spots for those of us driving daily
. I’m neutral on the bike lane thing, my post describes my experience as a r
esident on this street and insight into why parking is
an issue. Open up the other side of Humboldt and people will park mor
e cars. There’s park hoar
ding, RV’s, commercial trucks, etc… that
needs to be tackled before another million dollar project Reply
Share

8 151 of 368

Colin Madere 1w · Central
Miguel isn’t it so strange how these very f
ew people that don’t live in
the neighborhood or even near the bik
e lanes claim to know best what
t
o do with your neighborhood? Smells ﬁshy.

Reply
Share
6 Colin Madere 1w · Central
Also very interesting that they joined ND the same day as y our post.
🤔 .

Reply
Share

152 of 368

4 Michael Swire 1w · Bay Meadows
Michael Which neighborhood should we listen to? A majority of SM r
esidents support the bike lanes. Why is the head of the Ber esford
Hillsdale Association arguing to spend $3 million ripping out safety impro
vements in another neighborhood? Why aren’t y
ou advocating
for the taxpayer $ to be spent in Beresford Hillsdale instead???

Reply
Share
5 Seema Patel 1w ·
Central
Michael to be fair, Michael has been a strong advocate for the
Hillsdale Blvd & Alameda de las Pulgas safety improv
ements. It would
be great if he supported safety improv
ements in other neighborhoods
too.
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4768/Hillsdale-Boulevard-Alameda-de-las-Pulga Reply

153 of 368

Share
2 Seema Patel 6d · Central
Michael I think part of the problem here is your assumption that T is

sharing “facts” about bicycle ridership and the city is not.

School starts up this week. I’d be happy to hang out with you at the

corner of 2nd Ave and Humboldt around 7:45am so you can see the bicy
cle ridership ﬁrst hand.

When I rolled up to that intersection a couple days ago in the middle of

the afternoon there were 5 other cyclists and scooterists waiting at the light, and it wasn’t e
ven rush hour.

Share
2 Christine Cook 6d · Edited ·
North Central
Colin lol, deﬁ
nite history on “how many accounts can one person
hav
e” behavior :)
Reply

154 of 368

4 Christine Cook 6d · North Central
Seema that’s my perception on 2nd (and 3rd) / Humboldt as well. It’ s
rare for me to be the only cy
clist there

Reply
Share
4 David H. 6d · Edited ·
Hayward Park
I lo
ve how these cost ﬁgures get thr
own around with no sources. Y ou
can read up on how CDBG funds are spent here:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/1091/Annual-Reports
From what I can tell about $740,000 was spent on this project with a

much larger scope that the area being focused on. Yet we still see ov
er double that talked about with no citations.

Reply
Share

Miguel G. Author 6d
· North Central
T
aso Humboldt resident here, you don’t actually care or listen to residents. You don
’t even liv
e on Humboldt
Reply
Share

155 of 368

3 Dylan J. 6d · North Central
Miguel don’t bother with Taso. He’s the CEO of a company that is
incentivized to maximize parking av
ailability. He routinely spreads
hyperbole and misinformation.

Reply
Share
6 Seema Patel 6d
· Central
David , hi!
At the February 3, 2025 City Council meeting the Council dir ected staff
to pursue Alt 5 & Alt 3:
$620K: restoration of parking & bike lane remo
val

156 of 368

$150-300K: bike boulevard pilot
If the Council decided to make the bike boulevard permanent, that would come at an additional $2.2M cost.
https://www.youtube.com/live/fdadxvZGxCY?si=1xyWJc9uLh7c0B_G&t=15127 And that doesn't include the sunk cost of installing the bike lanes in

the ﬁrst place, which cost ~$1.9M with $1M coming from the Citywide Street Rehabilitation P
ackage and $900K coming from the Community
Development Block Gr
ant.
https://sanmateo.primegov.com/meeting/document/2818.pdf?name=Agenda%20 Report

So the total cost to install the bik
e lanes, remove the bike lanes and
install an alternative permanent bike boulevard would be ~$4.8-5M,

possibly $900K more if the city had to repay the feder
al government
the CDBG funds.
(Speaking on my own behalf)
Reply
Share
David H.
6d · Ha
yward Park
Seema Thanks for the breakdown, lots of moving pieces her e. It helps
to have r
efer
ences to really information and not more hyperbole and
misinformation.

157 of 368

Reply
Share
2 Michael Ragan 6d · Indian Springs Park
Michael just to respond to your three? Marks, I was head of the tr aﬃc
action plan sponsored by the city of San Mateo in 2017, I also sat on the citiz
ens advisory committee studying the citywide bicycle master plan. I do want to point out that I did not mention my a ﬃliation with
BHNA in my response to Miguel. if y
ou would like to have further
discussions about these issues, feel free to contact me.

Reply
Share

Michael Swire 6d · Ba
y Meadows
Michael I encourage you to listen to those living
in Beresford/Hillsdale.

Many of them probably send their kids to San Mateo High School, on

Humboldt and would prioritize safer str
eets in that neighborhood.

Reply
Share

1 158 of 368

Ben Toy 6d · North Central
Sunk cost and would require an approximate $1.5-$2 million to undo and return it back. There is also Vision Zero grant money that might be required to be returned
In light of projected SM budget shortfall of ~$20 million for the next few years
My original proposal was to pass a variance in this area to allow parking on their lawns and keep the bicycle lane, which i think is a win/win
Reply
Share
3 Kevin Simpson 5d · North Central
Ben So many houses already park on their lawns or removed them entirely! Look at the southwest corner of 2nd and Humboldt and the restored house at Humboldt. Yards paved over. And elsewhere people just park on the lawn.

159 of 368

Share
Colin Madere 6d · Central
Miguel there’s a handful of people that are attacking
all the bike lanes,
no matter the details. Emails have been sent out with misleading baseless claims. They mak
e up things to stop them. I don’t know why
,
but it appears as though having safe alternatives to cars is some sort of attack on them or their lif
estyles and they seem to be willing to say

almost anything to kill the advances (the very slow advances) t o make
it possible to safely bike (and walk! And scooter!) around our city.

There’s some odd psychological thing going on that “someone living diff
erently than me is an attack on my choices” or some such. It’s not! Ev
eryone being able to saf
ely use the roadways is very much an
all-around city and resident improvement. With e
very proposed project
that includes bike infrastructure there are ALSO impr
ovements to
driving (improved light timing, spacing, ﬂow contr
ols), but that’s not
enough for them. They want no one else t
o have reasonable options
other than their option. Maybe that’s at play with the parking problem:
people intentionally taking up spaces to tr
y to make it seem worse
than it is t
o have all their neighbors put pressure on the city
.

It’s also very sad to hav
e people involved in making these decisions in
the city being potentially so biased and untruthful and hurting the future of infrastructure for the next generation. Car ownership is going down for a lot of good reasons, we should plan for the futur e, not the
past. I say that as someone who drives and works on cars, modern

and vintage.

160 of 368

When the city council votes on these projects, everyone should pay attention. See who is catering to outdated ideas and who is working for the best long term future of our city.

Reply
Share
8 Claire Mack 3d ·
North Central
Welcome to North Central San Mateo!
Reply

Share
2 161 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Matt Fabry
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 11:29 AM
To: Jay Yu; Nicolette Chan; Bethany Lopez
Cc: Katherine Sheehan
Subject: FW: Parking abuse in North Central (and elsewhere in San Mateo) Attachments: 20250816 Parking abuse in NC.pdf
FYI

From: Mike Swire
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2025 12:14 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Matt Fabry <[email protected]>
Subject: Parking abuse in North Central (and elsewhere in San Mateo)

Dear San Mateo leaders,

As I am sure you are aware, many in our city are increasingly concerned about abuse of parking rules and courtesy, especially given that many neighborhoods have parking challenges.

Please take a look at the attached NextDoor post from a North Central resident. He noted that a high percentage of cars parked on Humboldt are not moved day to day. They are only moved during street cleaning periods, after which they are quickly returned to their original position. Long-term car storage such as this is not allowed per San Mateo law (which has a 72-hour limit).

Some of the comments below the post mention other illegal behaviors that have contributed to parking challenges - e.g., commercial vehicles, reserving of parking spots, etc.

I recommend that the City implement permit parking programs city-wide in an attempt to curb illegal and unneighborly car storage on our public streets.

Thanks for your help in enforcing neighborly behavior on our streets,

Mike Swire
Bay Meadows resident

162 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Alex Khojikian
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2025 5:36 AM
To:

Cc: Ed Barberini; Matt Fabry; Christina Horrisberger; Jay Yu; Katherine Sheehan; Bethany Lopez; Matthew Lethin
Subject: RE: Letter from Mike Swire Re: SMDJ article on rise in crashes in SM Thanks, Mike, for sharing your concerns with us. We take safety very seriously as well and appreciate your input.

I think it's important to clarify that the San Mateo Daily Journal article was misleading about collisions in the city and North Central neighborhood. The sourced TIMS data uses different geographic boundaries and includes State highway data that is not the City's jurisdiction or area. This significantly skews the data. For example. when looking at the official San Mateo Police Department's RIMS data:

• There was a 4% decrease, not a 50% increase, in citywide collisions between 2022 and 2023. • There were 18 collisions in the North Central neighborhood in 2024, which is a 36% decrease, not a return to pre-pandemic levels.

While one collision is too many, it's important to note that SMPD's data shows we are at least moving in the right direction.

Community engagement in transportation and traffic safety issues is extremely important to us so that we consider all perspectives before making decisions on the best use of resources. With that in mind, there will be a 3rd and Norfolk bicycle improvement project action item at this Monday’s Jan. 13 Council meeting, and a Humboldt bike lanes study session item at the Jan. 21 City Council meeting.

Thanks,

Alex

Alex Khojikian
City Manager | City Manager’s Office
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7002 | [email protected]

From: Mike Swire
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2024 10:30 AM
Subject: SMDJ article on rise in crashes in SM

163 of 368

2 Dear SM City Council,

Happy Holidays!

I wanted to share with you the attached article from today's SMDJ. In it, they report on the rising number of crashes on the streets of SM, especially in the North Central neighborhood.

I am disappointed that recent actions of the Council seem to be moving in the wrong direction. In the past two months, the Council has prioritized City resources - staff time and taxpayer $ - in the opposite direction. The City is considering removing the new San Mateo High and College Park Elementary bike lanes, only two years after installation. As the article points out, this is in North Central, the neighborhood with the highest rate of traffic violence in the City, a block from the 101 onramp. In addition, the Council recently tabled the Norfolk pedestrian improvements, in another dangerous and underfunded neighborhood.

Every minute and dollar that is spent rethinking the past threatens the safety of those who walk and bike in the future. Our PW staff is down two key people. We rely on grant funding for many safety improvements. We should instead be focusing our limited resources on finishing the Delaware Safe Routes to School Project, the Hillsdale High/Alameda safety project, the 19th Avenue Fashion Island project, and the dozens of others in our myriad of traffic safety plans.

Thank you,

Mike Swire

Appointee, SMCTA Community Advisory Committee
Chair, C/CAG Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(writing on my own behalf, however)

164 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:06 AM
To: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: Return Parking to Underserved North Central

From: Lisa Taner
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 9:31 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Return Parking to Underserved North Central

Dear Councilmembers,
Appalling situations are easy to stomach when you aren’t front and center. And when you don’t live smack in the middle of it.

But last night, as the sun set, chairs were dragged out to the front of City Hall for some of the North Central San Mateans with canes or those too old to stand. This was their rally and they weren’t going to miss it. The music, clapping, prayers and deman
ds to return parking to their Humboldt Street homes was meant for you to hear - yet again.

Former Mayor Claire Mack (a North Central resident), heads of a local church, members of San Mateo United and Indivisible San Mateo, along with the NAACP stood under the flag at City Hall seeking “justice for all” in support to restore resident parking.

Imagine this happening on your street. 200 parking spaces gone.

Below are the thoughts and miseries expressed last night from those living this reality. Any two or three should prompt your decision to return their parking - even from your armchair.

When friends and family won’t come visit you because there is no parking in front of your home… When you are given a “parking option” blocks away from your home at King Center, but only between the hours of 10 pm and 8 am...

When you’ve had to have signs “RESTORE OUR PARKING NOW” in front of homes all along Humboldt for 2+ years (not counting the days when someone pulls them up and throws them in the bushes)… When avid bicyclists agree that Humboldt as a connector to the highway in multiple places is too busy and dedicated bike lanes aren’t the safest option…
When surveys count bikes that go across Humboldt, but didn’t actually use the bike lane and is counted as 2 bike uses for survey purposes…
When organized special interests groups have more manpower to attend years’ long City meetings and Council feels pressure not to represent their own constituents…

165 of 368

2 When a realtor calls the City and is told parking will be restored and that’s how she sells a Humboldt street home…
When your roofing contractor learns you are headed to this rally and remarks that he hasn’t seen the lane used since he’s been working on your house…
When bikes that are seen riding down Humboldt are using the sidewalk and not the lanes… When a little girl who lives in North Central bravely steps out of the rally crowd to take a microphone and her words are for YOU, the City Council: “Fix it. Fix it. Fix it, now!” Mayor Loraine, admitting you've made a mistake is worthy of respect. You lived in North Central while you were voting to remove their parking. Then you moved away and have not been immersed in the resulting pain. But it is there - every day. These are the people you represent. Not the out of town bike people. Leadership requires strength.

All, what hurts our neighbors hurts us all. Those of you who stepped outside last night to speak with rally members - Talk is CHEAP. North Central is known as an underserved area of San Mateo. Let’s not allow them to continue to struggle.

Righting this now will pave the way for easier acceptance of more well thought-out bike lanes going forward.

I stand with our Humboldt neighbors.

Sincerely,
Lisa Taner

166 of 368

1 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:59 AM
Cc: Matt Fabry; Katherine Sheehan; Jay Yu; Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger Subject: RE: Humboldt Street Bike Lanes and City Survey Data Findings_27JAN2026 Attachments: Taso Zografos Letter to City of San Mateo RE Humboldt Bike Lanes_ 27JAN2026correct.pdf
Good morning, City Council (Bcc’d),

Please note, an updated version of the previously forwarded public comment was received. Kindly see attached.

Best wishes,
Martin

From:

Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 9:33 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]> Subject: Humboldt Street Bike Lanes and City Survey Data Findings_27JAN2026

Dear City Clerk MarƟn McTaggart and San Mateo City Councilmembers –

The purpose of my aƩached leƩer is to formally memorialize and expand upon the public comments I presented at the City Council meeƟngs held on December 15, 2025, and January 12, 2026, regarding the Humboldt Street bike lanes.

At each of those meeƟngs, I provided wriƩen “leave-behind” materials to accompany my public tesƟmony. Enclosed with this leƩer are the leave-behind materials submiƩed at the January 12, 2026 meeƟng, along with limited supplemental notes intended to improve clarity. All data referenced herein was obtained directly from the City through a Public Records Act request.

Based on my review of the City’s own data, I oﬀer the following key ﬁndings. For each point below (Items 1–5), please refer to the corresponding leƩer reference aƩachments (AƩachments 1–5), located on pages 2 through 7 of this submission.

1. The Claim That Zero Humboldt Street Residents Oppose the Bike Lanes Is Not Credible The City’s summary of its in-person community workshop indicates that “ZERO” Humboldt Street residents opposed the bike lanes. This conclusion strains credibility. Such a result would only be possible if no Humboldt Street residents aƩended the workshop. However, mulƟple aƩendees have conﬁrmed that Humboldt Street residents were present and did, in fact, voice opposiƟon. It is therefore not reasonable to conclude that 100% of Humboldt Street residents support the bike lanes—or that “ZERO” residents oppose them.

2. The City Acknowledges AƩempts to Manipulate Online Survey Results The City acknowledges that a signiﬁcant number of online survey submissions were removed due to mulƟple entries originaƟng from the same Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. This conﬁrms that aƩempts were made to manipulate survey results. City-provided data shows that the vast majority of these disqualiﬁed submissions were in favor of retaining the bike lanes. Moreover, the City has no reliable way to verify the true residence of online respondents or to determine

167 of 368

2 whether addiƟonal duplicate submissions were made using diﬀerent devices or IP addresses. An addiƟonal red ﬂag is the claim that only ten (10) Humboldt Street residents opposed the bike lanes online, an outcome that is inconsistent with the volume of resident opposiƟon expressed through public tesƟmony, correspondence, and direct engagement. Given the City’s inability to authenƟcate online survey submissions, the reliability of these results is highly quesƟonable.

3. Mailed Surveys Show a Clear Majority Opposed to the Bike Lanes The City mailed surveys to approximately 4,587 addresses in the North Central neighborhood and received 150 complete responses. The City acknowledges that 68% of these respondents oppose the bike lanes and support restoring parking on Humboldt Street. Breakdown by street is as follows:
 66% of Humboldt Street respondents oppose the bike lanes  67% of Idaho Street respondents oppose the bike lanes  59% of Fremont Street respondents oppose the bike lanes Among the veriﬁable, address-speciﬁc responses received, a clear majority of residents across all three streets oppose the Humboldt Street bike lanes and want curb parking restored.

4. A 3.27% Mail Survey Response Rate Is Insuﬃcient for Public Policy Decisions The City received only 150 responses out of 4,587 mailed surveys, a response rate of approximately 3.27%. Such a low parƟcipaƟon rate is widely regarded as staƟsƟcally unreliable and inappropriate as a basis for major public policy decisions, parƟcularly those involving permanent changes to neighborhood infrastructure.

5. The “Hot Potato” Analysis Piƫng Streets Against One Another Is Not ConstrucƟve The City’s “Hot Potato” survey analysis aƩempts to compare or weigh the views of residents on Humboldt, Idaho, and Fremont Streets against one another. This framing is not construcƟve . The only meaningful conclusion supported by the
data is that a majority of residents on all three streets oppose the bike lanes and support restoring parking on Humboldt Street. Framing the analysis in a way that pits neighbors against one another distracts them from this clear and consistent outcome.

I respecƞully request that the Council reconsider its reliance on ﬂawed and unreliable survey interpretaƟons and give appropriate weight to the City’s own veriﬁable data, as well as to the sustained and documented opposiƟon from directly impacted residents.

Thank you for your Ɵme and consideraƟon.

Taso Zografos, San Mateo Resident

Taso Zografos

168 of 368

T A S O Z O G R A F O S

Page 1 ends

San Mateo City CouncilFebruary 2, 2026

San Mateo City Council
February 2, 2026