San Mateo City Council
May 18, 2026

Responses to Public Comments
Bespoke (445 South B Street)
Mixed-Use Project
File No. PA23-012
December 2025
In ConsultaƟon with
Prepared by

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project i Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Table of Contents
Section 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Section 2.0 Responses to Comments Received on Draft IS/MND ................................................... 2 Section 3.0 Draft IS/MND Text Revisions ...................................................................................... 28 Section 4.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 30

Appendix A: IS/MND Comment Letters
Appendix B: 445 South B Street TDM Plan – Commercial

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project I Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Section 1.0 Introduction
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the 445 South B Street “Bespoke” Mixed-Use project (State Clearinghouse number 2024100181) was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The 30-day public circulation period for the IS/MND started October 4, 2024 and ended November 4, 2024. The following pages contain responses to comments submitted by agencies, organizations, and individuals during the IS/MND public review period. Copies of the comment letters are attached to this document in Appendix A.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15073.5, the recirculation of the MND is only required when the document must be “substantially revised” after public notice of its availability. A “substantial revision” is defined as:

(1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance; or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required.

CEQA does not require formal responses to comments on an IS/MND and the decision-making body shall adopt the proposed ND only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and the MND reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis [CEQA Guidelines §15074(b)]. Given that the project is a public-private partnership, the City is committed to transparency and engaging with members of the community. By offering these responses, the City aims to clarify the issues raised, foster a better understanding of the project, and demonstrate its dedication to addressing community concerns in a thoughtful and responsible manner.

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 2 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Section 2.0 Responses to Comments Received
on Draft IS/MND
Comments are organized under headings containing the source of the letter and its date. The specific comments from each of the letters and/or emails are presented, with each response to that specific comment directly following. Copies of the letters and emails received by the City of San Mateo are included in their entirety in Appendix A of this document. Comments received on the Draft IS/MND are listed below.

Comment Letter and Commenter Page of Response

Federal and State Agencies ............................................................................................................. 3 A. Department of Toxic Substance Control (dated October 21, 2024) ................................. 3 B. California Department of Transportation (dated October 31, 2024) ................................ 6 Organizations, Businesses, and Individuals ..................................................................................... 8 C. Bruce Cunningham (dated November 2, 2024) ................................................................ 8 D. Maurine Killough (dated November 2, 2024) ................................................................... 9 E. Anna Cunningham (dated November 2, 2024) ............................................................... 10 F. Chad Liu (dated November 2, 2024)............................................................................... 11 G. Laurie Watanuki (dated November 4, 2024) .................................................................. 12 H. Peter Mandle (dated November 4, 2024) ...................................................................... 15 I. Tom and Francie Souza (dated November 4, 2024) ....................................................... 16 J. Laurie Hietter (dated November 4, 2024) ...................................................................... 17

Electronic Signs on City-Owned Property Project 3 Responses to Comments City of San José December 2025
Federal and State Agencies
A. Department of Toxic Substance Control (dated October 21, 2024)

Comment A.1: There are several areas of which DTSC has regulatory oversight over that are within the proposed Project site, whether they are listed as having documented contamination, land use restrictions, are subject to a Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, or the potential for the Project site to be included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, DTSC recommends further coordination with the Department in the event that the proposed project may impact any of the areas that may fall under DTSC's oversight. Please review the project area in EnviroStor; DTSC’s public-facing database and coordinate with the Department if any suspected decisions may impact these areas of which DTSC oversees.

Response A.1: As discussed in Section 4.9.1.2, Existing Conditions, and on pages 104 through 109, and 113 of the IS/MND, respectively, the project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, which was determined based on review of EnviroStor and Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) and Phase II ESAs prepared for the project site (refer to Appendix F of the IS/MND). A subsequent review of the EnviroStor database did not identify any listed sites within the project site.
1 The nearest listed site is outside of
the project site boundaries and located off-site at 333 and 335 4th Avenue (Wardrobe Cleaners). This site was identified and disclosed in the Phase I/II ESAs, as well as in the IS/MND on page 108 as a potential off-site recognized environmental concern (RECs). As detailed within the impact analysis in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project would be required to adhere to existing laws, regulations, and permits, to ensure that there would be no impacts related to hazardous materials, including RECs. Furthermore, the project would implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1, as revised (refer to Section 3.0 Draft IS/MND Text Revisions), which would ensure potential contaminants encountered during project construction, such as those from offsite RECs, would be properly handled and disposed of. This comment and subsequent text revisions do not provide new information that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the IS/MND.

Comment A.2: The Project and future CEQA documents should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the Project site due to the release of hazardous wastes/substances on or near the Project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the

1 Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2024. EnviroStor—445 South B Street, San Mateo, CA., USA. Available:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=445+South+B+Street%2C+San+Mateo. Accessed:

November 5, 2024.

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 4 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated.

Response A.2: Potential impacts related to hazardous materials or substances as a result of the project are detailed and evaluated in Section 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the IS/MND (pages 101 through 115). Specifically, impacts to the public or the environment that could occur from the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of the project are disclosed on page 111 through 112 of the IS/MND under checklist question b). Project impacts were found to be less-than-significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1, which would ensure that any contaminated soils on-site would be identified, characterized, removed and disposed of properly prior to ground-disturbing activities, thereby preventing the exposure of construction works or other nearby sensitive receptors to hazardous containing materials that could be encountered during project construction. Revisions have been made to Mitigation Measure HAZ-

1.1 (refer to Section 3.0 Draft IS/MND Text Revisions) to clarify procedural requirements and regulatory oversight roles related to the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1. The proposed revisions would not trigger recirculation because they clarify and amplify information in the analysis and do not constitute “substantial revisions” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines §15073.5. Therefore, this comment and subsequent text revisions do not provide new information that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the IS/MND.

Comment A.3: In section Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1 of the MND it states: “Based on the history of the Project site, areas of impacted soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater may be encountered during construction activities. To establish appropriate management practices for handling and management of impacted soil, soil vapor, and groundwater that may be encountered during construction activities, the applicant shall submit a Site Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) to San Mateo County Environmental Health Department for review and approval.” A SMP alone cannot sufficiently identify and document the potential contaminants that may pose a threat to human health and the environment. DTSC recommends that a cleanup plan, a Removal Action Workplan (RAW) or Remedial Action Plan (RAP), be prepared to adequately address all site impacts after complete characterization.

Response A.3: As discussed under Response A.1, the project site does not fall on a list of hazardous materials sites, and is not subject to oversight by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Accordingly, a cleanup plan, RAW, and RAP are not required for the proposed project. The Phase I and II ESAs prepared for the project site, included as Appendix F to the IS/MND, and as summarized in Section

4.9.1.2, Existing Conditions, of the IS/MND, identified and documented the potential contaminants that may occur on site. These include potential groundwater, soil, and soil vapor contamination resulting from off-site migration. As required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1, the purpose of the SMP and HSP are to provide protocols, measures and techniques for the proper handling, management, re-use or disposal

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 5 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
of contaminated materials encountered during project construction to ensure protection of the health of construction workers, the public, and the environment.

CEQA establishes that mitigation measures must have an essential nexus to the significant impacts of a project. That is, there must be a clear connection between the mitigation measure and the impact it aims to address. Additionally, the mitigation measure must be roughly proportional to the impact, ensuring that the extent of the mitigation is appropriate relative to the severity of the impact. Based on the analyses and site investigations conducted as part of the Phase I and II ESAs, there is no nexus to require a cleanup plan, RAW, or RAP. However, revisions have been made to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1 (refer to Section 3.0 Draft IS/MND Text Revisions) to clarify procedural requirements and regulatory oversight roles related to the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1. The proposed revisions would not trigger recirculation because they clarify and amplify information in the analysis and do not constitute “substantial revisions” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines §15073.5. Therefore, this comment and subsequent text revisions do not provide new information that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the IS/MND.

Comment A.4: DTSC recommends the City of San Mateo enter into a voluntary agreement to address contamination at brownfields and other types of properties or receive oversight from San Mateo County Environmental Health Department, DTSC or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. If entering into one of DTSC’s voluntary agreements, please note that DTSC uses a single standard Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application for all agreement types. Please apply for DTSC oversight using this link: Request for Agency Oversight Application. Submittal of the online application includes an agreement to pay costs incurred during agreement preparation. If you have any questions about the application portal, please contact your Regional Brownfield Coordinator.

Response A.4: The project site is not a brownfield site, and is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. To the extent the comment is intended to serve as a general comment for brownfield sites throughout the City, the comment is outside the scope of the project’s CEQA analysis. This comment does not provide new information that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the IS/MND.

Comment A.5: DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual. Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage.

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 6 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Response A.5: This comment is not applicable to the project. As stated on page 19 in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the IS/MND, the project would not import soil or fill as part of project construction. This comment does not provide new information that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the IS/MND.

Comment A.6: If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual

Response A.6: As stated on page 109 of the IS/MND, the Visual Hazardous Building Materials Survey, included as Appendix G to the IS/MND, determined that asbestos containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paint (LBP) coated surfaces, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are present on the project site. As detailed under checklist question b), potential impacts related to contaminants that could be encountered during project construction, such as ACMs, LBP, and PCBs, would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1.

Furthermore, potential contaminants encountered during project construction activities would be required to be properly handled and disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations as implemented by Cal/OSHA, U.S.

Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. EPA, CalEPA’s Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
2 Clarifying text has been added to page 111 of the
IS/MND (refer to Section 3.0 Draft IS/MND Text Revisions). The proposed revisions would not trigger recirculation because they clarify and amplify information in the analysis and do not constitute “substantial revisions” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines §15073.5. Therefore, this comment and subsequent text revisions do not provide new information that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the IS/MND.

B. California Department of Transportation (dated October 31, 2024)

Comment B.1: Project Understanding The proposed project is a mixed-use development that would construct two new buildings over a shared subterranean parking garage. The first would be a seven-story, 100 percent affordable residential building with a Center for Self-Help for the elderly.

The second would be a six-story commercial building with office and retail/restaurant space. The

2 BAAQMD is now known as the Bay Area Air District (BAAD).

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 7 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
project site is located in Downtown San Mateo between State Route 82 (SR 82) and U.S. Route 101 (U.S. 101).

Response B.1: This comment accurately summarizes what is being proposed by the project, as detailed in Section 3.0 of the IS/MND. This comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the IS/MND, therefore, no further response is required.

Comment B.2: Travel Demand Analysis This high-density, mixed-use infill development project would provide 71 new affordable housing units in a high-quality transit area. Per the IS/MND, the project is found to have a less than significant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact, therefore working towards meeting the State’s VMT reduction goals. The project would also implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to encourage multimodal options, which is also in support of meeting state policy goals on VMT reduction.

Response B.2: This comment accurately summarizes that the project is located in a high-quality transit area and would result in a less than significant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact. As noted in the comment, project’s that result in less than significant VMT impacts support the State’s overall VMT reduction goals. In addition, this comment accurately states that the project’s commercial building would implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to further reduce VMT and encourage multimodal options in accordance with the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) TDM Policy. There are no TDM requirements for the residential building. This has been clarified in Section 3.0 Draft IS/MND Text Revisions. this comment and subsequent text revisions does not provide new information that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the IS/MND.

Comment B.3: Construction-Related Impacts Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits (link). Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN).

Response B.3: In the event that the project requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways, the applicant would apply for and obtain a Caltrans Transportation Permit prior to construction. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 8 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Organizations, Businesses, and Individuals
C. Bruce Cunningham (dated November 2, 2024)

Comment C.1: Please accept these comments on the BeSpoke – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. My comments specifically concern the Traffic Impact Analysis that would change East 5th Avenue (from Delaware to Amphlett) from the current Class III Bike lane to a Class II Bike Lane.

Specifically, the change to a Class II Bike Lane would remove parking on one side of the street, eliminate the possibility for future traffic calming, and subsequently cause several problems.

Response C.1:

The project, as proposed, would not modify any bicycle facilities. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment C.2: Removing the parking from one side of the street will cause difficulties for residents. Our block of East 5th Avenue (between Grant and Humbolt) is completely parked up every evening and night. About half of these cars belong to people who rent housing along East 4th Avenue where there is no street parking. We know this from having watched families carry groceries and young children around the block from where they park in front of our house, to where they live. By removing parking along one side of our block, these residents will have to park even further from the places where they live.

Response C.2:

As noted in Response C.1, the project does not propose modifications to bicycle facilities and would therefore not result in the loss of any on-street parking, as stated on page 183 of the IS/MND. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment C.3: Removing the parking from one side of the street will cause conflict among neighbors. On Monday evenings residents put their garbage, recycling, and compost bins on the curb. Residents attempting to park on this block often move the bins (either off the street or to a place that blocks driveways) to create room for parking. This has caused shouting matches between residents along the street and the people needing to park their cars. We know this from having heard these disputes and speaking with our neighbors. By removing parking along one side of our block these conflicts are likely to become more frequent and intense.

Response C.3:

Refer to Responses C.1 and C.2. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment C.4: East 5th Avenue is already in need of additional traffic calming measures. With the opening of the Kiku Crossing and Kiku Crossing Garage developments, more and more drivers are using East 5th Avenue as a route to Highway 101. We know this because we see these drivers travel

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 9 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
east on East 5th Avenue and then turn left on Humbolt and then right on East 4th Avenue to access the Highway 101 north and south on-ramps. These drivers attempt to beat the traffic on East 4th Avenue by speeding from intersection to intersection - they screech to a stop at each cross street or only make a rolling stop, and then accelerate rapidly to the next intersection only to repeat this process. This creates excess noise, pollution from car exhaust, but most of all, makes it hazardous for residents to cross East 5th Avenue. Frankly, it is scary to even use a crosswalk when you have no guarantee that cars will stop for you, or that they might rapidly cross the intersection before you have made it across the street. We know this from walking our two-year old grandson around our neighborhood every weekday.

Response C.4: The comment is non-CEQA related, as the CEQA Guidelines no longer require Level of Service (LOS) analyses for evaluating transportation impacts pursuant to SB 743. A non-CEQA Level of Service (LOS) analysis was completed for the project (refer to pages 188 to 192 of the IS/MND). The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment C.5: In summary, please do not change the status of East 5th Avenue from Delaware to Amphlett to a Class II Bike Lane for the following reasons:

• There are other streets within the vicinity of the BeSpoke project site that are more suitable for bike access and that already have dedicated bike lanes, and these include East 9th Avenue, Delaware, and Humbold
• Parking on both sides of East 5th Avenue is needed to serve the needs of residents. • Traffic calming measures on East 5th Avenue are already needed for the safety of the residents and must not be ruled out for the future.

Please preserve the family-friendly environment of this wonderful tree-lined street we try to call home. Thank you.

Response C.5: Refer to Responses C.1 through C.3. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

D. Maurine Killough (dated November 2, 2024)

Comment D.1: This is a huge project and helps San Mateo address housing. I am concerned that the construction finds it necessary to remove all of the existing trees. I would like to see us conserve trees as well as put in more green.

Response D.1: The project would remove all 23 on-site trees (18 of which are street streets), as detailed on pages 18 and 61 of the IS/MND. According to the Arborist Report, five trees are in good condition, fifteen in fair condition, and three in poor condition (refer to Appendix B of the IS/MND). Pursuant to the City’s Municipal

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 10 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Code Section 23.40, the project would be required to either replace removed trees with equivalent trees in terms of Landscape Unit value (LU Value) or pay landscape unit in-lieu fees in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule.

Additionally, pursuant to Chapter 27.71 of the City’s Municipal Code, the project is required to provide a landscaping area of 1,625 square feet and would be required to plant one tree or pay equivalent in-lieu fees for every 400 square feet of required landscaping area (equivalent to a landscape unit value of 4.06). The project proposes to plant four 36-inch box trees, each of which have a landscape unit value of 3.0 pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 27.71 (total landscape unit value of 9.0).

The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment D.2: I'm also concerned about any changes for 5th Avenue which is a residential Street.

We would like to keep parking on both sides.

Response D.2: The comment is non-CEQA related, as the CEQA Guidelines does not require parking analyses and the project is not proposing any changes to 5th Avenue. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment D.3: I'm not sure if the architecture has already been approved but the glass and steel design does not go with the design element of our sweet historic downtown.

Thank you for considering these comments as we move forward with this project.

Response D.3: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND. Pursuant to SB 743, aesthetic impacts of residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center projects located within a transit priority area are not considered significant under CEQA.

E. Anna Cunningham (dated November 2, 2024)

Comment E.1: I am writing to share my household's opinion about the BeSpoke Project. I understand that as part of this plan, E 5th Ave (between Delaware and Amphett) is reclassified as a Minor Arterial and will be converted to a Class II Bike Lane, which would remove residential street parking on at least one side of the street. I live on this street and have great concern about the safety and feasibility of this plan.

This street is almost always full with residents' cars, including residents who cannot park on Humboldt anymore because of the added bike lane there. Most driveways are occupied by cars too.

I don't know where everyone would park if street parking on 5th was removed. Some people may be able to fit two cars in their driveway, but this would lead to more cars backing out of driveways,

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 11 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
which is a hazard to bicyclists moving at high speed in the bike lane. There are other wider streets that bicyclists can use instead, for example, E 9th Ave, which already has a dedicated bike lane and is also connected with bike lanes on Humboldt, Grant, and Delaware.

My greater concern is about the speed of cars on E 5th Ave if it is reclassified as a Minor Arterial and more traffic is redirected here. Many families on this street have young children who walk or ride scooters on the sidewalks often. The medians between the sidewalk and street on 5th are not very wide - not nearly as wide as the ones on 4th and 3rd Aves, which have faster-moving traffic. I would be extremely concerned about pedestrian safety, especially of small children, walking so close to traffic. Currently, there is low traffic on this street and I would like to see better research into whether people would actually drive on this street (presumably to get from 101 to downtown?) or if the improved Caltrain schedule will encourage people to use that instead.

Thank you for reading and please let me know if you would like to discuss more.

Response E.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND, as the project does not propose any changes to bicycle facilities or roadway classifications.

F. Chad Liu (dated November 2, 2024)

Comment F.1: My name is Chad Liu and I am reaching out to express significant concerns regarding the BeSpoke Project and its implications for E 5th Ave. As part of this project, E 5th Ave is proposed to be reclassified as a Minor Arterial. As a resident of this street, I am alarmed by the potential safety hazards this plan could introduce. This is a primarily residential street, if anything, traffic should be limited instead of increased.

Response F.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND, as the project does not propose any changes to roadway classifications. Street classifications are determined by Caltrans.

Comment F.2: Our street is also consistently occupied by residents' vehicles, and with the recent addition of a bike lane on Humboldt, parking has become even scarcer. The removal of street parking on E 5th would not only exacerbate this issue but also increase the risk of accidents as more vehicles would need to back out into the bike lane—posing a danger to swiftly moving bicyclists.

There are broader streets nearby, such as E 9th Ave, that already accommodate bicyclists effectively and would be safer alternatives for this infrastructure.

Response F.2: The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND, as the project does not propose any changes to 5th Avenue.

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 12 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Comment F.3: Most critically, I am deeply concerned about the increase in traffic speed that could result from reclassifying E 5th as a Minor Arterial. Many families, including mine, have young children live on this street, and the narrow medians do not provide sufficient buffer from the traffic, unlike those on neighboring avenues. The safety of these children, who frequently play and ride scooters near the roadway, could be severely compromised. I strongly advocate for slowing down traffic on E 5th to protect our community, rather than accelerating it. We must consider whether the anticipated traffic increase is justified or whether improved public transit options might mitigate the need for such changes.

I appreciate your attention to these matters and am eager to discuss them further to find a solution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our community. Thank you.

Response F.3: Refer to Response F.1 above. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

G. Laurie Watanuki (dated November 4, 2024)

Comment G.1: Cumulative Health Risk Assessment

1. Table 5 - There are 6 projects listed in the cumulative Health Risk Assessment, but there are other approved projects which should be added to the list:
• 1st and B at 31-57 S. B street - Donut Delite,
• Fremont Terrace at 200 S Fremont
• Gateway Terrace at 222 Fremont.

These other projects all fall within the blue area designated- between Birch St., Monte Diablo Avenue, S Idaho Street and El Camino Real on Figure 02. These projects will add to the air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from construction, but were not included in the analysis.

Response G.1: As stated of on page 218 of the IS/MND, the analysis of toxic air contaminants took into account cumulative sources within 1,000 feet per BAAQMD guidelines. All three projects listed by the commenter are located over 1,000 feet from the project boundary and were therefore not included consistent with BAAQMD guidelines, as health risk is based on localized conditions and beyond that distance of 1,000 feet, the health risk from other sources would not be substantial.

The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment G.2: Figure 02- There are 7 day care centers/schools identified on the map, but the residential neighborhoods - North Central, Central, Sunnybrae, the Stratford, Gramercy, Glazenwood, and the Downtown were not identified within the blue areas. How do you plan to address the exposure to the air pollutants and toxic air contaminants during construction for residents and children in these daycare/schools? Do you plan to stagger the construction of all these 9 approved projects?

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 13 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Response G.2: Construction schedules of the cumulative projects identified in Table

4.21-1 of the IS/MND have the potential to overlap. Therefore, the IS/MND accounted for the cumulative health risks associated with the construction of these projects and determined that the cumulative cancer risk exceedance was due to the existing railways sources (refer to Response G.1 above), which have since been fully electrified. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment G.3: Arborist Report

1. The project removes all 23 existing trees on site, all which are protected trees. We would like to see more Heritage Tree be preserved to protect the surrounding area from the toxic air contaminants. Replacement trees by developers need to be a larger box size in the future since it will take many years for these trees to grow to maximum heights.

Response G.3: As stated on page 61 of the IS/MND, the project proposes to remove all 23 trees from the site; therefore, the project would be required to obtain a Site Development Permit in accordance with City Municipal Code Section 23.40, and either replace removed trees with equivalent trees in terms of land use value or pay landscape unit in-lieu fees in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule.

Pages 46 through 49 of the IS/MND present the findings of the project’s community health risk assessment. As shown in Table 4.3-5 of the IS/MND, the project’s construction impacts would below applicable thresholds with the implementation of Condition of Approval AIR-1. As shown in Table 4.3-6 of the IS/MND, the project’s operational impacts would be below BAAQMD thresholds. Accordingly, the IS/MND concluded that the project would have a less than significant construction- and operational-related community health risk impact. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment G.4: Traffic Impact Analysis

1. Bicycle lanes on East 5th Avenue - we would like to keep the Class III Bicycle Boulevard and residential parking on both sides of the street between Delaware and Amphlett. All the signs and markings in the pavement for the Bicycle Boulevard are completed on 5th Avenue and Humboldt Street. We have concerns for increased traffic, parking, and air quality with 9 approved projects in the vicinity. There are other wider streets with dedicated bike lanes on Humboldt and 9th that bicyclists can also be directed to.

Response G.4: Please see Response C.1 above. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND. The project would not modify any bicycle facilities.

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 14 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Comment G.5: 2. We would like Public Works to pursue the reclassification of East 5th Avenue from a minor arterial to a non-arterial classification with Caltrans since we are nearing the end of 2024.

The Class III Bike Boulevards qualify for traffic calming according to the Traffic Impact Analysis for Bespoke.

Response G.5: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND. The project does not propose any changes to roadway classifications. Street classifications are determined by Caltrans.

Comment G.6: 3. A Survey of Caltrain and SamTrans usage in the Downtown is needed. The Traffic Impact Analysis presumes as many of 814 people in the 2 buildings (residential and office/retail) are going walk, bike, or take Caltrain and SamTrans. This project adds 1,092 vehicle trips daily to our streets. It would be helpful if Fehr and Peers could do a survey of workers and residents in the new surrounding Downtown developments to see if they drive or take transit to work or to shop. Do these businesses or developers provide transit passes:

303 Baldwin (former Trags)
180 E 3rd (former Aaron Bros)
2 East Third/El Camino Real
1 East 3rd/El Camino Real
Kiku Crossing Residential
405 East 4th (former Endo Automotive and Honda Motors)
406 East 3rd Avenue (former Kentucky Fried Chicken)
Nazareth Plaza Mixed Use at B St and 9th Avenue

Response G.6: This comment incorrectly states that the project would result in 814 daily trips via non-auto modes of travel. As stated on pages 27 and 50 of the TIA (refer to Appendix I of the IS/MND), the project would generate approximately 961 daily trips by walking, bicycling, or transit. This was calculated based on a combination of trip generation data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) MXD methodology.

The issue of whether existing residents and workers in the downtown use transit has no connection to the project.

Comment G.7: 4. There will be a Caltrans Project on 101 from September 2024 to April 2025 and the 4th Avenue 101 South entrance to 101 will be closed. So the construction trucks from all projects and commercial traffic will need to take El Camino to 92 to 101 with the interim closure.

Response G.7: It is anticipated that the Caltrans project referenced by the commenter will be complete prior to the start of construction for the proposed

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 15 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
project. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

H. Peter Mandle (dated November 4, 2024)

Comment H.1: I would like to offer the following comments regarding the 445 South B Street "Bespoke" Mixed Use Project:

A. As a result of this project, once or twice a month (or an estimated 16 days/year) queues of stopped vehicles are expected to back-up along on to East Fourth Avenue, immediately in front of the Caltrain tracks, and potentially block Fourth Avenue traffic trying to cross the tracks and turn into South Railroad Avenue. This is because the site layout and planned location of waste containers forces garbage trucks to regularly block South Railroad Avenue while collecting project waste. Does the City consider this a safe condition?

Response H.1: An analysis of the project’s trash collection is provided on pages 187 to 188 of the IS/MND. During waste collection, the rear of the vehicle would extend across the width of South Railroad Avenue and block through access for other vehicles. A maximum of three bins would be collected on any given day for the office and residential waste collection combined. A queue analysis was performed as part of the TIA (refer to Appendix I of the IS/MND), which concluded that a vehicle queue that extends to East 4th Avenue by two vehicles would occur about 16 days a year
(assumes worst-case 15-minute peak period of 6:15-6:30 AM). There is sufficient space within the East 4th Avenue/South Railroad Avenue intersection to accommodate one vehicle that moves off the tracks should a train arrive while the car is waiting to turn onto South Railroad Avenue. Most of the traffic anticipated to queue behind the waste collection vehicle represents existing volumes and not Project trips; these would likely reroute around South Railroad Avenue if queueing occurs. For these reasons, the IS/MND concluded that waste collection operations would not substantially interfere with traffic operations within the public right-of- way.

Comment H.2: B. Motorists exiting the project onto South Railroad Avenue may be unable to see pedestrians walking by on the adjacent sidewalk as the sight distance provided is inadequate. To remedy this unsafe condition, the project proposes to provide an alarm bell to alert pedestrians that a vehicle is exiting up the driveway. While common in very large cities, is there a similar example of the use of alarm bells in San Mateo to compensate for unsafe or inadequate sight lines? Is this considered an acceptable design by the City?

Response H.2: As stated on page 186 of the IS/MND, the project would utilize an alarm system to alert pedestrians of vehicle departures to address the limited sight distance, which is typical for an urban building, as noted by the comment. With this control in place, the IS/MND concluded that pedestrian safety would not be significantly compromised. Whether alarm bells have been implemented in other projects has no connection to the project.

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 16 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Comment H.3: C. The report states that those employees who drive to work and are unable to park on the site will park in the City's Central Garage and Kiku Crossing garage. Do these garages provide sufficient spaces to accommodate these additional parkers as well as expected future growth from people working or shopping downtown? What plans are there to replace the public parking spaces in the Fourth and B Street Lot to be displaced by this project?

Response H.3: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND because the reduction of parking is a social, not environmental impact. The project site is located less than a quarter mile to the San Mateo Caltrain station; therefore, the City of San Mateo cannot enforce minimum parking requirements on the proposed Project.

Comment H.4: D. Despite the large size of the project, the developer is not being required to make any off-site improvements, or even widen sidewalks other than expand existing bulb outs at two intersections. The developer is not planning to contribute to the costs of improved bus shelters. The developer is not being asked or required to make any investments to improve pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or traffic operations. The only requirements to improve mobility are to:

(a) develop a plan to coordinate loading operations with Draeger's (note: just a "plan", not actual actions)
(b) monitor loading operations to ensure they do not impede use of sidewalks or local traffic circulation or otherwise result in unsafe conditions

Even if impediments do occur, the developer need only "work with the City" to develop onstreet spaces to accommodate freight and passenger loading activities.

Given the City's traffic problems and the number of people who cite downtown congestion as an issue, it is disappointing that yet another large project may be approved without any requirement to help improve our City's mobility or improve the safety of our streets.

Response H.4: Vehicle delay, or congestion, caused by a project is not considered an impact on the environment with passage of SB 743. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

I. Tom and Francie Souza (dated November 4, 2024)

Comment I.1: These comments pertain to the BeSpoke - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. My husband and I are residents of Central San Mateo and would like to emphasize the following points:

Please DO NOT RECLASSIFY East 5th Avenue from Delaware to Amphlett. This street is a busy NEIGHBORHOOD street with many pedestrians, including families and children on their way to

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 17 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
school. East 5th should not be considered a speedy way to get to the freeway. Currently it is classified as Class III Bicycle Blvd, with residential parking on both sides of the street, as well as traffic calming measures at intersections. We do not want it changed to Class II, which would remove one side of street parking and traffic calming measures. We are very concerned about traffic impacts with multiple projects in and around our community.

Response I.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND, as the project does not propose any changes to bicycle facilities or roadway classifications.

Comment I.2: In the last General Plan update, East 5th Avenue was reclassified to Minor Arterial from Delaware to Amphlett. Public Works stated they would request reclassification to non-arterial and this would be reviewed by CalTrans by the end of 2024. We want to ensure that this occurs.

Response I.2: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND, as the project does not propose any changes to bicycle facilities or roadway classifications.

Comment I.3: Finally, we would like the city to survey workers and residents in the newer surrounding developments to determine how many residents commute via CalTrain or SamTrans or in their own cars. I’m aware that some businesses provide CalTrain passes, but not all commuters use them due to inconsistencies with schedules etc. This is an important point for Planning to consider to determine parking requirements and traffic calming measures for the surrounding community in San Mateo.

Response I.3: As stated on page 183 of the IS/MND, the project’s additional transit trips can be accommodated by existing transit routes and services. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

J. Laurie Hietter (dated November 4, 2024)

Comment J.1: Proposed Project

The project is inappropriately aggregating an office building and a residential project to obtain concessions and density bonuses. These are two separate projects, and the office building should not receive the density bonus.

Response J.1: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment J.2: Figure 2.4-3 does not adequately show surrounding residential land uses. The map should show at least 500 feet and preferably 1,000 feet from the project site.

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 18 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Response J.2: There is no requirement under CEQA to delineate on a map residential uses within a certain distance of the proposed project. The noted figure depicts land uses on the blocks surrounding the site, the areas that would be primarily impacted by the project. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment J.3: The 148,939 square feet of office space will have a significant adverse impact on housing. The building could house 992 people at 150 sq ft per person.

Response J.3: As there are no housing units currently on the subject block, the office space proposed would not have an adverse impact on any existing housing. Private development projects are reviewed for conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment J.4: The lack of ground floor retail is in conflict with the downtown plan and represents a significant impact.

Response J.4: As stated on page 15 of the IS/MND, the commercial building would include all of the proposed retail square footage (13,995 square feet) as a ground floor use. The comment provides no basis to conclude the amount of ground floor retail included in the project is related to any environmental impacts. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment J.5: The 85- and 87-foot heights of the two buildings will result in a significant adverse effect related to wind and shadow. How will this be mitigated?

Response J.5: Neither the City of San Mateo nor the CEQA statute, Guidelines, or case law prescribe thresholds with respect to wind and shadow impacts nor does the comment raise a fair argument that the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to wind or shadow. In an urban environment, buildings commonly shade adjacent or nearby properties.

Comment J.6: The 37 parking places are not adequate for the 71 units. This will cause a significant adverse effect on neighbors by parking in residential neighborhoods.

Response J.6: The amount of parking is a social not environmental impact, as CEQA does not treat parking spaces as environmental resources affected by a project. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment J.7: Define the width of the sidewalks.

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 19 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Response J.7: The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND as sidewalk width is not an CEQA issue.

Comment J.8: Aesthetics
The photos should include a photo of the Kiku Crossing to show the adjacent high-rise building.

Response J.8: Pursuant to SB 743 (Public Resources Code section 21099[d][1]) “aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment;” therefore, the aesthetics impacts of the project would not, by statute, be significant. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment J.9: Air Quality

pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines states: “Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. …Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.”

The impact analysis for cumulatively considerable net increase relies on the BAAQMD screening criteria to determine the project effect is insignificant but fails to evaluate the combined effects of the additional 10 projects the city has approved in the last few years. It is inadequate to assert the cumulative impact is not significant because the project impact is not significant. Some of these cumulative projects, or the 7 projects under consideration, may be constructed at the same time as this proposed project. The project may in itself result in insignificant impacts but the cumulative impacts to air quality and public health would likely be significant when added together.

Please provide a cumulative air and health assessment to determine whether the cumulative impacts are significant.

Response J.9: Cumulative air quality impacts (including health risk impacts) are presented on pages 214 through 215 of the IS/MND. The project’s cumulative criteria pollutant impacts are presented in Section 4.3 Air Quality, where it is explained the project is well below the screening levels used to determine when a project could have a cumulatively considerable contribution to operational criteria pollutant impacts in the Bay Area Air Basin.

A cumulative community risk impact assessment was completed for the project and is summarized in Table 4.21-1 of the IS/MND. The analysis of toxic air contaminants

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 20 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
took into account cumulative sources within 1,000 feet per the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidelines. All three projects listed by the commenter are located over 1,000 feet from the project boundary and were therefore not included, consistent with BAAQMD guidelines. As shown in Table 4.21- 1 of the IS/MND, the existing railway sources are the primary cause of the cancer risk exceedance, not the foreseeable future cumulative projects. Consistent with BAAQMD guidance, since the project’s contributions are below the single-source project-level thresholds, and the cumulative impact is attributable to a single predominant source (Caltrain) the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution. Further, as stated on page 215 of the IS/MND, the cumulative contribution from the rail line would decrease substantially once Caltrain electrification is completed (which happened on September 1, 2024). The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment J.10: Table 4.3-5: Project Construction Impacts at Off-Site MEI The proposed project cancer risk is close to the threshold at 8.07 (controlled). The cumulative impact of multiple projects would be significant, and the 8.07 cancer risk is a considerable contribution. Please provide the cumulative impact analysis.

Response J.10: As shown in Table 4.3-3, a project’s single source cancer risk would be significant if it exceeded BAAQMD’s 10 per one million threshold. As stated in the comment and shown in Table 4.3-5 of the IS/MND, the project’s cancer risk would be below the applicable threshold, and that threshold is also used to determine whether a project’s contribution to a cumulative impact is cumulatively considerable. Refer to Response J.9 above for a detailed response on the cumulative impact analysis.

Comment J.11: Biology
Removing 23 protected trees is a significant impact, especially when considered with the trees removed by the previously approved 10 downtown projects and the 7 projects under consideration.

This project is a significant contribution to the loss of heritage trees downtown. The loss of so many heritages trees downtown is inconsistent with the policy of preserving heritage trees. Providing in lieu fees is deferred mitigation because there is no evidence any trees are planted.

The project proposes to replace 260 landscape units with 9 landscape units. This is unacceptable!

Response J.11: As stated on page 61 of the IS/MND, the project proposes to remove all 23 trees from the site; therefore, the project would be required to obtain a Site Development Permit in accordance with City Municipal Code Section 23.40, and either replace removed trees with equivalent trees in terms of land use value or pay landscape unit in-lieu fees in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule. The City has established replacement requirements in the Municipal Code that adequately offset tree removal proposed by the project. All in-lieu tree replacement fees are deposited into the City’s planting fund and the money is used

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 21 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
to plant trees throughout the City. This season, the City will plant approximately 200 trees in street-side planting strips and in City parks.

Comment J.12: Energy
Please provide the amount of solar energy provided for the proposed project in megawatts and compare it to expected consumption. What percentage of energy needs will the solar supply?

Response J.12: As stated on pages 79 and 80 of the IS/MND, the project would reduce electricity usage by providing a photovoltaic system. Accordingly, the IS/MND concludes that the project would have a less than significant impact on energy. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND and no revisions are required.

Comment J.13: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The Site History description states the area included an auto service repair shop, which typically results in groundwater contamination with fuel, oil, and lubricants. Paint shops and dry cleaners often result in contamination. The next paragraph On-Site Sources of Contamination includes the statement “There are no prior uses of the site that constitute a source of contamination…” and later “According to historical records, gasoline service stations and automotive repair shops with USTs have been located in the vicinity of the subject property since the 1920s.” Please explain or correct this contradiction.

Response J.13: Page 105 of the IS/MND correctly states that there are no prior uses on-site that constitute a source of contamination. It is documented in the IS/MND that off-site sources of contamination are affecting the project site. This impact is expected to be reduced to less than a significant level through the implementation of MM HAZ 1-1.

Comment J.14: The Phase II study was conducted in 2020 and another one in 2022. According to the EPA, “If redevelopment plans change or more than 180 days have passed since the Environmental Site Assessment, additional assessment may be needed…Additional assessment gives confidence to the community and investors and ensures a safe reuse.” Since the Phase II studies were conducted, the Kiku Crossing and garage were constructed. Please provide the analysis that indicates the 2022 Phase II study is still valid.

Response J.14: The operations at the project site have not changed since the Phase II environmental subsurface investigations were performed in 2022.

Comment J.15: The 2022 Phase II testing showed many soil samples exceeded standards for constituents such as Naphthalene, PCE, arsenic, lead, and barium. The 2020 and 2022 Phase II groundwater and soil vapor testing showed samples exceeded standards. Please provide this

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 22 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
information (constituent, number of samples, levels, standards, exceeds yes/no) in a table format so it is easier for the reader to see all the standards exceeded and for which constituents.

Response J.15: The information requested in the comment is provided in the bullet lists on pages 106 through 108 of the IS/MND. The bullet lists describe the specific contaminants that were detected and the levels at which they were detected. The bullet lists provide sufficient detail to inform the CEQA analysis. Refer to Appendix F of the IS/MND for additional details. The IS/MND concluded that the levels of various contaminants that exceeded various regulatory screenining levels posed a potential risk; therefore, the project would implement MM HAZ-1.1 as disclosed on page 112 of the IS/MND.

Comment J.16: MM HAZ-1.1 is deferred mitigation because it just requires a plan but does not include any specifics as to how the health and safety of workers, residents, and the public will be protected. What “protocols, measures, and techniques for the proper handling, management, re- use and/or disposition of affected soil, soil vapor, and groundwater found on the site” will be implemented?

Response J.16: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1 on page 112 of the IS/MND requires the preparation of a Site Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) by a qualified environmental engineering firm to be approved by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department. Implementation of this measure, required as a Condition of Approval, ensures the active protection of health and safety during the entire construction process. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND and no revisions are required. In accordance with standard industry practice, the SMP and HSP will be tailored to the specific conditions of the project site, ensuring that the protocols, measures, and techniques will be appropriate for the actual conditions encountered. Additionally, the SMP and HSP must be reviewed and approved by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department. This regulatory oversight will ensure that the plans meet stringent health and safety standards designed to protect construction workers, the public, and the environment. The requirement that the plans be prepared by a qualified environmental engineering firm with demonstrated expertise ensures that the plans will be comprehensive and effective. The involvement of appropriately-licensed professionals adds a layer of accountability and expertise. Moreover, the mitigation measure mandates that the approved SMP and HSP be implemented throughout all ground-disturbing work. Proof of approval from the County Environmental Health Department must be provided before any building permits are issued by the City.

This pre-construction requirement ensures that the mitigation measures are in place and approved before any activities that may encounter potentially hazardous activities begin. Finally, the requirement for a Discharge Plan to be approved by the Director of Public Works before dewatering activities adds another layer of protection, ensuring that any water management issues are addressed in advance.

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 23 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
By requiring detailed, site-specific plans that are subject to regulatory review and approval, and by ensuring these plans are implemented and monitored throughout the construction process, the mitigation measure provides a robust framework for protecting health and safety. This approach aligns with CEQA’s requirements for effective mitigation and does not constitute deferred mitigation

Comment J.17: p. 112
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

The analysis of the effects on schools should include the Safari Kids pre-school located 2 blocks away. This impact is significant and should be described and thoroughly mitigated with effective and verifiable mitigation.

Response J.17: Safari Kids Pre-school is located within 0.25 miles of the project site (refer to Section 3.0 Draft IS/MND Text Revisions). As discussed under checklist question a) on page 110 of the IS/MND, operation of the project would routinely store and use small quantities of cleaning supplies, maintenance chemicals, maintenance chemicals, and herbicides and pesticides. Operation of the project would also require the storage of diesel fuel associated with occasional testing and use of emergency generators during power failures. No other hazardous materials would be used or stored on the sites. These materials would be managed in accordance with existing laws and regulations under the County Environmental Health’s permission and supervision. The County Environmental Health staff confirmed that a diesel generator for a project of this scale typically requires a storage tank with a capacity of over 200 gallons. A permit is required when on-site diesel storage exceeding 55 gallons. This permit must be renewed annually and includes biannual inspections to ensure that the routine transport, storage, use, and disposal of diesel fuel do not pose a significant hazard to public health or the environment. During construction, the project would implement mitigation measure MM HAZ-1.1 identified under checklist question b) and would not emit significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts from construction or operation.

This clarification has been made to the IS/MND (refer to Section 3.0 Draft IS/MND Text Revisions). This comment and subsequent text revisions do not provide new information that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the IS/MND.

Comment J.18: Condition of Approval HAZ-1 is not demonstrated to be effective or verifiably protect the health and safety of residents on site and nearby. Please provide more information on how this measure would mitigate the effects on health and safety.

The neighbors should be notified when any air, waste, soil, or water discharge occurs that may affect public health and safety in the area.

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 24 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Response J.18: As discussed on page 51 of the IS/MND, effects of the existing environment on future residents or occupants of the project are not considered CEQA impacts, as CEQA is focused on the effects a project will have on the environmental setting. The discussion of health effects on future residents of the project was included in the IS/MND for informational purposes because the City has General Plan policies (LU 8.9 and LU 8-11) that address existing air quality conditions affecting a proposed project. The comment claims that Condition of Approval HAZ-1 “is not demonstrated to be effective or verifiably protect the health and safety of residents on site and nearby,” but does not provide facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts to support this claim.

Condition of Approval HAZ-1.1 adequately addresses operational impact related to groundwater and soil contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents by requiring implementation of a vapor mitigation system that will minimize the risk of exposure to future employees and residents.. The commentor has not provided any other information that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the IS/MND.

Comment J.19: Land Use
The project design is not harmonious, which is a conflict with General Plan Policy

Response J.19: The project’s compatibility with the General Plan is presented on page 133 to 134 of the IS/MND. The project’s consistency with General Plan policies, Municipal Code requirements, and other City policies as they pertain to specific environmental impacts associated with a development of the proposed size and use have been evaluated throughout this IS/MND and found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The comment expresses an opinion regarding the project design. As noted in Section 4.1 Aesthetics, the project’s aesthetic impacts are considered less than significant by statute pursuant to SB 743. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment J.20: Noise
The noise levels at sensitive receptors will be significant and unavoidable at 90 dBA. Mitigation Measure MM NOI-1.1 is not adequate to protect sensitive receptors.

Response J.20: As stated on page 149, implementation of mitigation measure MM NOI-1.1 would reduce construction noise levels coming from the site, limit construction hours, minimize disruption and annoyance, and ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and General Plan Policy N-2.2. The measure requires that the project prepare a Construction Noise Plan that demonstrates that noise levels during demolition or construction will not exceed 90 A-weighted sound level (dBA) at distance of 25 feet from the source of noise. The comment does not provide any substantial evidence to the contrary to suggest that the implementation of MM NOI-1.1 would not reduce noise levels below 90 dBA.

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 25 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Comment J.21: G: the measure should state the areal extent for coordination with local residents.

Define what scheduling would minimize noise disturbances.

Response J.21: As stated on page 148 of the IS/MND, the Construction Noise Plan applies to distances of 25 feet from the source of noise. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment J.22: Traffic
The Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Plan must be included and analyzed in the IS/MND.

Response J.22: The project is not required to implement a TDM to reduce a CEQA impact, there is no requirement that it be included in in the IS/MND The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment J.23: A Survey of Caltrain and SamTrans usage in the Downtown is needed. The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates at least 814 people in the 2 buildings (residential and office/retail) are going to walk, bike, or take Caltrain and SamTrans. This project adds 1,092 vehicle trips daily to our streets. It would be helpful if Fehr and Peers could do a survey of workers and residents in the new surrounding Downtown developments to see if they drive or take transit to work or to shop. Please indicate whether these businesses or developers provide transit passes:

• 303 Baldwin (former Trag’s)
• 180 E 3rd (former Aaron Bros)
• 2 East Third/El Camino Real
• 1 East 3rd/El Camino Real
• Kiku Crossing Residential
• 405 East 4th (former Endo Automotive and Honda Motors) • 406 East 3rd Avenue (former Kentucky Fried Chicken)
• Nazareth Plaza Mixed Use at B St and 9th Avenue

Response J.23: See Response G.6 above.

Comment J.24: The parking is inadequate and will cause significant impacts in the adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Response J.24: See Response J.6 above.

Comment J.25: Please describe how the Caltrans Project on 101 from September 2024 to April 2025 and the 4th Avenue 101 South entrance to 101 closures will affect the project and the cumulative impacts. Did the traffic analysis consider the closures?

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 26 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Response J.25: It is anticipated that the Caltrans project referenced by the commenter will be complete prior to the start of construction for the proposed project. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment J.26: Please work with Caltrans to reclassify East 5th Avenue from a minor arterial to a non-arterial classification.

Response J.26: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND as the project is not proposing any changes to roadway classifications. Street classifications are determined by Caltrans.

Comment J.27: Keep the Class III Bicycle Boulevard and residential parking on both sides of the street between Delaware and Amphlett. The cumulative projects in the area represent a significant adverse effect on the neighborhoods. 5th Avenue is a Class III Bike Boulevard and qualifies for traffic calming according to the Traffic Impact Analysis for Bespoke. Please install the traffic calming features to reduce the project construction and operation effect on residents.

Response J.27: The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns with the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND as the project would not modify any bicycle facilities.

Comment J.28: Parking
Please provide data on how many projects (people and cars) are relying on the Cityʹs Central Garage and Kiku Crossing garage to demonstrate there is adequate capacity. Kiku Crossing garage provides parking for at least the Kiku Crossing residential development and the office buildings at 3rd and El Camino.

Response J.28: Refer to response J.6 above. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment J.29: Off-Site Improvements
The project is large and will contribute over 800 people to the downtown traffic congestion and need for services. The developer is using inappropriate density bonuses and is asking for concessions. The city should enter into a development agreement that provides benefits to the city

Response J.29: Refer to Response J.1 for a detailed response on State Density Bonus Law. The City is entering into a Development Agreement with the applicant. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Comment J.30: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 27 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
The city has not demonstrated its ability to effectively monitor developer implementation of mitigation measures. Please indicate in the MMRP what the City will do differently to ensure mitigation measures are thoroughly implemented and are effective?

Response J.30: The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND or the adequacy of the mitigation measures The commenter has not provided information that the City would not ensure the implementation of the mitigation measures.

Comment J.31: I am disappointed that the city is considering adding almost 150,000 square feet of office space, which will further exacerbate the jobs/housing imbalance.

Response J.31: The City evaluated the project based on city regulations and standards. The comment does not raise specific concerns regarding the proposed project or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the IS/MND.

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 28 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Section 3.0 Draft IS/MND Text Revisions
This section contains revisions to the text of the Bespoke Mixed-Use project IS/MND dated October 2024. Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown with a line through the text.

As discussed in Section 4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions, shallow soil impacted with lead is present on the project site. TPHd, chloroform, and PCE are also present in groundwater at concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels. In addition, groundwater and soil vapor on the project site is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHg). Additionally, ACMs, LBP coated surface, and PCBs are present within the buildings on the project site. Furthermore, elevated concentrations of chloroform, PCE, TCE, and benzene are present in the soil vapor. The sources of contamination at the project site are due to several off-site sources.

Petroleum hydrocarbons, when inhaled, can cause acute short-term effects (e.g. eye, nose, throat irritation, headaches) or, in significant concentrations, chronic long-term effects such as damage to the central nervous system or internal organs. 83 When inhaled, chlorinated solvents (including PCE) can cause both acute (e.g. dizziness, headaches, confusion, etc.) or chronic health effects (e.g. cancer or liver, kidney, immunological, endocrine, and developmental effects). 84 Additionally, soil
beneath the subject property, as well as buildings within the project site, may have residual ACMs, LBP, and/or PCBs. Contaminated soil, groundwater, and soil vapor disturbed during construction- related ground-disturbing activities (i.e., demolition [including pavement removal], excavation, grading) of the project site could become airborne and adversely affect construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors, if appropriate control measures are not implemented.

Impact HAZ-1: Construction of the project could result in exposure of construction workers, adjacent uses, and the environment to groundwater, and building, and soil contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents.

MM HAZ-1.1: Based on the history of the project site and the history of adjoining properties, areas of impacted soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater may be encountered during construction activities. To establish appropriate management practices for handling and management of impacted soil, soil vapor, and groundwater that may be encountered during construction activities, the applicant shall enroll in the Groundwater Protection Voluntary Oversight Program administered by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department. The applicant shall submit a Site Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) to San Mateo County Environmental Health Department for SMP review and approval. The SMP and HSP shall be designed and implemented to protect human health of construction

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 29 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
workers, the public and the environment during site preparation, grading, and excavation activities by including protocols, measures, and techniques for the proper handling, management, re-use and/or disposition of affected soil, soil vapor, and groundwater found on the site during such activities. The applicant shall also submit to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department for review and approval a detailed Vapor Mitigation Plan. The Vapor Mitigation Plan shall consider vapor mitigation strategies, if and as appropriate, that are protective of the occupants of the structures to be constructed on the project site, including post construction monitoring/verification sampling. The SMP, and HSP, and Vapor Mitigation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified environmental engineering firm with demonstrated expertise and experience in the preparation of SMPs and HSPs and shall be stamped by an appropriately-licensed professional. Proof of receipt of an approval letter from the County Environmental Health Department approval shall be provided to the City’s Building Division and Planning Division prior to issuance of the first building permit, including demolition. The SMP, and HSP, and Vapor Mitigation Plan shall be implemented by the applicant throughout all ground-disturbing work. Prior to dewatering during project construction, a Discharge Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works for approval.

The project site is located within 0.25 miles of Safari Kids Pre-School.There are no existing schools within one quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school to the project site is Sunnybrae Elementary School located approximately 0.4 miles southeast. As discussed above, the project with the implementation of mitigation measure MM HAZ-1.1 identified under checklist question a) would not emit significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts from construction or operation.

For these reasons, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. (Less than Significant Impact)

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 30 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025
Section 4.0 Conclusion
The comments received on the IS/MND did not raise any new issues about the project’s environmental impacts or provide information indicating the project would result in new environmental impacts or impacts substantially greater in severity than disclosed in the IS/MND, nor do the comments provide a ‘fair argument’ based on substantial evidence that the project would result in a significant impact, despite the implementation of identified mitigation measures. Minor clarifications were added to the text of the IS/MND (refer to Section 3.0 Draft IS/MND Text Revisions). The text revisions do not constitute a “substantial revision” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15073.5 and recirculation of the MND is not required.

Appendix A: IS/MND Comment Letters

https://dtsc.ca.gov

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
October 21, 2024
Manira Sandhir
Planning Manager
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
[email protected]
RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 445 SOUTH B STREET “BESPOKE” MIXED-USE PROJECT DATED OCTOBER 04, 2024, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2024100181
Dear Manira Sandhir,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 445 South B Street “Bespoke” Mixed-Use Project (Project).

The Project proposes to construct two buildings over a shared parking subterranean parking garage—a seven-story residential building that would include 71 affordable units and the Center for Self-Help for the Elderly, and a six-story commercial building that would include 148,939 square feet of office and 13,995 square feet of retail/restaurant space. After reviewing the Project, DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:

1. There are several areas of which DTSC has regulatory oversight over that are within the proposed Project site, whether they are listed as having documented contamination, land use restrictions, are subject to a Hazardous

Manira Sandhir
October 21, 2024

Waste Facility Permit, or the potential for the Project site to be included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, DTSC recommends further coordination with the Department in the event that the proposed project may impact any of the areas that may fall under DTSC's oversight. Please review the project area in EnviroStor; DTSC’s public-facing database and coordinate with the Department if any suspected decisions may impact these areas of which DTSC oversees.

2. The Project and future CEQA documents should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the Project site due to the release of hazardous wastes/substances on or near the Project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated.

3. In section Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1 of the MND it states:
“Based on the history of the Project site, areas of impacted soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater may be encountered during construction activities. To establish appropriate management practices for handling and management of impacted soil, soil vapor, and groundwater that may be encountered during construction activities, the applicant shall submit a Site Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) to San Mateo County Environmental Health Department for review and approval.” A SMP alone cannot sufficiently identify and document the potential contaminants that may pose a threat to human health and the environment. DTSC recommends that a cleanup plan, a Removal Action Workplan (RAW) or Remedial Action Plan (RAP), be prepared to adequately address all site impacts after complete characterization.

4. DTSC recommends the City of San Mateo enter into a voluntary agreement to address contamination at brownfields and other types of properties or receive oversight from San Mateo County Environmental Health Department, DTSC Manira Sandhir
October 21, 2024

or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. If entering into one of DTSC’s voluntary agreements, please note that DTSC uses a single standard Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application for all agreement types.

Please apply for DTSC oversight using this link: Request for Agency Oversight Application. Submittal of the online application includes an agreement to pay costs incurred during agreement preparation. If you have any questions about the application portal, please contact your Regional Brownfield Coordinator.

5. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual.

Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage.

6. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual
Manira Sandhir
October 21, 2024

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND for the 445 South B Street “Bespoke” Mixed-Use Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via email for additional guidance.

Sincerely,

Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov

October 31, 2024 SCH #: 2024100181
GTS #: 04-SM-2024-00631
GTS ID: 34169
Co/Rt/Pm: SM/82/11.608

Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

Re: 445 South B Street “Bespoke” Mixed-Use Project ─ Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
Dear Manira Sandhir:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the 445 South B Street “Bespoke” Mixed-Use Project.

The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the September 2024 Draft IS/MND.

Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only.

Project Understanding
The proposed project is a mixed-use development that would construct two new buildings over a shared subterranean parking garage. The first would be a seven-story, 100 percent affordable residential building with a Center for Self-Help for the elderly.

The second would be a six-story commercial building with office and retail/restaurant space. The project site is located in Downtown San Mateo between State Route 82 (SR 82) and U.S. Route 101 (U.S. 101).

Travel Demand Analysis
This high-density, mixed-use infill development project would provide 71 new affordable housing units in a high-quality transit area. Per the IS/MND, the project is found to have a less than significant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact, therefore working towards meeting the State’s VMT reduction goals. The project would also implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to encourage Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
October 31, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” multimodal options, which is also in support of meeting state policy goals on VMT reduction.

Construction-Related Impacts
Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits (link).

Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN).

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Luana Chen, Transportation Planner, via [email protected].

For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please visit Caltrans LDR website (link) or contact [email protected].

Sincerely,

YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse

Please accept these comments on the BeSpoke – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

My comments specifically concern the Traffic Impact Analysis that would change East 5th Avenue (from Delaware to Amphlett) from the current Class III Bike lane to a Class II Bike Lane. Specifically, the change to a Class II Bike Lane would remove parking on one side of the street, eliminate the possibility for future traffic calming, and subsequently cause several problems.
• Removing the parking from one side of the street will cause difficulties for residents.

Our block of East 5th Avenue (between Grant and Humbolt) is completely parked up every evening and night. About half of these cars belong to people who rent housing along East 4th Avenue where there is no street parking. We know this from having watched families carry groceries and young children around the block from where they park in front of our house, to where they live. By removing parking along one side of our block, these residents will have to park even further from the places where they live. • Removing the parking from one side of the street will cause conflict among neighbors. On Monday evenings residents put their garbage, recycling, and compost bins on the curb. Residents attempting to park on this block often move the bins (either off the street or to a place that blocks driveways) to create room for parking. This has caused shouting matches between residents along the street and the people needing to park their cars. We know this from having heard these disputes and y speaking with our neighbors. By removing parking along one side of our block these conflicts are likely to become more frequent and intense.
• East 5th Avenue is already in need of additional traffic calming measures. With the opening of the Kiku Crossing and Kiku Crossing Garage developments, more and more drivers are using East 5th Avenue as a route to Highway 101. We know this because we see these drivers travel east on East 5th Avenue and then turn left on Humbolt and then right on East 4th Avenue to access the Highway 101 north and south on-ramps. These drivers attempt to beat the traffic on East 4th Avenue by speeding from intersection to intersection - they screech to a stop at each cross street or only make a rolling stop, and then accelerate rapidly to the next intersection only to repeat this process. This creates excess noise, pollution from car exhaust, but most of all, makes it hazardous for residents to cross East 5th Avenue. Frankly, it is scary to even use a crosswalk when you have no guarantee that cars will stop for you, or that they might rapidly cross the intersection before you have made it across the street. We know this from walking our two-year old grandson around our neighborhood every weekday.

In summary, please do not change the status of East 5th Avenue from Delaware to Amphlett to a Class II Bike Lane for the following reasons:
• There are other streets within the vicinity of the BeSpoke project site that are more suitable for bike access and that already have dedicated bike lanes, and these include East 9th Avenue, Delaware, and Humboldt.
• Parking on both sides of East 5th Avenue is needed to serve the needs of residents. • Traffic calming measures on East 5th Avenue are already needed for the safety of the residents and must not be ruled out for the future.

Please preserve the family-friendly environment of this wonderful tree-lined street we try to call home. Thank you.

Bruce Cunningham
923 East 5th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94402
From: Manira Sandhir
To: Lisa Costa-Sanders; Natalie Noyes
Subject: FW: Bespoke Project
Date: Saturday, November 2, 2024 4:15:57 PM
Please see comment on the Bespoke project below.

Manira Sandhir, AICP
Planning Manager/ Zoning Administrator | City of San Mateo 650.522.7203(o)|650.242.6126(c)|[email protected]

From: Maurine Killough <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2024 1:02 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject: Bespoke Project

This is a huge project and helps San Mateo address housing. I am concerned that the construction finds it necessary to remove all of the existing trees. I would like to see us conserve trees as well as put in more green. I'm also concerned about any changes for 5th Avenue which is a residential Street. We would like to keep parking on both sides. I'm not sure if the architecture has already been approved but the glass and steel design does not go with the design element of our sweet historic downtown.

Thank you for considering these comments as we move forward with this project.

Get Outlook for iOS
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

From: Manira Sandhir
To: Lisa Costa-Sanders; Natalie Noyes; Jason Hallare; Jay Yu; Nicolette Chan Subject: FW: BeSpoke - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Date: Saturday, November 2, 2024 4:16:59 PM
Fyi below – another comment on traffic/bike lane.

Manira Sandhir, AICP
Planning Manager/ Zoning Administrator | City of San Mateo 650.522.7203(o)|650.242.6126(c)|[email protected]

From: Anna Cunningham <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2024 8:49 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject: BeSpoke - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Dear Manira Sandhir,
I am writing to share my household's opinion about the BeSpoke Project. I understand that as part of this plan, E 5th Ave (between Delaware and Amphett) is reclassified as a Minor Arterial and will be converted to a Class II Bike Lane, which would remove residential street parking on at least one side of the street. I live on this street and have great concern about the safety and feasibility of this plan.

This street is almost always full with residents' cars, including residents who cannot park on Humboldt anymore because of the added bike lane there. Most driveways are occupied by cars too. I don't know where everyone would park if street parking on 5th was removed. Some people may be able to fit two cars in their driveway, but this would lead to more cars backing out of driveways, which is a hazard to bicyclists moving at high speed in the bike lane. There are other wider streets that bicyclists can use instead, for example, E 9th Ave, which already has a dedicated bike lane and is also connected with bike lanes on Humboldt, Grant, and Delaware.

My greater concern is about the speed of cars on E 5th Ave if it is reclassified as a Minor Arterial and more traffic is redirected here. Many families on this street have young children who walk or ride scooters on the sidewalks often. The medians between the sidewalk and street on 5th are not very wide - not nearly as wide as the ones on 4th and 3rd Aves, which have faster-moving traffic. I would be extremely concerned about pedestrian safety, especially of small children, walking so close to traffic. Currently, there is low traffic on this street and I would like to see better research into whether people would actually drive on this street (presumably to get from 101 to downtown?) or if the improved Caltrain schedule will encourage people to use that instead.

Thank you for reading and please let me know if you would like to discuss more.

Best,
Anna
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

From: Manira Sandhir
To: Lisa Costa-Sanders; Natalie Noyes; Jay Yu; Jason Hallare; Nicolette Chan Subject: FW: Concerns for BeSpoke project
Date: Saturday, November 2, 2024 4:39:32 PM
One more!

Manira Sandhir, AICP
Planning Manager/ Zoning Administrator | City of San Mateo 650.522.7203(o)|650.242.6126(c)|[email protected]

From: Chad Liu <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2024 4:36 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns for BeSpoke project

Hello,

My name is Chad Liu and I am reaching out to express significant concerns regarding the BeSpoke Project and its implications for E 5th Ave. As part of this project, E 5th Ave is proposed to be reclassified as a Minor Arterial. As a resident of this street, I am alarmed by the potential safety hazards this plan could introduce. This is a primarily residential street, if anything, traffic should be limited instead of increased.

Our street is also consistently occupied by residents' vehicles, and with the recent addition of a bike lane on Humboldt, parking has become even scarcer. The removal of street parking on E 5th would not only exacerbate this issue but also increase the risk of accidents as more vehicles would need to back out into the bike lane—posing a danger to swiftly moving bicyclists. There are broader streets nearby, such as E 9th Ave, that already accommodate bicyclists effectively and would be safer alternatives for this infrastructure.

Most critically, I am deeply concerned about the increase in traffic speed that could result from reclassifying E 5th as a Minor Arterial. Many families, including mine, have young children live on this street, and the narrow medians do not provide sufficient buffer from the traffic, unlike those on neighboring avenues. The safety of these children, who frequently play and ride scooters near the roadway, could be severely compromised. I strongly advocate for slowing down traffic on E 5th to protect our community, rather than accelerating it. We must consider whether the anticipated traffic increase is justified or whether improved public transit options might mitigate the need for such changes.

I appreciate your attention to these matters and am eager to discuss them further to find a solution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our community. Thank you.

Chad
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

November 4, 2024
Dear Ms. Sandhir,
These are comments I would like to submit for the Bespoke IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Air Quality
Cumulative Health Risk Assessment

1. Table 5 - There are 6 projects listed in the cumulative Health Risk Assessment, but there are other approved projects which should be added to the list:
1st and B at 31-57 S. B street - Donut Delite,
Fremont Terrace at 200 S Fremont
Gateway Terrace at 222 Fremont.

These other projects all fall within the blue area designated- between Birch St., Monte Diablo Avenue, S Idaho Street and El Camino Real on Figure 02. These projects will add to the air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from construction, but were not included in the analysis.

2. Figure 02- There are 7 day care centers/schools identified on the map, but the residential neighborhoods - North Central, Central, Sunnybrae, the Stratford, Gramercy, Glazenwood, and the Downtown were not identified within the blue areas.. How do you plan to address the exposure to the air pollutants and toxic air contaminants during construction for residents and children in these daycare/schools? Do you plan to stagger the construction of all these 9 approved projects? Arborist Report

1. The project removes all 23 existing trees on site, all which are protected trees. We would like to see more Heritage Tree be preserved to protect the surrounding area from the toxic air contaminants.

Replacement trees by developers need to be a larger box size in the future since it will take many years for these trees to grow to maximum heights.

Traffic Impact Analysis

1. Bicycle lanes on East 5th Avenue - we would like to keep the Class III Bicycle Boulevard and residential parking on both sides of the street between Delaware and Amphlett. All the signs and markings in the pavement for the Bicycle Boulevard are completed on 5th Avenue and Humboldt Street. We have concerns for increased traffic, parking, and air quality with 9 approved projects in the vicinity. There are other wider streets with dedicated bike lanes on Humboldt and 9th that bicyclists can also be directed to.

2. We would like Public Works to pursue the reclassification of East 5th Avenue from a minor arterial to a non-arterial classification with Caltrans since we are nearing the end of 2024. The Class III Bike Boulevards qualify for traffic calming according to the Traffic Impact Analysis for Bespoke. 1 Traffic Impact Analysis

3. A Survey of Caltrain and SamTrans usage in the Downtown is needed. The Traffic Impact Analysis presumes as many of 814 people in the 2 buildings (residential and office/retail) are going walk, bike, or take Caltrain and SamTrans. This project adds 1,092 vehicle trips daily to our streets.

It would be helpful if Fehr and Peers could do a survey of workers and residents in the new surrounding Downtown developments to see if they drive or take transit to work or to shop. Do these businesses or developers provide transit passes:
303 Baldwin (former Trags)
180 E 3rd (former Aaron Bros)
2 East Third/El Camino Real
1 East 3rd/El Camino Real
Kiku Crossing Residential
405 East 4th (former Endo Automotive and Honda Motors)
406 East 3rd Avenue (former Kentucky Fried Chicken)
Nazareth Plaza Mixed Use at B St and 9th Avenue

4. There will be a Caltrans Project on 101 from September 2024 to April 2025 and the 4th Avenue 101 South entrance to 101 will be closed. So the construction trucks from all projects and commercial traffic will need to take El Camino to 92 to 101 with the interim closure.

Thank you.

Laurie Watanuki
2 From: Manira Sandhir
To: Lisa Costa-Sanders; Natalie Noyes
Cc: Jay Yu; Katherine Sheehan
Subject: FW: Comments: 445 South B Street "Bespoke" Mixed Use Project (PA-2023-012) Date: Monday, November 4, 2024 11:15:12 AM
See public comment below. Looping in PW as several comments are focused on traffic/parking.

Manira Sandhir, AICP
Planning Manager/ Zoning Administrator | City of San Mateo 650.522.7203(o)|650.242.6126(c)|[email protected]

From: Peter Mandle <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2024 4:16 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Comments: 445 South B Street "Bespoke" Mixed Use Project (PA-2023-012)

Hi Ms.Sandhir:

I would like to offer the following comments regarding the 445 South B Street "Bespoke" Mixed Use Project:

A. As a result of this project, once or twice a month (or an estimated 16 days/year) queues of stopped vehicles are expected to back-up along on to East Fourth Avenue, immediately in front of the Caltrain tracks, and potentially block Fourth Avenue traffic trying to cross the tracks and turn into South Railroad Avenue. This is because the site layout and planned location of waste containers forces garbage trucks to regularly block South Railroad Avenue while collecting project waste. Does the City consider this a safe condition? B. Motorists exiting the project onto South Railroad Avenue may be unable to see pedestrians walking by on the adjacent sidewalk as the sight distance provided is inadequate. To remedy this unsafe condition, the project proposes to provide an alarm bell to alert pedestrians that a vehicle is exiting up the driveway. While common in very large cities, is there a similar example of the use of alarm bells in San Mateo to compensate for unsafe or inadequate sight lines? Is this considered an acceptable design by the City?
C. The report states that those employees who drive to work and are unable to park on the site will park in the City's Central Garage and Kiku Crossing garage. Do these garages provide sufficient spaces to accommodate these additional parkers as well as expected future growth from people working or shopping downtown? What plans are there to replace the public parking spaces in the Fourth and B Street Lot to be displaced by this project? D. Despite the large size of the project, the developer is not being required to make any off-site improvements, or even widen sidewalks other than expand existing bulb outs at two intersections. The developer is not planning to contribute to the costs of improved bus shelters. The developer is not being asked or required to make any investments to improve pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or traffic operations. The only requirements to improve mobility are to:
(a) develop a plan to coordinate loading operations with Draeger's (note: just a "plan", not actual actions)
(b) monitor loading operations to ensure they do not impede use of sidewalks or local traffic circulation or otherwise result in unsafe conditions
Even if impediments do occur, the developer need only "work with the City" to develop on- street spaces to accommodate freight and passenger loading activities.

Given the City's traffic problems and the number of people who cite downtown congestion as an issue, it is disappointing that yet another large project may be approved without any requirement to help improve our City's mobility or improve the safety of our streets.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,
Peter Mandle
478 Fairfax Avenue
San Mateo

* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

From: Manira Sandhir
To: Lisa Costa-Sanders; Natalie Noyes
Cc: Jay Yu; Nicolette Chan
Subject: FW: Comments re: BeSpoke-Inital Study
Date: Monday, November 4, 2024 11:16:35 AM
See comment below.

Manira Sandhir, AICP
Planning Manager/ Zoning Administrator | City of San Mateo 650.522.7203(o)|650.242.6126(c)|[email protected]

From: Francie Souza <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 10:54 AM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments re: BeSpoke-Inital Study

Dear Ms. Sandhir,
These comments pertain to the BeSpoke - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. My husband and I are residents of Central San Mateo and would like to emphasize the following points:

Please DO NOT RECLASSIFY East 5
th Avenue from Delaware to Amphlett. This
street is a busy NEIGHBORHOOD street with many pedestrians, including families and children on their way to school. East 5th should not be considered a speedy way to get to the freeway. Currently it is classified as Class III Bicycle Blvd, with residential parking on both sides of the street, as well as traffic calming measures at intersections. We do not want it changed to Class II, which would remove one side of street parking and traffic calming measures. We are very concerned about traffic impacts with multiple projects in and around our community.

In the last General Plan update, East 5
th Avenue was reclassified to Minor Arterial
from Delaware to Amphlett. Public Works stated they would request reclassification to non-arterial and this would be reviewed by CalTrans by the end of 2024. We want to ensure that this occurs.

Finally, we would like the city to survey workers and residents in the newer surrounding developments to determine how many residents commute via CalTrain or SamTrans or in their own cars. I’m aware that some businesses provide CalTrain passes, but not all commuters use them due to inconsistencies with schedules etc.

This is an important point for Planning to consider to determine parking requirements and traffic calming measures for the surrounding community in San Mateo.

Thank you,
Tom & Francie Souza
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

Laurie Hietter
223 Irving Street San Mateo, CA 94402

P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org

November 4, 2024

Ms. Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
City of San Mateo
Planning Division
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
SUBJECT: 445 South B Street “Bespoke” Mixed‐Use Project Dear Ms. Sandhir:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the “445 South B Street Bespoke Mixed‐Use Project.”
The Initial Study provides extensive analysis but does require additional analysis.

I incorporate by reference the comments by Laurie Watanuki and Peter Mandle. Please accept the following comments.

Proposed Project
The project is inappropriately aggregating an office building and a residential project to obtain concessions and density bonuses. These are two separate projects, and the office building should not receive the density bonus.

Figure 2.4‐3 does not adequately show surrounding residential land uses. The map should show at least 500 feet and preferably 1,000 feet from the project site.

The 148,939 square feet of office space will have a significant adverse impact on housing. The building could house 992 people at 150 sq ft per person.

The lack of ground floor retail is in conflict with the downtown plan and represents a significant impact.

The 85‐ and 87‐foot heights of the two buildings will result in a significant adverse effect related to wind and shadow. How will this be mitigated?
The 37 parking places are not adequate for the 71 units. This will cause a significant adverse effect on neighbors by parking in residential neighborhoods.

Define the width of the sidewalks.

Aesthetics
The photos should include a photo of the Kiku Crossing to show the adjacent high‐rise building.

Ms. Manira Sandhir
November 4, 2024

2 Air Quality

for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines states: “Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. …Cumulative  impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” The impact analysis for cumulatively considerable net increase relies on the BAAQMD screening criteria to determine the project effect is insignificant but fails to evaluate the combined effects of the additional 10 projects the city has approved in the last few years. It is inadequate to assert the cumulative impact is not significant because the project impact is not significant. Some of these cumulative projects, or the 7 projects under consideration, may be constructed at the same time as this proposed project. The project may in itself result in insignificant impacts but the cumulative impacts to air quality and public health would likely be significant when added together.

Please provide a cumulative air and health assessment to determine whether the cumulative impacts are significant.

Table 4.3‐5: Project Construction Impacts at Off‐Site MEI The proposed project cancer risk is close to the threshold at 8.07 (controlled). The cumulative impact of multiple projects would be significant, and the 8.07 cancer risk is a considerable contribution. Please provide the cumulative impact analysis.

Biology
Removing 23 protected trees is a significant impact, especially when considered with the trees removed by the previously approved 10 downtown projects and the 7 projects under consideration. This project is a significant contribution to the loss of heritage trees downtown. The loss of so many heritages trees downtown is inconsistent with the policy of preserving heritage trees. Providing in lieu fees is deferred mitigation because there is no evidence any trees are planted.

The project proposes to replace 260 landscape units with 9 landscape units. This is unacceptable! Energy
Please provide the amount of solar energy provided for the proposed project in megawatts and compare it to expected consumption. What percentage of energy needs will the solar supply? Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The Site History description states the area included an auto service repair shop, which typically results in groundwater contamination with fuel, oil, and lubricants. Paint shops and dry cleaners often result in contamination. The next paragraph On‐Site Sources of Contamination includes the statement “There are no prior uses of the site that constitute a source of contamination…”  and later “According to Ms. Manira Sandhir
November 4, 2024

3 historical records, gasoline service stations and automotive repair shops with USTs have been located in the vicinity of the subject property since the 1920s.” Please explain or correct this contradiction.

The Phase II study was conducted in 2020 and another one in 2022. According to the EPA, “If redevelopment plans change or more than 180 days have passed since the Environmental Site Assessment, additional assessment may be needed…Additional  assessment gives confidence to the community and investors and ensures a safe reuse.” Since the Phase II studies were conducted, the Kiku Crossing and garage were constructed. Please provide the analysis that indicates the 2022 Phase II study is still valid.

The 2022 Phase II testing showed many soil samples exceeded standards for constituents such as Naphthalene, PCE, arsenic, lead, and barium. The 2020 and 2022 Phase II groundwater and soil vapor testing showed samples exceeded standards. Please provide this information (constituent, number of samples, levels, standards, exceeds yes/no) in a table format so it is easier for the reader to see all the standards exceeded and for which constituents.

MM HAZ‐1.1 is deferred mitigation because it just requires a plan but does not include any specifics as to how the health and safety of workers, residents, and the public will be protected. What “protocols, measures, and techniques for the proper handling, management, re‐use and/or disposition of affected soil, soil vapor, and groundwater found on the site” will be implemented? p. 112
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The analysis of the effects on schools should include the Safari Kids pre‐school located 2 blocks away.

This impact is significant and should be described and thoroughly mitigated with effective and verifiable mitigation.

Condition of Approval HAZ‐1 is not demonstrated to be effective or verifiably protect the health and safety of residents on site and nearby. Please provide more information on how this measure would mitigate the effects on health and safety.

The neighbors should be notified when any air, waste, soil, or water discharge occurs that may affect public health and safety in the area.

Land Use
The project design is not harmonious, which is a conflict with General Plan Policy Noise
The noise levels at sensitive receptors will be significant and unavoidable at 90 dBA. Mitigation Measure MM NOI‐1.1 is not adequate to protect sensitive receptors.

G: the measure should state the areal extent for coordination with local residents. Define what scheduling would minimize noise disturbances.

Ms. Manira Sandhir
November 4, 2024

4 Traffic
The Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Plan must be included and analyzed in the Initial Study.

A Survey of Caltrain and SamTrans usage in the Downtown is needed. The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates at least 814 people in the 2 buildings (residential and office/retail) are going to walk, bike, or take Caltrain and SamTrans.  This project adds 1,092 vehicle trips daily to our streets. It would be helpful if Fehr and Peers could do a survey of workers and residents in the new surrounding Downtown developments to see if they drive or take transit to work or to shop. Please indicate whether these businesses or developers provide transit passes:
 303 Baldwin (former Trag’s)
 180 E 3rd (former Aaron Bros)
 2 East Third/El Camino Real
 1 East 3rd/El Camino Real
 Kiku Crossing Residential
 405 East 4th (former Endo Automotive and Honda Motors)  406 East 3rd Avenue (former Kentucky Fried Chicken)
 Nazareth Plaza Mixed Use at B St and 9th Avenue
The parking is inadequate and will cause significant impacts in the adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Please describe how the Caltrans Project on 101 from September 2024 to April 2025 and the 4th Avenue 101 South entrance to 101 closures will affect the project and the cumulative impacts. Did the traffic analysis consider the closures?
Please work with Caltrans to reclassify East 5th Avenue from a minor arterial to a non‐arterial classification.

Keep the Class III Bicycle Boulevard and residential parking on both sides of the street between Delaware and Amphlett. The cumulative projects in the area represent a significant adverse effect on the neighborhoods. 5th Avenue is a Class III Bike Boulevard and qualifies for traffic calming according to the Traffic Impact Analysis for Bespoke. Please install the traffic calming features to reduce the project construction and operation effect on residents.

Parking
Please provide data on how many projects (people and cars) are relying on the Cityʹs Central Garage and Kiku Crossing garage to demonstrate there is adequate capacity. Kiku Crossing garage provides parking for at least the Kiku Crossing residential development and the office buildings at 3rd and El Camino.

Off-Site Improvements
The project is large and will contribute over 800 people to the downtown traffic congestion and need for services. The developer is using inappropriate density bonuses and is asking for concessions. The city should enter into a development agreement that provides benefits to the city.

Ms. Manira Sandhir
November 4, 2024

5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
The city has not demonstrated its ability to effectively monitor developer implementation of mitigation measures. Please indicate in the MMRP what the City will do differently to ensure mitigation measures are thoroughly implemented and are effective?
I am disappointed that the city is considering adding almost 150,000 square feet of office space, which will further exacerbate the jobs/housing imbalance.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Laurie Hietter

Bespoke (445 South B Street) Mixed-Use Project 2 Responses to Comments City of San Mateo December 2025

Appendix B: 445 South B Street TDM Plan – Commercial

TDM Plan
August 2024

445 South B Street TDM Plan -
Commercial

City of San Mateo
24542801

Steer has prepared this material for City of San Mateo. This material may only be used within the context and scope for which Steer has prepared it and may not be relied upon in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any part of this material without the express and written permission of Steer shall be deemed to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Steer has prepared this material using professional practices and procedures using information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the results and conclusions made.

TDM Plan
August 2024

445 South B Street TDM Plan -
Commercial

Prepared by: Prepared for:

Steer
800 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1320,
Los Angeles, CA 90017
USA

City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
+1 (213) 425 0990
www.steergroup.com
Click here to enter text.
24542801
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024
Contents
1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 2 Demography and Travel Trends ............................................................................................... 4 2 Site Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 7 Site Geography and Road Network .......................................................................................... 7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure ...................................................................................... 8 Transit Services ....................................................................................................................... 12 Nearby Destinations ............................................................................................................... 13 Available TDM Services .......................................................................................................... 13 3 Project TDM Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 15 Regulatory Context ................................................................................................................. 15 Project TDM Measures Summary ........................................................................................... 16 Project TDM Measures—C/CAG “Required” Measures ......................................................... 18 4 Impact of TDM Measures ................................ ................................ .............................. 24 Program Impacts .................................................................................................................... 24 5 Monitoring ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 26 Annual Survey ......................................................................................................................... 26

Figures
Figure 1. Zoning Map .......................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Commute Mode Split ........................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Inflow and Outflow .............................................................................................................. 6 Figure 4. Surrounding Street Network ................................................................................................ 8 Figure 5. Existing Bicycle Network ...................................................................................................... 9 Figure 6. Level of Stress .................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 7. Proposed Bicycle Network ................................................................................................. 11 Figure 7. Estimated C/CAG trip reduction ........................................................................................ 17 445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024

Tables
Table 1. Proposed Project Attributes ................................................................................................. 3 Table 2. Demography Statistics .......................................................................................................... 4 Table 3. Job Locations ......................................................................................................................... 5 Table 4. Level of Service for 5th Avenue and South B Street and 4th Avenue and South B Street ... 8 Table 5. Planned Bicycle Facility Projects ......................................................................................... 11 Table 6. Caltrain Service at Downtown San Mateo Station .............................................................. 12 Table 7. SamTrans Service ................................................................................................................ 12 Table 8. Project TDM Measures ....................................................................................................... 16 Table 9. ROI Calculator Estimated VMT and Congestion Hours Reduced ........................................ 24 Table 10. ROI Calculator summary of daily trip reductions .............................................................. 25

Appendices
A TDM ROI Calculator
B Background Assessment
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 1

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 2
A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan is a long-term management strategy for an organization or site that seeks to deliver sustainable transportation objectives. It is articulated in a document that is regularly reviewed by the implementing organization. It identifies an appropriate package of measures aimed at promoting sustainable travel, with an emphasis on reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). It can also assist in meeting other objectives, such as increasing and reducing congestion, greenhouse gases, and noise.

This TDM Plan was produced on behalf of the City of San Mateo (City) for the 445 South B Street project site.

Project Description
The project site is located in the city’s Downtown Retail Core, bounded by East 4th and 5th Avenues, South B Street and South Railroad Avenue. The project includes1:
• A six-story 168,001 square foot retail/restaurant and office building, • 140 vehicle parking spaces on-site
– 103 commercial parking spaces
– 28 for commercial uses
• 162 bicycle parking stalls (22 short-term and 140 long-term) – 22 short-term stalls
– 140 long-term stalls
• A combination of on- and off-site improvements including ground-level and terrace landscaping,
• A corner retail plaza, and
• Improvements in the public right-of-way area.

1 City of San Mateo. (n.d.). Bespoke (445 South B Street). Retrieved from https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4703/Bespoke-445- South-B-Street 1 Introduction
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 3
Table 1 provides a comparative summary between the current and proposed site development.

Table 1. Proposed Project Attributes
Existing Proposed
Description Four commercial buildings &
One surface parking lot
Six-story commercial building
Square Footage 45,701 sq. ft. gross building area 168,001 sq. ft. commercial building area (including 153,138 sq. ft. of office area, 13,253 sq.
ft. of retail/restaurant area and 1,610 sq. ft. of
lobby area)
Zoning
Designation
CBD/R – Central Business
District
CBD/R – Central Business District
Source: 445 South B Street "Bespoke" Project Plans, dated October 10, 2023 Zoning
The site is zoned CBD/R (Central Business District, Residential Overlay District – Mixed Use) as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Zoning Map

Source: City of San Mateo Planning Division, 2022
The city block sits adjacent to three other blocks to the north and west which are also zoned as CBD/R. Properties zoned CBD/S (Central Business District Support) are situated to the east of the project site. South of the project site are R6-D (Multiple Family Dwellings Downtown) and C1 (Neighborhood Commercial) properties. The zoning in this area allows for high-density residential, retail, cultural, entertainment, and community service uses which generate traffic and congestion

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 4
around the project site. Several blocks towards the east and northeast generally accommodate lower traffic-generating uses such as Multiple Family Dwellings.

Demography and Travel Trends
The travel trends described in this section are based on information from the Census Bureau for the project’s census tract (6063). Census Tracts are used to analyze population dynamics and demography on a neighborhood scale.

Demography
The project site is located within Census Tract 6063 which has a population of 4,173 people. The demographic information presented in Table 2 was collected from the 2021 American Communities Survey (ACS) and Census Reporter. The data provides information about residents’ demographics and travel behaviors.

Table 2. Demography Statistics2
Category Characteristics Amount or
Percentage
Age Under 18 19%
18 to 64 58%
65 and over 23%
Education Bachelor’s degree or higher 54.6%
Households Renter-Occupied Housing Units 51%
Number of households 1,816
Persons per household 2.2
Median household income $96,250
Race White alone 37%
Asian alone 20%
Hispanic or Latino 30%
Black or African American 3%
Mixed 10%
Languages
Spoken
Speaks English only 47.5%
Speaks a language other than English: Spanish 30.5%
Speaks a language other than English: Indo-European Languages 8.5% Speaks a language other than English: Asian and Pacific Island Languages
13%
Source: Census Reporter

2 Due to rounding segments, the total percentage may not add up to exactly 100% 445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 5
Travel Trends
As shown in Figure 2, the data from the 2021 ACS indicates that 59% of people that live within census tract 6063 drive alone to work, which is a 13% decrease in drive-alone rates from 2019.

The data also reports that 13% of the population carpool to work and 9% take public transit, while 13% work from home. Of those that commute to work, the mean travel time is 23.4 minutes, a reduction in average commute time from 2019 (27.6 minutes). Commuting patterns have been impacted by the pandemic, however, and may be in flux for some time as businesses gradually return to normal. Post-pandemic scenarios might produce new commuting patterns as more organizations implement hybrid and flexible working habits.

Figure 2. Commute Mode Split

Source: 2021 American Community Survey (ACS)
As shown in Table 3, residents in Census Tract 6063 commute to a variety of locations, with the majority commuting out of San Mateo. The City of San Francisco has the highest share of commuters (22.4%), followed by City of San Mateo (13.9%).

Table 3. Job Locations
Job Locations Count Share
San Francisco, CA 414 22.4%
San Mateo, CA 257 13.9%
Redwood City, CA 112 6.1%
Palo Alto, CA 105 5.7%
South San Francisco, CA 89 4.8%
Burlingame, CA 69 3.7%
San Jose 65 3.5%
Menlo Park 63 3.4%
San Carlos 41 2.2%
Foster City 40 2.2%
All Other Locations 595 32.2%
All Places (Cities, CDPs, etc.) 1,850 100%
Inflow/Outflow analysis of the census tract, as shown in Figure 3, depicts that 1,759 individuals commute out of the area and 7,311 people commute into the area for work daily. A total of 91 individuals both live and work inside the census tract.

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 6
Figure 3. Inflow and Outflow

Source: U.S Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 7
A site assessment was conducted as part of the TDM Plan development process. The site assessment included a description of the site’s geography and road network, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, transit services, nearby attractions, and existing TDM services. Appendix B provides more details on the site assessment.

Site Geography and Road Network
The project site is located on the city block bounded by East 4th and East 5th Avenue, South B Street, and South Railroad Avenue. As displayed in Figure 4, the site is surrounded by:
• A local street – South Railroad Avenue
• A collector street – South B Street
• Arterial streets – East 4th and 5th Avenues
South B Steet connects to 3rd Avenue which leads to J Hart Clinton Drive to the east, linking the San Mateo- Hayward Bridge to East Bay communities. South B Street also connects to 4th Avenue which connects to Highway 101, giving drivers access to San Francisco, Palo Alto, and Mountain View within 20 minutes during free flow traffic.

Two of the intersections abutting the project site connect between a collector street and an arterial street with the other two connecting between an arterial street and a local street (adjacent to the railroad). The intersections at South B Street and 4th and 5th Avenues were part of the San Mateo Existing Conditions Circulation Report. The intersections see a reasonably consistent traffic flow and maintain a “B” level of service (LOS) in both the AM and PM hours (Table 4).
2 Site Assessment
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 8
Figure 4. Surrounding Street Network

Source: City of San Mato Public Works
Table 4. Level of Service for 5th Avenue and South B Street and 4th Avenue and South B Street Signalized Intersection Peak-Hour Levels of Service
Year 2018 Conditions
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
4th Avenue and South B
Street
11 B 11.3 B
5th Avenue and South B
Street

10.8 B 11.2 B
Source: San Mateo Existing Conditions Circulation Report (2019)

Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
The site’s topography, street network, and its location in the center of Downtown San Mateo make this area conducive to pedestrian and bicycle access. The walkability website Walkscore.com gives the site a 99/100 score for walking, which they classify as “Walker’s Paradise – daily errands do not require a car.”
Current Bicycle Conditions
As shown in Figure 5, the site currently has direct access to two bike facilities. A Class II bike lane was recently installed on 5th Avenue between Railroad and B Street but has not yet been updated in the Existing Bicycle Network map:
• South B Street is currently identified as a bike route (Class III facility) along the site. • 5th Avenue is currently identified as a bike lane (Class II facility) between Railroad and B Street.

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 9
The bike route on 5th Avenue connects to multiple bike lanes to the south, including the bike lane on South Delaware Street which extends to the southern city limit. Additionally, South B Street and 5th Avenue also connect to several bike routes leading towards the northern limits of the city and creating multiple access opportunities for cyclists.

Figure 5. Existing Bicycle Network

Source: San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan 2020
As displayed in Figure 6, 5th Avenue and South B Street are classified as “High Stress” streets in the April 2020 San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan, suggesting that only more experienced cyclists would feel comfortable biking on these streets. The streets are still in a high bicycle connectivity area, connected to both east-west and north-south bike routes, making cycling generally convenient in the area.

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 10
Figure 6. Level of Stress

Source: San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan 2020
BikeLink operates multiple on-demand bike lockers located at nearby Caltrain stations. BikeLink allows bicyclists to securely store their bikes in lockers using a stored-value card that can be purchased online or at nearby vendors. There are 24 lockers at the Downtown San Mateo Caltrain station. Additionally, two free-to-use public bike repair stations are located within walking distance of the project site.

Planned Bicycle Projects
The 2020 Bicycle Master Plan was adopted by the City Council on April 6, 2020 and serves as a blueprint for expanding and improving the San Mateo bicycle and mobility network in the coming years. The Plan includes ten high-priority recommendations in proximity to the 5th Avenue and South B Street project site (Table 5).

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 11
Table 5. Planned Bicycle Facility Projects
Roadway Segment Bicycle Facility Distance to
Project Site
B Street between Railroad Avenue (West) and Baldwin
Avenue
Bike Boulevard 0 miles
B Street between 5th Avenue and 16th Avenue Buffered Bike Lane 0 miles 5th Avenue between El Camino Real and B Street Bike Lane 0 miles 5th Avenue between Railroad Avenue and Delaware Street Bike Lane 0 miles Railroad Avenue (East) between Monte Diablo Avenue and
4th Avenue
Bike Boulevard 0.1 miles
Railroad Avenue (West) between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue Bike Boulevard 0.1 miles Railroad Avenue (West) between 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue Shared Use Path 0 miles 4th Avenue between Delaware Street and Humboldt Street Separated Bike Lane 0.2 miles Delaware Street between 5th Avenue and Concar Drive Buffered Bike Lane 0.2 miles Baldwin Avenue between San Mateo Drive and B Street Bike Lane 0.3 miles Figure 7. Proposed Bicycle Network

Source: City of San Mateo, Interactive Proposed Bicycle Network Map

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 12
Transit Services
The project site is located 0.3 miles from the Downtown San Mateo Caltrain station. The project site is also served by five San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) bus routes.

Caltrain
Caltrain connects the project site to San Francisco to the north as well as San Jose and Gilroy to the south. The project site is near the Downtown San Mateo station, which can be accessed via bike, walking, transit, and car (Table 6).

Table 6. Caltrain Service at Downtown San Mateo Station Category Downtown San Mateo Station
Frequency Up to four trains per hour (104 trains per weekday); times vary Travel distance 0.3 miles from project site
• Seven minutes walking
• Three minutes by bike or car
Amenities • Accessibility:
– Wheelchair Accessible
– Two wheeled devices and service animals permitted
• Bike racks
• San Mateo BikeLink lockers
• Park and Ride
Cost Depending on travel distance within and across zones, fares include:
• One Way (Ticket Machine): $3.75 - $15.00
• One Way (Clipper Card): $3.20 - $14.45
• Day Pass (Ticket Machine): $7.50 - $30.00
SamTrans
There are five SamTrans bus routes accessible to the project site within a five-minute walk, which are described in Table 7. The bus stop closest to the project site can be accessed via bike, walk, and car. Each SamTrans bus is equipped with bus bike racks that hold up to three bikes. The trip cost for adults is $2.25 in cash or via mobile app, or $2.05 if a Clipper card is being used. Youth trips cost $1.10 in cash or via mobile app or $1.00 with a Clipper card.

Table 7. SamTrans Service
SamTrans
Route #
Hours of
Operation
Frequency Closest Stop Distance to
Closest Stop
Route Details
250 Daily: 6am –
11pm
30 minutes East 4th
Avenue and
Ellsworth
Avenue

0.1 miles/ two-
minute walk
Connects to
San Mateo
College
59 School Day
Service
One morning
bus, two
afternoon
buses
East 4th
Avenue and
Ellsworth
Avenue

0.1 miles /
two-minute
walk
Connects to
Aragon High
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 13
53/53P School Day
Service
Schedule
One morning
bus, two
afternoon
buses
South
Delaware
Street and 3rd
Avenue

0.2 miles/
four-minute
walk
Connects to
Borel School
292 Daily: 4am –
midnight
30 minutes South
Delaware
Street and 3rd
Avenue

0.2 miles/
four-minute
walk
Connects to
SFO Airport

Nearby Destinations
Key destinations near the project site include:
• Six major shopping areas within three miles of the project site that offer access to retail shops, restaurants, grocery stores, banks, pharmacies, and gyms • Over twenty childcare and preschool facilities within two miles of the project site • Over a dozen elementary and middle schools within two miles of the project site • Four parks within one mile walking distance of the project site

Available TDM Services
Commute.org Incentives
Commute.org is San Mateo County’s Transportation Demand Management agency. Their resources are available to all residents and employees in the County. As such, the employees of the project site will be able to take advantage of TDM resources curated for those commuting within the County and in the surrounding areas. The Commute.org website serves as a regional clearinghouse for all transportation and commuting-related information. They also provide the following services:
• Try Transit Incentives: Commute.org provides a free ‘try transit’ program that allows individuals to request free tickets for the transit option that works best for them. • Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH): The GRH program reimburses commuters who carpool, vanpool, take transit, shuttle, bike, or walk to work or to a participating college in San Mateo County up to $60 per occurrence, up to four times per year. Program participants may use taxi, ride-hailing app, public transit, or a combination of modes to get home safely.

Commuters who use public transit as their GRH ride will be eligible to receive a $5 e-gift card bonus.
• Carpool Incentives: Commuters can earn up to $100 in e-gift card rewards when they carpool to or from San Mateo County and their carpool trips are verified through the STAR platform. • Vanpool Incentives: Commuters who live and work in San Mateo County can earn up to $100 when they vanpool to or from work. Every 10 vanpool trips to/from work offers a $25 e-gift card reward (up to 4 times per year, for a total of $100). • Bike Education: Free bike safety workshops and bike marketing materials are available to residents and commuters. These are scheduled upon request and are available to employers and other sites, including on what is ideal for the requesting party and include time for Q&A. 445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 14
• Bike Incentives: Commute.org currently provides commuters who live or work in San Mateo County with incentives worth between $25 to $100 for biking to work. To participate in the program, bike commuters must track their work commutes using the Strava app. The rides are then recorded in the STAR platform, Commute.org’s incentive delivery platform, where commuters can access their incentives.

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 15
This chapter lists the TDM strategies for the project that have been selected for implementation based on the project’s size, location, and land use. Each TDM measure is accompanied by guidance on implementation, cost estimates, expected timelines, and the anticipated responsible party. It is expected that the property management team will be the ‘responsible party’ for most TDM measures outlined below.

Regulatory Context
Projects located within the City of San Mateo may be subject to C/CAG TDM requirements, or both the City of San Mateo TDM requirements and C/CAG’s, depending on the project’s location (City) and whether it is anticipated to generate a significant number of VMT (vehicle miles travelled) (City) or average daily trips (C/CAG). Thus, the project scale and context inform which requirements are applicable, which TDM measures are selected to meet the requirements, and how the TDM measures are counted towards meeting the requirements.

This section describes the requirements applicable to this project.

C/CAG TDM Policy
As of January 1, 2022, the C/CAG TDM Policy requires that local jurisdictions in San Mateo County notify C/CAG of any new development within their purview that is estimated to generate at least 100 average daily trips (ADT). Applicants are required to submit a TDM Checklist alongside their development application acknowledging that their projects will achieve a specified target trip reduction based on the planned land use and project scale.

C/CAG’s checklists contain TDM strategies that are each weighted by an estimated percentage reduction. The TDM strategies are organized by a set of “Required Strategies” that apply to all projects using the checklist, and a set of “Additional Recommended Strategies.” The applicant chooses which “Additional Recommended Strategies” to commit to such that the total percentage reduction of all the TDM strategies (Required plus Additional) meets or exceeds the specified target trip reduction.

Based on the C/CAG guidelines, the project would exceed the threshold of 100 ADT and is required to comply with the C/CAG TDM policy. Due to the project’s proximity to high-quality transit, the project qualifies as a TOD project and will be required to demonstrate a 25% trip reduction through TDM measures contained in the Non-Residential (Office, Industrial, Institutional) Land Use: Large Project checklist.

3 Project TDM Measures
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 16
Project TDM Measures Summary
Table 8 summarizes the measures the project is utilizing to meet its 25% trip C/CAG reduction requirement, while Figure 8 provides the completed C/CAG TDM checklist worksheet.

Table 8. Project TDM Measures
Measure Included in C/CAG Trip reduction (%)
Free/Preferential Parking for
Carpools
TDM Plan 1%
TDM Coordinator/Contact Person TDM Plan 0.5%
Actively Participate in
Commute.org or TMA Equivalent
TDM Plan 6.5%
Carpool/Vanpool Program TDM Plan 2%
Transit or Ridesharing
Passes/Subsidies
TDM Plan 10%
Pre-Tax Transportation Benefits TDM Plan 1%
Secure Bicycle Storage Site Plan - Secure bicycle storage is required per City of San Mateo Zoning code section 27.64.262 and is
included in the applicant’s site plan. As such, it is not factored into the TDM ROI calculations for this TDM
Plan.
1%
Design Streets to Encourage
Bike/Ped Access
Site Plan - Supporting active transportation
improvements is required by San Mateo General Plan
Policies: C 4.5 (Pedestrian Enhancements with New
Development), C 4.9 (Pedestrian and Bicycle
Connections), UD 2.9 (Pedestrian Oriented Design),
and is addressed through the applicant’s site plan. As
such, it is not factored into the TDM ROI calculations
for this TDM Plan.
1%
Showers, Lockers, and Changing
Rooms for Cyclists
Site Plan – these amenities serve as end of trip
facilities for employees arriving by bike or other active transportation forms and are included in the project
site plan. As such, it is not factored into the TDM ROI calculations for this TDM Plan.
2%
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 17
Figure 8. Estimated C/CAG trip reduction

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 18

Project TDM Measures—C/CAG “Required” Measures
The following sections describe the measures included in the TDM Plan for 445 South B Street. For each measure that is not already incorporated in the project’s site plan, the TDM Plan provides implementation guidance as well as the estimated daily VMT reduction and vehicle trip reduction, per calculations utilizing the TDM ROI Calculator (refer to Chapter 4). Of note, these estimates often differ from the projected trip reduction estimates from the C/CAG checklist.

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 19
Free/Preferential Parking for Carpools (C/CAG “Required” Strategy M1) Reserving space for carpools encourages shared travel by ensuring those riders are able to find guaranteed parking easily. If signed in a manner that stands out, it may also generate interest in carpooling and vanpooling from solo drivers.

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

Estimated timeframe Ongoing
Estimated cost $1,000 for sign fabrication
Responsible party Property Management
Estimated daily VMT reduced
(ROI Calculator)
730 - 811
Estimated C/CAG trip
reduction percentage
1%

TDM Coordinator/Contact Person (C/CAG “Required” Strategy M3) An on-site TDM coordinator would act as a liaison between the developer, City, and employees.

The TDM coordinator would help develop, implement, and report on the various TDM strategies.

This person would be responsible for coordinating and marketing the selected TDM strategies as well as maintaining working relationships with the City and nearby developments.

Implementation Guidelines
Assign the role of TDM Coordinator to an individual on the property management team to plan and implement the TDM program. Allocate approximately 10 hours per month for the TDM Coordinator to spend on the following activities:
• Annual Monitoring: Survey the employees and compile a monitoring report for submission to the City of San Mateo annually.
• Communications: A communication plan outlines transportation information for the site and for upcoming projects. This can include creating printed communications, social media, email, and newsletters.
• Commute Assistance: Provide route planning and transit itineraries for employees who wish to explore their transportation options.
• TDM Program Coordination and Outreach: Organize and promote sustainable travel options through building communications such as emails, bulletin boards, and social media. Specific tasks include:
– Organize and promote the trip reduction and air quality strategies detailed in the following sections.
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 20
– Organize and promote campaigns and challenges that encourage trip reduction – Promote the sustainable transportation options available to employees.

Estimated time frame Ongoing
Estimated cost $4,000 per year
Responsible party Property Management
Estimated daily VMT reduced
(ROI Calculator)
152 - 304
Estimated C/CAG trip
reduction percentage

0.5%

Actively Participate in Commute.org or Equivalent (C/CAG “Required” Strategy M4) C/CAG requires that the 445 South B Street project actively participate in Commute.org or a TMA equivalent. Commute.org’s Certified Development Program provides developers with projects in San Mateo County with a formal certification of their active participation in Commute.org programs and services. The goal of the program is to give developers access to a set of TDM programs and services that can be integrated into other TDM strategies at their new developments in San Mateo County.

Implementation Guidelines
Development projects will be considered active participants with Commute.org if they comply with the requirements below:
• Provide a copy of the Final TDM Plan approved by the local jurisdiction • Provide a copy of the Final TDM Checklist or similar TDM requirements list approved by C/CAG or the local jurisdiction
• During the development phase:
– Maintain an active point of contact
– Receive communications from Commute.org
– Inform Commute.org of any significant development changes (e.g., land use, project size, TDM Plan, development timeline/occupancy date, ownership) • During the post-development phase:
– Maintain an active point of contact
– Receive communications from Commute.org
– Identify the party(ies) responsible for complying with the ongoing requirements (e.g., developer, property manager, third-party consultant, key tenant) – Responsible party is required to:
• Attend annual Commute.org program training
• Actively promote applicable Commute.org programs and services to tenants • Host an annual transportation-oriented event for tenants • Sponsor and/or participate in Commute.org’s challenges and special events • Participate in a Commute.org sponsored shuttle if the project is located on or near an existing shuttle route
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 21
• Comply with the requirements of the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program (applies to tenants with 50+ employees)
• Complete the following surveys on an ongoing basis:
o TDM Survey: annual update of Commute.org TDM Survey confirming programs and services offered at the development
o TDM Self-Certification: biennial confirmation of compliance with the C/CAG TDM Policy
o Tenant Travel Behavior Survey: biennial survey of tenants’ employees to capture commute mode and frequency
In the event that a TMA is developed in the Downtown San Mateo area, it is recommended that the site participate as a member.

Estimated time frame Annual
Estimated cost $0
Responsible party Property Management
Estimated daily VMT reduced
(ROI Calculator)
199 - 882
Estimated C/CAG trip
reduction percentage

6.5%

Carpool and Vanpool Program (C/CAG “Required” Strategy M5) Helping facilitate the formation of new carpools or vanpools helps interested commuters overcome the hurdle of either not knowing who they can match with or not having time to meet other commuters.

Implementation Guidelines
The project’s TDM coordinator should serve as a facilitator of new carpools and vanpools.

Commuters to or from the site should be able to express their interest in forming or joining a carpool or vanpool by providing the coordinator with information including their commute’s route, times, and their interest in participating as driver or passenger. When feasible matches are available, the TDM coordinator can connect interested commuters to each other. The TDM coordinator can also help carpools register on Commute.org if they are seeking to establish carpools from outside of the site itself.

Estimated timeframe Ongoing
Estimated cost $0
Responsible party Property Management
Estimated daily VMT reduced
(ROI Calculator)
1,446 – 1,607
Estimated C/CAG trip
reduction percentage
2%

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 22
Transit Subsidies (GOPass and Way2GO Pass Provision) (C/CAG “Required” Strategy M6) Providing subsidized transit passes can help reduce single occupancy trips and increase transit ridership. It also provides increased flexibility for those who might still opt to drive occasionally.

Implementation Guidelines
Partner with Caltrain and SamTrans to provide free or discounted transit options to employees through the GO Pass and Way2Go Pass programs.

Estimated time frame Pre-occupancy (during the drafting of lease agreements), and ongoing.

Estimated cost GO Pass: Approximately $342 per employee working at least 20 hours per week
Way2GO Pass: $75 per employee

Based on an estimate of 378 employees the cost estimate is $157,626 annually
Responsible party Property Management
Estimated daily VMT reduced
(ROI Calculator)
1,757 – 1,953
Estimated C/CAG trip
reduction percentage
10%

Pre-Tax Transportation Benefits (C/CAG “Required” Strategy M7) Pre-tax commute benefits encourage public transit and active transportation trips by allowing commuters to further save on the cost of commuting.

Implementation Guidelines:

As pre-tax benefits are provided by employers, tenants will need to be informed of this TDM requirement. The TDM coordinator can help tenants by providing a list of vendors offering pre-tax benefit management. Additionally, employers of 50+ employees must implement pre-tax benefits per the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s requirements.

Estimated time frame Ongoing
Estimated cost $0
Responsible party Tenants
Estimated daily VMT reduced
(ROI Calculator)
504 - 560
Estimated C/CAG trip
reduction percentage
1%

Secure Bicycle Storage (C/CAG “Required” Strategy M8)
Bike parking is a crucial element in promoting biking among tenants and employees. Providing long-term and short-term accessible and secure bike parking facilities in well-lit, visible, and 445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 23
pedestrian accessible locations, ideally with protection from weather elements, can incentivize cycling.

Implementation Guidelines
Secure bicycle storage is required per City of San Mateo Zoning code section 27.64.262 and is included in the applicant’s Project Plans.

Estimated C/CAG trip
reduction percentage
1%

Design Streets to Encourage Bike/Ped Access (C/CAG “Required” Strategy M9) The design of streets and roadways adjacent to the property can influence travel choices, thus designing complete streets that give people the option to bike safely and walk can contribute to reducing vehicle trips as well as reduce traffic congestion.

Implementation Guidelines
Supporting active transportation improvements is required by San Mateo General Plan Policies: C

4.5 (Pedestrian Enhancements with New Development), C 4.9 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections), UD 2.9 (Pedestrian Oriented Design), and is addressed through the applicant’s Project Plans.

Estimated C/CAG trip
reduction percentage
1%

Showers, Lockers, and Changing Rooms for Cyclists (C/CAG “Required” Strategy M25) Active transportation trips (walking, running, biking, etc.) can be encouraged by providing supporting end-of-trip facilities such as showers, lockers, and changing rooms.

Implementation Guidance
Access to these facilities should be well advertised to tenant employees to ensure their use. To manage and track use of facilities, access could require pre-registration and have controlled entry.

Estimated C/CAG trip
reduction percentage
2%

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 24
If implemented correctly and consistently, the TDM program outlined in Chapter 3 will achieve a trip reduction target of 25% according to the C/CAG requirements and worksheet.

Beyond the C/CAG checklist, which provides flat percentage reduction estimates for each strategy, this TDM Plan utilizes the TDM Return on Investment (ROI) Calculator, a tool owned by Mobility Lab and developed by university and governmental partners. The TDM ROI Calculator helps practitioners and policy makers understand the benefits of their investment in TDM strategies and programs by calculating estimated vehicle trips, VMT, hours of congestion delay, and emissions reduced, with more specific consideration given to number of expected users, daily trips taken, and average trip distances for each strategy. Based on the TDM ROI Calculator, the proposed TDM program is forecasted to result in a daily reduction of between 4,788 to 6,117 vehicle miles travelled (VMT), which would lead to a reduction of approximately 1,638 to 2,093 kilograms of carbon dioxide every day according to the ROI calculator model. More information about the TDM ROI Calculator and assumptions made to calculate estimated impacts are included in Appendix A.

Program Impacts
Table 9 outlines the total estimated VMT and congestion hours reduced with the recommended TDM program for the project site.

Table 9. ROI Calculator Estimated VMT and Congestion Hours Reduced 445 S B St Annual VMT
Reduced
Annual Vehicle
Trips Reduced
Annual Congestion
Reduced (hours of
delay)
Carbon Dioxide
Reduced (kg)
Low Est. High Est. Low Est. High Est. Low Est. High Est. Low Est. High Est.

Project
TDM
Measures
1,182,636 1,510,899 62,491 83,486 170,924 216,866 404,586 516,971

4 Impact of TDM Measures
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 25
Table 10 summarizes the daily VMT, vehicle trips, and congestion reduction for each of the TDM strategies.

Table 10. ROI Calculator summary of daily trip reductions Strategy Daily VMT Reduced Daily Vehicle
Trips Reduced
Daily Congestion
Reduced (hours
of delay)
Daily Carbon Dioxide
Reduced (kg)
Low Est. High Est. Low
Est.

High
Est.

Low
Est.

High
Est.

Low
Est.

High Est.

Free/Preferential
Parking for
Carpools
730 811 19 21 117 130 250 277
TDM Coordinator/
Contact Person 152 304 9 18 24 49 52 104
Commute.org or
TMA 199 882 14 64 26 115 68 302
Carpool and
Vanpool Program 1,446 1,607 37 41 231 257 495 550
Transit or
Ridesharing
Passes/Subsidies
(GoPass and
Way2Go Pass
Provision)
1,757 1,953 143 159 228 254 601 668
Pre-Tax
Transportation
Benefit
504 560 31 35 66 73 172 192
Secure Bicycle
Storage
Provision of secure bicycle storage is included in the project site plan and therefore it has not been modeled in the TDM ROI Calculator.

Design Streets to
Encourage
Bike/Ped Access
Design of streets to encourage bike/pedestrian access is included in the project site plan and therefore it has not been modeled in the TDM ROI Calculator.

Showers, Lockers,
and Changing
Rooms for Cyclists
Showers, lockers and changing rooms for cyclists are included in the project site plan and therefore it has not been modeled in the TDM ROI Calculator.

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 26
The City of San Mateo will require the site to perform annual monitoring and reporting. Ongoing monitoring will help the property track the impact of its TDM programs, as well as provide a regular schedule for evaluating programming and identifying gaps and opportunities. The results will help the property management team adjust programs to better meet the needs of the employees.

The City of San Mateo’s general conditions for approval stipulate that all new developments must submit a Trip Reduction and Parking Management Plan and submit an annual monitoring report.

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

To comply with both City and C/CAG requirements, the TDM Coordinator should register with Commute.org. Commute.org will administer the complimentary biennial surveys that are required to comply with the C/CAG policy through the OneCommute Platform. On the ‘off’ years, the developer may contract directly with Commute.org to undertake an additional survey or may administer the survey themselves. If they select the latter option, it is recommended that the questions and survey language mirror the survey provided by Commute.org so the site and City are able to collect comprehensive and consistent data.

The survey results allow the property to not only track program progress but also identify ways to approach and/or adjust the program and further shift travel behavior towards more sustainable modes (transit, bike, walk, and carpool) over time. The TDM Coordinator could use the data to understand which amenities are popular and should remain, which are not effective and should be adjusted, and identify additional measures to implement in their place. 5 Monitoring
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 27
The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Return on Investment-(ROI) Calculator is a tool owned by Mobility Lab, an Arlington County, Virginia, funded transportation behavior and policy research center. It was developed in partnership with university and governmental partners, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration, to provide TDM program staff, transportation planners, and others involved in implementing TDM services a quantifiable way to estimate the ROI for TDM services.

According to the TDM ROI Calculator User Manual, the model calculates impacts for individual TDM services then combines the individual impacts, with discounts to account for overlap between services, to determine the cumulative impact of all services.3 The calculator performs the following functions:
• Estimates TDM travel impacts, defined as reductions in commute vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled (VMT), from a user-defined package of TDM services • Converts vehicle trip and VMT reductions into societal benefits, such as reduction in hours of travel time delay and gallons of gasoline saved
• Calculates the societal cost savings from each benefit and the overall cost saving from all benefits combined
• Compares the societal cost saving to the TDM program "investment" cost to estimate ROI As most TDM programs do not have detailed VMT and trip reduction data, the ROI Calculator instead asks for user participation numbers and program costs as the inputs for its calculations.

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

The inputs used for calculating the VMT and vehicle trip reductions for the 455 South B St TDM Plan are outlined on the following pages so that the results can be duplicated with ease.

3 Mobility Lab. (2019). TDM ROI Calculator User Manual. Retrieved from https://mobilitylab.org/calculators/
A TDM ROI Calculator
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 28
At the outset in Section A (Your Region, Service Area Type and Transit Availability), the TDM ROI Calculator asks users to make a series of selections to determine geographic and transit characteristics of the area being examined. The options selected for the 455 South B St TDM Plan are displayed in Table A.1 as follows:

Table A.1. Selections made for region, service area type and transit availability Question in the ROI Calculator Option Selected for the TDM Plan Metropolitan Region San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
Primary land use density and development pattern Moderate density, urban or small city/town Primary focus of TDM Program outreach Balanced mix of outreach to commuters at worksites and residential areas
Percentage of commuters within ½ mile of
bus/train stop in service area
76% to 100% of commuters are within 1/2 mile of a
bus or train stop
Average public transit frequency in the service area
in the morning peak period (select ONLY ONE
option)
Moderate-Average rush hour frequency for most
routes is 16-30 minutes
With the above inputs selected, the model determines the classifications for the project site as follows in Table A.2.

Table A.2. Project site TDM service area and transit availability classifications Your TDM Service Area classification is: Suburban/small city Your Transit Availability classification is High transit

Regional Travel, Environmental and Cost Benefit Factors The final section of the ROI Calculator (Section F - Additional Regional/Service Area Data Environmental Inputs) shows the default numbers used for regional travel, environmental and cost benefit factors. Users have the option to override these defaults by inputting values into the “User Defined” cells if specific local factors are known. Table A.3 shows the defaults assumed by the model and indicates if the defaults were overridden, and which values were used. The inputs defined in Table A.3 remained the same for all calculations for the 455 South B St TDM Plan.

445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 29
Table A.3. Travel, vehicle pollutant emission, and benefit cost factor default and user defined values Regional Travel Factors Regional
Default
User
Defined
Average home-to-work commute miles for the region (one-way distance) 9.6 13.94 Percentage of regional commuters who drive alone to work OR percentage of weekly commute trips made by driving alone

63.2% 59%5
Percentage of regional commuters who ride public transit to work OR percentage of weekly commute trips made by transit

17.6% 9.1%6
Regional Vehicle Pollutant Emission Factors National
Default
User
Defined
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) emission rate in grams per mile of travel 0.445 0.171 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emission rate in grams per mile of travel 0.075 0.0357 Greenhouse gas (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent) emission rate in grams per mile of travel
387.460 342.0008
Regional Benefit Cost Factors Regional
Default
User
Defined
Median average wage rate for commuters in the service area or metropolitan region
$24.90 $49.719
Estimated average annualized cost to build/maintain one lane-mile of major roadway (combination of Interstate and limited access roadway) $165,000 -
Average pump price per gallon for regular unleaded gasoline $3.36 $4.5710

4 San Mateo Economic Development Association (2012). Labor Supply and Commute Patterns in San Mateo County Report. Retrieved from http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/files/pdf/BACEI_Labor_Mobility_110612.pdf 5 U.S. Census Bureau (2021). American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from Census Reporter Profile page for Census Tract 6063, San Mateo, CA http://censusreporter.org/profiles/14000US06081606300-census-tract- 6063-san-mateo-ca/
6 Ibid.
7 California Air Resources Board Emissions Factors (EMFAC) database 8 Ibid.
9 San Mateo Economic Development Association (2012). Labor Supply and Commute Patterns in San Mateo County Report. Retrieved from http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/files/pdf/BACEI_Labor_Mobility_110612.pdf 10 AAA. (2022). AAA Gas Prices. Retrieved from https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=CA 445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 30
Assumptions
ROI Calculator Participation and Calculation Factors Assumptions In order to use the ROI calculator to calculate estimated impacts for the 455 South B St project, assumptions were made to estimate the participation rate for each strategy. Additionally, if a strategy was not outlined as a direct input in the model, assumptions were made to estimate the calculation factors associated with it. Table A.5 outlines those assumptions. 445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 31
Table A.5. Summary of Assumptions for each Strategy
Strategy ROI Calc Input
Participation
Assumption
(per year)
Basis for Participation Assumption
Placement
rate (%)
Assumption
Vehicle Trip
Reduction
Factor
Assumption
One-Way
Commute
Distance
Assumption
(miles)
Drive-Alone Access
% Assumption
Free/Preferential
Parking for Carpools
Vanpool
Formation
52 50% of (existing carpool population +
additional 5% of drive alone
commuters), given complementary
nature of the two measures and aligned
with relative impact scale of C/CAG
estimated trip reduction for the two
measures (i.e., 1% trip reduction for
Free/Preferential parking for carpools
and 2% for Carpool or Vanpool
program)
100%
Pre-set in
model

1.4 Pre-set in model

41.7 Pre-set in
model
90%
Pre-set in model
TDM Coordinator/
Contact Person
Comprehensive
Commute
Assistance
128 Assist 20% of employees with questions
about transportation including one-on-
one assistance when asked and
promoting sustainable transportation
options (5 hours/month)
45%
Pre-set in
model

0.6 Pre-set in model

20.9 Pre-set in
model
70%
Pre-set in model
Actively Participate
in Commute.org
Employer
Services
639 The resources available through the
Commute.org will be available to all
employees at the worksite
12%
Pre-set in
model

0.8 Pre-set in model

13.9 Pre-set in
model
40%
Pre-set in model
Vanpool and
Carpool Program
Vanpool
Formation
103 Existing carpool population + additional
5% of drive alone commuters
100%
Pre-set in
model

1.4 Pre-set in model

41.7 Pre-set in
model
90%
Pre-set in model
Transit
Passes/Subsidies
Ongoing transit
incentive
378 % of transit users + 50% of commuters
(employees)
50%
Pre-set in
model

1.2 Pre-set in model

10.4 Pre-set in
model
70%
Pre-set in model
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan
August 2024 | 32
Pre-Tax
Transportation
Benefit
Ongoing multi-
modal incentive
58 All employees that use transit or bike
only
50%
Pre-set in
model

0.8 Pre-set in model

20.9 Pre-set in
model
50%
Pre-set in model
445 South B Street TDM Plan - Commercial | TDM Plan

B Background Assessment

Control Information
Prepared by Prepared for
Steer
800 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1320,
Los Angeles, CA 90017
USA
+1 (213) 425 0990
www.steergroup.com
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

Steer project/proposal number Client contract/project number 24542801 Click here to enter text.

Author/originator Reviewer/approver
Ana Erviti Ferrando Julia Wean, Gary Hsueh

Other contributors Distribution
Olivia Mendoza, Lenya Schmidt Neuhaus, Richard Davis, Nathalie McCarvel
Client: Steer:

Version control/issue number Date

steergroup.com