San Mateo City Council
July 20, 2026

4917-2528-5210.3/
372819-00030/8-11-25/dhb/dhb
I. NEW CEQA EXEMPTION ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
To qualify for the AB 130 CEQA exemption, the project must satisfy specific site and project requirements. Unlike other housing streamlining laws enacted in recent years, AB 130 does not contain any affordability requirements, and labor requirements are limited to only a narrow class of projects, none of which fit the description for the Project. As described below, the Project fits each of the AB 130 qualifying criteria.
a. Housing project. The project must be a housing development project, which is defined to include: (1) projects consisting of residential uses only; (2) mixed-use projects where at least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use; (3) mixed-use projects with greater than 500 units where at least half of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and other specific requirements are met; (4) transitional housing or supportive housing; and (5) farmworker housing. (Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(h)(2), 65905.5(b); Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a).)
The Project meets this requirement because it will be developed with 100% residential uses.
b. Acreage. The project site must be 20 acres or less, except Builder’s Remedy project sites must be 5 acres or less. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(1).) The Project meets this requirement because it is not a Builder’s Remedy project and the Property is 1.22 acres.
c. Urban area. The project site must be within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality or in an urban area, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. (Pub. Res.

Code § 21080.66(a)(2).)
The Project meets this requirement because it is within the City of San Mateo, an incorporated municipality.
d. Infill location. The project site must be an urban infill site, meaning that: (i) the site was previously developed with an urban use; (ii) at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses; (iii) at least 75% of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses; or (iv) for sites with four sides, at least three sides are developed with urban uses and at least 540 of 833
To: Prometheus Real Estate Group From: David H. Blackwell Date: August 11, 2025

4917-2528-5210.3/
372819-00030/8-11-25/dhb/dhb
two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(3).)
The Project meets this requirement because the Property is currently developed with a vehicular sales center and residence, which qualify as “urban uses.” The Property also qualifies under the other definitions of urban infill site because it is surrounded on at least 75% of the perimeter, or three of four sides, by urban uses. e. Environmental siting criteria. The project must meet environmental siting criteria set forth in SB 35/423. To qualify, a site must not be located in any of the following:
1) certain areas of the coastal zone; 2) prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or land designated for agricultural protection or preservation; 3) wetlands; 4) a very high fire hazard severity zone (unless certain mitigation measures adopted); 5) a hazardous waste site; 6) a delineated earthquake fault zone; 7) a 100-year flood hazard area or regulatory floodway; 8) lands identified for conservation or under a conservation easement; or 9) habitat for protected species. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(6); Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6).)
The Project meets this requirement because the Property does not fall within any of the prohibited categories. Specifically:
i. The Property is not within the coastal zone;
ii. The Property is not on land used or designated for agriculture; iii. The Property is not on a wetland;
iv. The Property is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone, per our review of the Office of the State Fire Marshal’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps; v. The Property is not on a hazardous waste site, per our review of the Cortese List of hazardous waste sites;
vi. The Property is not within a delineated earthquake fault zone, per our review of the California Department of Conservation’s Earthquake Hazards Zone Application;
vii. The Property is not within a 100-year flood hazard area nor a regulatory floodway, per our review of FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer; 541 of 833
To: Prometheus Real Estate Group From: David H. Blackwell Date: August 11, 2025

4917-2528-5210.3/
372819-00030/8-11-25/dhb/dhb
viii. The Property is not on lands identified for conservation or subject to a conservation easement;
ix. The Property is not habitat for protected species.
f. Land use regulations. The project must be consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, as well as any applicable local coastal program. If the general plan and zoning ordinance are inconsistent, the project need only be consistent with one. Use of any State Density Bonus Law density bonus, incentive or concession, waiver, or reduced parking ratio shall not be grounds to determine the project is inconsistent with the zoning, general plan, or local coastal program. The housing development shall be deemed consistent if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude as such. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(4).) The Project meets this requirement because it is consistent with the land use designations for the Property. The Property is designated “Residential Medium II” in the City’s 2040 General Plan and is within the Executive Office (“E2-1.5”) zoning district. The Residential Medium II designation permits residential uses, with a maximum density range of 51 – 99 dwelling units per acre. The E2-1.5 zoning district permits residential uses subject to R3 district minimum development standards.

Because the Property is over 50,000 square feet, those standards require a minimum 1,250 square feet of parcel area per dwelling unit, or roughly 42 dwelling units per acre. This is inconsistent with the minimum density of the Residential Medium II general plan designation. Under AB 130, if the general plan and zoning are inconsistent, then the Project shall be deemed consistent with both if it is consistent with one.

Per the Project application, the residential density will be 99 dwelling units per acre which is within the General Plan range for the Property. Further, because the Project qualifies for a density bonus, any development standards that would preclude development of the Project as designed, such as the minimum parcel area per dwelling unit standard, will be waived or reduced.
g. Minimum density. The proposed residential density must be at least 50% of the minimum residential density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for the jurisdiction. Depending on the type of jurisdiction (nonmetropolitan, suburban, or metropolitan), the minimum density ranges from 5 to 15 units per acre. (Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B); Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(5).)
542 of 833
To: Prometheus Real Estate Group From: David H. Blackwell Date: August 11, 2025

4917-2528-5210.3/
372819-00030/8-11-25/dhb/dhb
The Project meets this requirement because, with a proposed density of 99 dwelling units per acre, it has a greater density than the highest statutory minimum density of 15 units per acre.
h. Historic structures. The project does not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register before the date a preliminary application (as defined) was submitted. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(7).)
The Project meets this requirement because none of the existing structures to be demolished are on a national, state, or local historic register. i. Freeway proximity. For any housing within 500 feet of a freeway, the building: (i) must have a centralized heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system and the outdoor intakes for that system cannot face the freeway; (ii) must provide air filtration media for outside and return air that provide a minimum efficiency reporting value of 16, which must be replaced as specified; and (iii) must not have any balconies facing the freeway. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(c)(2).)
The project is not within 500 feet of a freeway.
j. Tribal notice. The City must notify all California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site, and consult with any tribe that elects to be involved, as specified in the statute. Related conditions of project approval may be imposed. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(b).) During preparation of the EIR for the 2040 General Plan, the City identified the following tribes as potentially having local knowledge: 1) Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista; 2) Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe; 3) Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan; 4) Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area; 5) The Ohlone Indian Tribe; and 6) Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. Of these, only the Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ohlohne People responded.

Therefore, it is possible that this tribe will respond to a consultation request for the Project.
k. Phase I environmental site assessment. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) must be performed for the project site, and if a recognized environmental condition is found, certain steps must be taken to ensure there is no threat to human health or safety, as specified in the statute. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(c)(1).) 543 of 833
To: Prometheus Real Estate Group From: David H. Blackwell Date: August 11, 2025

4917-2528-5210.3/
372819-00030/8-11-25/dhb/dhb
A Phase I and II ESA for the Property was prepared for Prometheus Real Estate Group on March 29, 2023. No Recognized Environmental Conditions (“RECs”), Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (“CRECs”), Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (“HRECs”), Business Environmental Risks (“BERs”), or significant data gaps were identified.

No further actions were recommended in the Phase I ESA. l. Transient lodging. For new projects “deemed complete” on or after January 1, 2025, no portion of the project may be designated for use as transient lodging (as defined). “Deemed complete” means that an SB 330 preliminary application or a complete application (pursuant to Gov. Code § 65943) has been submitted for the project. (Pub.

Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(8).)
The Project meets this requirement because none of the proposed components will be used for transient lodging.
m. Labor requirements. Any building over 85 feet in height (from grade) is subject to the SB 35 labor standards, including prevailing wage requirements, recordkeeping requirements, additional labor standards for developments over 50 units, and additional skilled and trained workforce requirements. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(d)(2); see Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8).) All construction workers employed in the execution of public or private housing development projects where 100% of units will be dedicated to lower income households shall be paid prevailing wages; registered apprentices may be paid the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. (Pub.

Res. Code § 21080.66(d)(1).)
The Project will not be required to comply with the above labor provisions because it will not be over 85 feet in height, nor will 100% of the units be dedicated to lower income households.

II. NEW PROJECT APPROVAL TIMELINE
AB 130 also amended the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”) to create a new approval timeline for agencies with approval authority over projects that qualify for the AB 130 CEQA exemption. (Gov. Code § 65950(a)(7).) The amended PSA states that an agency must approve or disapprove the project “[t]hirty days from the conclusion of [the tribal consultation process]” for projects invoking the new CEQA exemption. (Id.)
544 of 833
To: Prometheus Real Estate Group From: David H. Blackwell Date: August 11, 2025

4917-2528-5210.3/
372819-00030/8-11-25/dhb/dhb
Additionally, the tribal consultation process itself contains statutory approval timelines that, when combined with the new PSA provisions, establish a single approval timeline for an AB 130 project starting with application completeness, or for applications already deemed complete, when the applicant notifies the City that the project qualifies for AB 130. Because the tribal consultation process can conclude in multiple ways, the exact timing cannot be determined from the outset. At a minimum, if no tribes elect to participate in the consultation, a project must be approved no later than 104 days from the date of application completeness/AB 130 notification. If a tribe elects to participate in the consultation, a project must be approved no later than 178 days from the date of application completeness/AB 130 notification, but may be approved earlier.

At this time, we understand the Project’s application is under review with the City Planning Department. Under AB 130, the approval timeline begins either when the application is deemed complete, or for projects with already completed applications, when the applicant notifies the City that the project qualifies for AB 130. (Gov. Code § 21080.66(b)(1)(A)(i)-(ii); § 65589.5(h)(5).) For the purposes of AB 130, “deemed complete” means the applicant has submitted an SB 330 preliminary application. (Id.) Therefore, if a preliminary application was previously submitted for the Project, Prometheus can start the approval timeline immediately by notifying the City that the Project qualifies for AB 130. Note that the City only has 14 days from the date of application completeness/AB 130 notification to provide formal notification to tribes. Therefore, we recommend informing the City as soon as possible that the Project will utilize the AB 130 CEQA exemption to ensure that there are no delays once the application is deemed complete or Prometheus makes an AB 130 notification. As stated above, at least one tribe participated in the preparation of the 2024 General Plan, so it is possible that the Project may go through this consultation process. 545 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive
Residential Development
Local Transportation Analysis
Prepared for:

Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.

March 5, 2026
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Hexagon Office: 100 Century Center Court, Suite 501
San Jose, CA 95112
Phone: 408.971.6100
Hexagon Job Number: 25KK11
Client Name: Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
546 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................i

1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................1

2. Existing Transportation Conditions................................................................................................7

3. Opening Year Conditions ............................................................................................................14

4. Cumulative Conditions ................................................................................................................20

5. Other Transportation Issues........................................................................................................23 Appendices
Appendix A Traffic Counts
Appendix B Volume Sheets
Appendix C Intersection Level of Service Calculations
List of Tables
Table ES-1 Intersection Level of Service Summary............................................................................. iii Table 1 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay..................5 Table 2 Existing Transit Services......................................................................................................8 Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ...............................................................................13 Table 4 Project Trip Generation Estimates......................................................................................15 Table 5 Opening Year Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service..................................................18 Table 6 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service..........................................................................22 Table 7 Intersection Queueing Analysis..........................................................................................24 Table 8 Bicycle Parking Requirements ...........................................................................................31 List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections................................................................................2 Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan............................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Existing Transit Services ...................................................................................................9 Figure 4 Existing Bicycle Facilities.................................................................................................11 Figure 5 Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations...........................................................12 Figure 6 Walking Distance from Station to Entrance......................................................................16 Figure 7 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment.........................................................................17 Figure 8 Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Volumes.....................................................................19 Figure 9 Cumulative Traffic Volumes.............................................................................................21 Figure 10 Parking Garage Plans .....................................................................................................26 547 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | i
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the local transportation analysis conducted for the residential development proposed at 715 North San Mateo Drive in San Mateo, California. The site consists of four parcels (APNs 032-151-130, -160, -300, -320) along the south side of San Mateo Drive, with frontage along State Street, San Mateo Drive, and Villa Terrace. The project proposes to demolish two existing vacant commercial buildings and parking lots formerly used as car dealerships and a single family detached house and construct a 6-story residential building consisting of 181 residential units (consisting of 162 market-rate units and 19 below market-rate units for very-low income households). A parking garage would be located on the first floor and the basement level. Vehicle access to the parking garage would be provided by a single full-access driveway located along Villa Terrace.

This study evaluates potential local transportation effects of the project in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of San Mateo.

Project Trip Estimates
The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 12 th Edition, was used to
estimate the vehicle trips that would be generated by the project. After applying the appropriate ITE trip generation rate, the proposed project is estimated to generate a gross of 807 daily trips, with 69 trips (16 inbound and 53 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 69 trips (44 inbound and 25 outbound) during the PM peak hour.

Intersection Level of Service Analysis
The results of the intersection level of service analysis (see Table ES-1) show that all study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service with and without the addition of project trips under all evaluated scenarios.

Other Transportation Issues
Traffic associated with the project would not contribute to any increase in vehicle queues at any of the studied intersections. The proposed site plan shows that the project would provide generally adequate site access and on-site circulation, and would not interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, or transit circulation in the area. The project is not subject to any minimum vehicular parking requirements and would provide adequate bicycle parking. The project should consider the following recommendations resulting from the site plan review:
548 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | ii
Recommendations
• The security gate at the driveway should be installed approximately 30 feet from the sidewalk in order to minimize the effect of queueing on the sidewalk and traffic operations on Villa Terrace. • Appropriate visual and/or audible warning signals should be provided at the project driveway to alert pedestrians of vehicles exiting the driveway.
• Landscaping near the driveway and intersection corners should be placed and maintained such that it does not interfere with sight distance. Trees should have a high canopy of at least 6 feet and other landscaping should be kept at a low level below 3 feet. • Landscaping provided at corners should be less than 3 feet tall at the corner to maintain the required sight distance.
• Each tandem parking space and adjacent parking should be assigned to the same unit. 549 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | iii
Table ES-1
Intersection Level of Service Summary
# Intersection Pk Hr Control
Avg.

Delay LOS
Avg.

Delay LOS
Change in
Avg Delay1
Avg.

Delay LOS
Avg.

Delay LOS
Change in
Avg Delay2
1 AM 18.8 C 19.7 C 0.9 22.9 C 24.3 C 1.4
PM 20.7 C 22.5 C 1.8 24.3 C 26.8 D 2.5
2 AM 9.0 A 9.0 A 0.0 9.0 A 9.0 A 0.0
PM 8.8 A 8.9 A 0.1 8.9 A 8.9 A 0.0
3 AM - - 8.9 A - - - 9.0 A -
PM - - 9.0 A - - - 9.0 A -
Existing
Conditions Opening Year + Project
Cumulative
Conditions Cumulative + Project
San Mateo Drive & Villa
Terrace
TWSC
Highland Avenue & Villa
Terrace
OWSC
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control, OWSC = One-Way Stop Control '-' indicates scenario does not evaluate this intersection 1Compared to Existing Conditions
Project Dwy & Villa
Terrace
OWSC
Notes
For TWSC and OWSC intersections, delay represents worst approach delay and LOS represents worst approach LOS 2 Compared to Cumulative Conditions 550 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 1

1. Introduction
This report presents the results of the local transportation analysis conducted for the residential development proposed at 715 North San Mateo Drive in San Mateo, California (see Figures 1 and 2).

The site consists of four parcels (APNs 032-151-130, -160, -300, -320) along the south side of San Mateo Drive, with frontage along State Street, San Mateo Drive, and Villa Terrace. The project proposes to demolish two existing vacant commercial buildings and parking lots formerly used as car dealerships and a single family detached house and construct a 6-story residential building consisting of 181 residential units (consisting of 162 market-rate units and 19 below market-rate units for very-low income households). A parking garage would be located on the first floor and the basement level.

Vehicle access to the parking garage would be provided by a single full-access driveway located along Villa Terrace.

Scope of Study
The purpose of this study is to identify potential local transportation effects of the project in accordance with standards and methodologies set forth by the City of San Mateo.

Local Transportation Analysis (LTA)
The City of San Mateo requires projects to measure intersection operations and to provide improvements or address project related operational deficiencies through a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA). The LTA also includes an evaluation of the project’s effect on transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access, a review of site access and circulation, and a parking analysis.

This study analyzes the traffic effects of the project on the key intersections in the vicinity of the site during the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The weekday AM peak hour is generally between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the weekday PM peak hour is generally between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. On a typical weekday (Tuesday through Thursday), these are the periods when the most congested traffic generally occurs.

This study includes an analysis of the weekday peak-hour traffic conditions of three intersections, as listed below, in accordance with the City’s TIA guidelines.

Study Intersections

1. San Mateo Drive and Villa Terrace

2. Highland Avenue and Villa Terrace

3. Project Driveway and Villa Terrace
551 of 833
1/2-mile radius
Burlingame
San
Mateo
1 2
3 Howard Ave Howard Ave
Bayswater Ave Bayswater Ave
E Santa Inez Ave E Santa Inez Ave
Burlingame Ave Burlingame Ave
Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
Peninsula Ave
State St
Villa Ter
Grand Blvd
El Camino Real
N San Mateo Dr
N Claremont St
California Dr
Highland Ave
E Poplar Ave
N Delaware St
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
= High‐Quality Transit Area
LEGEND
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA
Figure 1
Site Location & Study Intersections
552 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA
Figure 2
Proposed Site Plan

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
ELEV 1
202 SF
FIRE

COMMAND
536 SF

MAIL/PACKAGE
1046 SF
921 SF

COWORKING
816 SF

ND/LEASING
25001 SF
ELEV 2 PARKING
1574 SF

BIKE PARKING
MUDDY
PAWS
250 SF

POOL EQUIPMENT
1086 SF

MAINTENANCE
838 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UC
773 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
753 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
URBAN 1 BED
741 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
66 SF
IDF
STAIR 2

ELECTRIC
MPOE
1325 SF

ELECTRIC

ELECTRIC
193 SF

RESTROOMS E RST
S
KIN
EL CTR
553 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 4
Intersection traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from new turning-movement counts conducted on October 30, 2025. Traffic counts are included in Appendix A.
• Opening Year Plus Project Conditions. Per the City of San Mateo’s development project database, accessed November 18, 2025, there are no approved developments near the project site that would be expected to add traffic to the study intersections. Thus, the opening year plus project conditions were estimated by adding the new traffic estimated to be generated by the project to existing traffic volumes. Intersection effects associated with the development would be evaluated relative to existing conditions.
• Cumulative No Project Conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes represent traffic volumes and roadway conditions projected at the City’s General Plan Buildout in the year 2040. The City’s recently adopted General Plan did not produce intersection volume forecasts. Thus, cumulative traffic volumes were developed using the latest citywide travel demand model. • Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Cumulative plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to the cumulative traffic volumes the new traffic generated by the project. Intersection effects associated with the development will be evaluated relative to cumulative conditions.

Other Transportation Issues
The study includes an evaluation of potential operational deficiencies related to transit services and a review of site access, on-site circulation, traffic calming, and parking.

Intersection Operations Analysis Methodology
This section presents the methods used to determine traffic conditions at the study intersections. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards.

Data Requirements
The data required for the analysis was obtained from traffic counts, the City of San Mateo, and field observations. The following data was collected:
• Existing traffic volumes
• Lane geometries
• List of approved developments
• Cumulative Volumes
Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methodologies and Standards Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. This study utilizes Synchro software to determine intersection levels of service based on the latest HCM methodology.

Unsignalized Intersections
Level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is generally used to determine the need for modifications in the type of intersection control (i.e., all-way stop or signalization). As part of the evaluation, traffic volumes, delays and traffic signal warrants are evaluated to determine if the existing intersection control is appropriate.
554 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 5
For unsignalized intersections, level of service depends on the average delay experienced by vehicles on the stop-controlled approaches. For side street stop-controlled intersections (two-way or Tintersections), operations are defined by the average control delay experienced by vehicles entering the intersection from the stop-controlled approaches on minor streets or from left-turn approaches on major streets. The level of service is reported based on the average delay for the worst approach. The level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 1.

The City of San Mateo’s level of service standard for unsignalized intersections is LOS E.

Table 1
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay Intersection Vehicle Queuing Analysis
The analysis of intersection operations was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis at intersections where the project would add a substantial number of trips to the left-turn movements or stop-controlled approaches. The vehicle queuing analysis is used to determine the appropriate storage lengths for the high demand turn lanes where the project would add a substantial number of trips.

An evaluation of vehicle queuing was conducted using the Synchro software, utilizing its estimate of the 95th percentile number of queued vehicles and a comparison of this estimate to available storage space for the movement assuming 25 feet per vehicle.

Definition of Adverse Intersection Operational Effects
A local transportation analysis was conducted to evaluate the project’s consistency with the level of service standards set forth in the City’s guidelines and to identify feasible improvements to remedy deficiencies. Adverse operational effects at study intersections are based on the City of San Mateo standards.

An adverse traffic operations issue is identified by the City for unsignalized intersections if the addition of traffic generated by the proposed project results in one of the following for either peak hour:

1. The addition of project traffic causes the average intersection delay for all-way stop-controlled or the worst movement/approach for side-street stop-controlled intersections to degrade to LOS F, or
Level of Service Description Average Control Delay per Vehicle (sec.) B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays greater than 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition (Washington, D.C.,2022) 555 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 6

2. An intersection that operates below its level of service standard under no-project conditions experiences an increase in critical-movement delay of four (4) or more seconds when project traffic is added.

If the operations of an unsignalized intersection become deficient based on LOS then an adverse effect would occur when: (1) an unsignalized intersection with project traffic is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS, and (2) if it meets the peak hour signal warrants for existing intersections, and the daily warrants for planned intersections under the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). If a project is near a school or downtown area with substantial pedestrian activity then City may require additional warrants to be evaluated such as pedestrian, accident history, etc.

Report Organization
This report has a total of five chapters. Chapter 2 describes the existing roadway network, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and intersection levels of service. Chapter 3 presents the method used to estimate project traffic and the resulting intersection levels of service under opening year plus project conditions. Chapter 4 presents the method used to estimate cumulative volumes, and the resulting levels of service under cumulative no project and cumulative plus project conditions.

Chapter 5 presents the analysis of other transportation-related issues, including intersection queuing, site access and circulation, parking, and effects to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. 556 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 7

2. Existing Transportation Conditions
This chapter describes the existing conditions for transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit services, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and traffic operations at the study intersections.

Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided via US 101 and El Camino Real (also known as State Route 82 or SR 82). Local access to the site is provided via San Mateo Drive, State Street, Highland Avenue, and Villa Terrace. These facilities are described below.

US 101 is a north-south, ten-lane freeway (four mixed-flow lanes and one express lane in each direction) in the vicinity of the site. US 101 extends northward to San Francisco and southward to San Jose. Access to and from the site is provided by interchanges at Poplar Avenue for southbound US 101 and at Airport Boulevard for northbound US 101.

El Camino Real (SR 82) is a north-south highway with four lanes in the vicinity of the site. It is designated as a principal arterial per the City of San Mateo General Plan 2040. SR 82 extends from San Francisco to San Jose. Continuous sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street, with onstreet parking not being allowed in the project vicinity. In the project vicinity, the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Access to and from the site is provided via State Street.

San Mateo Drive is a north-south minor arterial per the General Plan. It has one lane in each direction and extends from 5th Avenue in the south to Peninsula Avenue in the north where it transitions into California Drive. It has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Continuous sidewalks are present on both sides of the street. There is a Class III bike route with sharrows on both sides of the street from 5th Avenue to Catalpa Street and Class II bike lanes on both sides of the street from Catalpa Street to Peninsula Avenue where it transitions back to a bike route.

San Mateo Drive provides access to and from the project via Villa Terrace.

State Street is an east-west local street per the General Plan. It has one lane in each direction and extends from San Mateo Drive in the east to El Camino Real in the west. It has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Continuous sidewalks are present on both sides of the street. Access to the project is provided by Highland Avenue and San Mateo Drive.

Highland Avenue is a north-south local street per the General Plan. It has one lane in each direction and extends from California Drive in the north to Santa Inez Avenue in the south. It has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Continuous sidewalks are present on both sides of the street. Access to and from the site is provided by Villa Terrace. 557 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 8
Villa Terrace is an east-west local street per the General Plan. It has one lane in each direction and extends from Highland Avenue in the west to Claremont Street in the east. It has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Continuous sidewalks are present on both sides of the street. Villa Terrace provides direct site access through a proposed full-access driveway approximately 150 feet west of its intersection with San Mateo Drive.

Existing Transit Services
Existing public transit services in the study area are provided by SamTrans and Caltrain. SamTrans operates bus routes in San Mateo County, including routes ECR, 292, 46, 53/53P and 397 within 0.5 miles of the project site. The nearest bus stop to the project site is located approximately 0.2 miles from the project site at the intersection of California Avenue/San Mateo Drive and Peninsula Avenue and is served by route 292. Caltrain provides commuter transit across the Bay Area from San Francisco to Gilroy, with the nearest station to the project site being the Burlingame station, located slightly over 0.5 miles from the proposed main entrance to the project by foot. Public transit options in the vicinity of the site are shown in Table 2 and Figure 3.

Table 2
Existing Transit Services
Headways1
Route Route Description (minutes)
Bus Routes
Route ECR Daly City BART - Palo Alto
Transit Center
4:40 AM - 1:20 AM (next
day) 15 El Camino Real at State Street 1,400
Route 292 San Francisco - Hillsdale
Mall
4:10 AM - 1:50 AM (next
day) 20
San Mateo
Drive/California Avenue
at Peninsula Avenue
1,000
School-Oriented Routes
Route 46 Burlingame Intermediate
School - Carolan at 1060
7:50 AM - 8:30 AM and
2:20 PM - 3:50 PM N/A2 Myrtle Road at Burlingame Avenue 2,700 Route 53 & 53P Borel Middle School -
Peninsula/Humboldt
7:30 AM - 7:50 AM and
2:10 PM - 3:50 PM N/A2 Delaware Street at Bellevue Avenue 2,500 Late-Night Route
Route 397 OWL San Francisco - Palo Alto
Transit Center
2:05 AM - 5:40 AM
(does not operate during
peak hours)
N/A3 El Camino Real at State
Street 1,400
Train Services
Caltrain Gilroy - San Francisco 5:20 AM - 12:30 AM
(next day) 30 Burlingame Caltrain Station 2,500
Notes:
3 Route 397 provides three northbound buses and four southbound buses each morning. 2 Routes 46 and 53/53P provide two buses in the same direction in the AM hour and two buses in the other direction in the PM hour Monday through Friday.

Weekday Hours
of Operation Nearest Stop
Walking Distance from
Nearest Stop to
Project Site (feet)
1 Headways during weekday peak periods as of November 2025. 558 of 833 ECR
397
292
292
53 53P
53P
53P
53P
53 46
46 46
53P
53, 53P,
292
397, ECR
397, ECR
292 292
397, ECR
53P
Howard Ave Howard Ave
Bayswater Ave Bayswater Ave
E Santa Inez Ave E Santa Inez Ave
Burlingame Ave Burlingame Ave
Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
Peninsula Ave
State St
Villa Ter
Grand Blvd
El Camino Real
N San Mateo Dr
N Claremont St
California Dr
Highland Ave
E Poplar Ave
N Delaware St
LEGEND
= Site Location
XX = SamTrans Routes serving South County
XXX = SamTrans Routes connecting to
BART and Caltrain Stations
XX = Nearby Bus Stop
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA
Figure 3
Existing Transit Services
559 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 10
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks and crosswalks. Sidewalks are present on all streets in the nearby project area. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are provided at all signalized intersections surrounding the site.

Within 0.5 mile of the project site, curb ramps are present at all signalized intersections and most unsignalized intersections. Most corners meet current ADA curb ramp designs.

The project site is located in a primarily residential area, with nearby commercial areas predominantly providing auto-related services. Downtown Burlingame and Downtown San Mateo are located approximately 11 minutes (0.5 miles) and 16 minutes (0.7miles) away by foot, respectively. These areas are accessible from the project site via sidewalks.

Existing Bicycle Facilities
The bicycle facilities that exist within a half mile of the project site (see Figure 4) include striped bike lanes (Class II bikeways), and bike routes (Class III bikeways). Class II bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage.

Class III bike routes are streets with signage and pavement markings where bicyclists share a travel lane with motorists.

Bike facilities in the project area are described below:

Bike Lane (Class II)
• San Mateo Drive (from Peninsula Avenue to Catalpa Street) • Delaware Street (from Poplar Avenue to Indian Avenue) • Humboldt Street (from Peninsula Avenue to 9th Avenue) • Poplar Avenue (from El Camino Real to Claremont Street) • Howard Avenue (from Myrtle Road to Humboldt Street)
Bike Route (Class III)
• San Mateo Drive/California Drive (from Peninsula Avenue to Oak Grove Avenue) • Delaware Street (from Peninsula Avenue to 1st Avenue) • Monte Diablo Avenue (east of San Mateo Drive, connecting to the Bay Trail via a bicycle/pedestrian-only crossing over US-101)
Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained from observations in the field.

Existing peak-hour intersection volumes were obtained from turning movement counts collected on October 30, 2025, when nearby schools were in session, during typical peak traffic hours between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Existing lane configurations and peak-hour intersection traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5. Traffic counts are presented in Appendix A.

Existing Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that all of the study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service (see Table 3). The intersection levels of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C.
560 of 833
Howard Ave Howard Ave
Monte Diablo Ave Monte Diablo Ave
Indian Ave Indian Ave
Bayswater Ave Bayswater Ave
N Humboldt St N Humboldt St
E Santa Inez Ave E Santa Inez Ave
Burlingame Ave Burlingame Ave
Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
Peninsula Ave
State St
Villa Ter
Grand Blvd
El Camino Real
N San Mateo Dr
N Claremont St
California Dr
Highland Ave
E Poplar Ave
N Delaware St
= Existing Bike Lanes (Class II Bikeway)
= Existing Bike Routes (Class III Bikeway)
LEGEND
= Site Location
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA
Figure 4
Existing Bicycle Facilities
561 of 833
Burlingame
San
Mateo
1 2
3 Howard Ave Howard Ave
Bayswater Ave Bayswater Ave
E Santa Inez Ave E Santa Inez Ave
Burlingame Ave Burlingame Ave
Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
Peninsula Ave
State St
Villa Ter
Grand Blvd
El Camino Real
N San Mateo Dr
N Claremont St
California Dr
Highland Ave
E Poplar Ave
N Delaware St
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA
Figure 5
Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations STOP STOP STOP STOP
X
= Stop Sign
= Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
STOP
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes Dr
HighlandAve
Villa
Ter
Villa
Ter
N San
Mateo
Villa
Ter
13 2
Proj
Dwy
5(13)
389(429)
29(30)
8(10)347(524)22(22)
33(14)
6(2)
25(22)
4(2)
3(1)
14(15)
23(19)
8(12)
28(19)6(7)
13(15)
3(12)
19(25)
14(19)
N. SanMateoDr
HighlandAve
Villa
Ter
Villa
Ter
Villa
Ter
Proj
Dwy
1 2
3 562 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 13
Table 3
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Observed Existing Traffic Conditions
Traffic conditions were observed in the field in November 2025 to identify any existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of service, and to identify any locations where the level of service analysis does not accurately reflect existing traffic conditions. No operational issues or queueing deficiencies were observed. # Intersection Pk Hr Control
Avg.

Delay LOS
1 AM 18.8 C
PM 20.7 C
2 AM 9.0 A
PM 8.8 A
3 AM - -
PM - -
Existing
Conditions
San Mateo Drive & Villa
Terrace
TWSC
Highland Avenue & Villa
Terrace
OWSC
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control, OWSC = One-Way Stop Control '-' indicates scenario does not evaluate this intersection Project Dwy & Villa
Terrace
OWSC
Notes
For TWSC and OWSC intersections, delay represents worst approach delay and LOS represents worst approach LOS 563 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 14

3. Opening Year Conditions
This chapter presents opening year traffic conditions, which are defined as conditions just prior to completion of the project. Traffic volumes for opening year conditions comprise volumes from existing traffic counts plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed developments in the vicinity of the project site. This chapter describes the method for determining generated trips, the procedure used to determine opening year traffic volumes, and the resulting traffic conditions.

Project Trip Estimates
The magnitude of traffic produced by the new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below.

Trip Generation
Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by many types of land uses. The research is compiled in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition.

The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular development is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rates by the size of the development.

The rate for “Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise) – Not Close to Rail Transit” (Land Use Code 221) was used to estimate trips generated by the proposed development. The Trip Generation Manual also provides rates for projects close to rail transit. Per the ITE manual, ‘a site is considered close to rail transit if the walking distance between the residential site entrance and the closest rail transit station entrance is ½ - mile or less.’
It is important to note that the methods used to measure distance from transit are different between the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the method used to measure distance between a project and a major transit stop under AB 2097 (whose parking requirement exemptions can be applied to this project as discussed in Chapter 5), which utilizes a straight line drawn from any point on the project’s parcel and the nearest edge of the parcel containing a major transit stop, and does not reference walking distance.

The project’s main entrance would be approximately 0.52 miles by foot from the nearest point of the Burlingame Caltrain Station, and as such would be unable to apply the “close to rail transit” trip 564 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 15
generation rate as the walking distance between the two is over 0.5 miles (see Figure 6). Furthermore, because the project would be on the borderline of eligibility, using the rate for sites not close to rail transit ensures a conservative analysis.

The project site is currently vacant aside from one single-family detached house. As a conservative approach, no existing trip credits from the single family home were applied for the trip generation.

Based on these trip rates, the project is estimated to generate a gross of 807 daily trips, with 69 trips (16 inbound and 53 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 69 trips (44 inbound and 25 outbound) during the PM peak hour (see Table 4).

Table 4
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the proposed residential development was estimated based on traffic patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. The peakhour trips associated with the project site were added to the roadway network in accordance with the distribution pattern discussed above, the roadway network connections, freeway access points, and the locations of the project driveway.

Figure 7 shows the trip distribution pattern and trip assignment at the study intersections. A tabular summary of project traffic at each study intersection is contained in Appendix B.

Roadway Network Under Opening Year Conditions
The transportation network under opening year conditions (without and with project) is assumed to be the same as the roadway network under existing conditions.

Opening Year Traffic Volumes
Per the City of San Mateo’s development project database, accessed November 3, 2025, there are Land Use Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Land Uses
#221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 181 Dwelling Units 4.46 807 0.38 16 53 69 0.38 44 25 69 Total Project Trips 807 16 53 69 44 25 69
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual (12th Edition, 2025) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Size
Daily Trips Trips
565 of 833
Anita Rd Anita Rd
Arundel Rd Arundel Rd
Lorton Ave Lorton Ave
Bloomfield Rd Bloomfield Rd
Howard Ave Howard Ave
Bayswater Ave Bayswater Ave
Burlingame Ave Burlingame Ave
Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
Peninsula Ave
State St
Villa Ter
El Camino Real
N San Mateo Dr
California Dr
Highland Ave
= Pedestrian Path
LEGEND
= Site Location
Site Entrance
Pedestrian Path

0.52 Miles
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA
Figure 6
Walking Distance from Station to Entrance
566 of 833
Burlingame
San
Mateo
101
1 2
3 Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
N Amphlett Blvd N Amphlett Blvd
Peninsula Ave
State St
Warren Rd
Villa Ter
Grand Blvd
El Camino Real
N San Mateo Dr
N Claremont St
California Dr
Highland Ave
E Poplar Ave
N Delaware St
N Bayshore Blvd
15%
15%
5%
30%
30%
5%
7(18)
7(18)
22(10)
22(10)
1(3)
1(3)
4(2)
8(4)45(21)
14(37)
2(7)
X
= Trip Distribution
= Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX%
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Trips
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA
Figure 7
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
N SanMateoDr
HighlandAve
Villa
Ter Villa
Ter
Villa
Ter
13 2
Proj
Dwy
4(2)
567 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 18
no approved developments near the project site that would add significant amounts of traffic to the study intersections. Thus, the opening year plus project conditions were estimated by adding project trips to existing traffic volumes the new traffic estimated to be generated by the project. Opening year plus project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 8 and Appendix B Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the intersection level of service analysis (see Table 5) show that all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under existing and opening year plus project conditions. The intersection level of service calculation sheets for each scenario are included in Appendix C.

Table 5
Opening Year Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service # Intersection Pk Hr Control
Avg.

Delay LOS
Avg.

Delay LOS
Change in
Avg Delay1
1 AM 18.8 C 19.7 C 0.9
PM 20.7 C 22.5 C 1.8
2 AM 9.0 A 9.0 A 0.0
PM 8.8 A 8.9 A 0.1
3 AM - - 8.9 A -
PM - - 9.0 A -
Existing
Conditions Opening Year + Project
San Mateo Drive & Villa
Terrace
TWSC
Highland Avenue & Villa
Terrace
OWSC
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control, OWSC = One-Way Stop Control '-' indicates scenario does not evaluate this intersection 1Compared to Existing Conditions
Project Dwy & Villa
Terrace
OWSC
Notes
For TWSC and OWSC intersections, delay represents worst approach delay and LOS represents worst approach LOS 568 of 833
Burlingame
San
Mateo
101
1 2
3 Howard Ave Howard Ave
Bayswater Ave Bayswater Ave
E Santa Inez Ave E Santa Inez Ave
Burlingame Ave Burlingame Ave
Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
Burlingame
Caltrain
Station
Peninsu
State St
Villa Ter
Grand Blvd
El Camino Real
N San Mateo Dr
N Claremont St
California Dr
Highland Ave
E Poplar Ave
N Delaware St
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA
Figure 8
Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Volumes
DrHighlandAve
Villa
Ter
Villa
Ter
N San
Mateo
Villa
Ter
13 2
Proj
Dwy
12(31)
389(429)
29(30)
15(28)347(524)22(22)
33(14)
6(2)
25(22)
26(12)
3(1)
36(25)
23(19)
9(15)
28(19)7(10)
17(17)
7(14)
8(4)45(21)
19(25)
14(37)
2(7)
14(19)
569 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 20

4. Cumulative Conditions
This chapter describes the roadway traffic operations under cumulative no project conditions and cumulative plus project conditions. The chapter includes the procedures used to determine cumulative traffic volumes and a description of the resulting traffic conditions and any adverse effects caused by the project.

Roadway Network under Cumulative Conditions
The roadway network under cumulative conditions was assumed to be the same as the opening year conditions as described in Chapter 3.

Cumulative Traffic Volumes
Cumulative traffic volumes were developed using the latest citywide travel demand model, in consultation with City’s modeling on-call consultant Kittelson & Associates. Cumulative model volumes were developed using 2040 as the horizon year, reflecting the City’s General Plan buildout. As a conservative measure, the cumulative condition volumes were assumed to not include the traffic associated with the addition of the project. For cumulative plus project traffic volumes, the trips generated by the project (see Chapter 3) were added to the cumulative no project traffic volumes to yield cumulative plus project traffic volumes. Figure 9 shows volumes under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions. A tabular summary of the cumulative traffic volumes at each study intersection is contained in Appendix B.
570 of 833
Burlingame San
Mateo
1 2
3 Howard Ave Howard Ave
Bayswater Ave Bayswater Ave
E Santa Inez Ave E Santa Inez Ave
Peninsula Ave
State St
Villa Ter
Grand Blvd
El Camino Real
N San Mateo Dr
N Claremont St
California Dr
Highland Ave
E Poplar Ave
N Delaware St
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA
Figure 9
Cumulative No Project and Plus Project Traffic Volumes
DrHighlandAve
Villa
Ter
Villa
Ter
N San
Mateo
Villa
Ter
2 Proj
Dwy
Cumulative
Cumulative + Project
13 6(14) 440(472) 33(33) 9(11) 392(576) 25(24)
37(15)
7(2)
28(24)
5(2)
3(1)
16(17)
26(21)
9(13)
32(21)7(8)
15(17)
3(13)
21(28)
16(21)
13(32)
440(472)
33(33)
16(29)392(576)25(24)
37(15)
7(2)
28(24)
27(12)
3(1)
38(27)
26(21)10(16)
32(21)8(11)
19(19)
7(15)
8(4)45(21)
21(28)
14(37)
2(7)
16(21)
N. SanMateoDr
HighlandAve
Villa
Ter
Villa
Ter
Villa
Ter
Proj
Dwy
1 2
3 571 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 22
Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during both AM and PM peak hours under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions (see Table 6). The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C.

Table 6
Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
# Intersection Pk Hr Control
Avg.

Delay LOS
Avg.

Delay LOS
Change
in Avg
Delay1
1 AM 22.9 C 24.3 C 1.4
PM 24.3 C 26.8 D 2.5
2 AM 9.0 A 9.0 A 0.0
PM 8.9 A 8.9 A 0.0
3 AM - - 9.0 A -
PM - - 9.0 A -
Cumulative
Conditions Cumulative + Project
San Mateo Drive & Villa
Terrace
TWSC
Highland Avenue & Villa
Terrace
OWSC
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control, OWSC = One-Way Stop Control '-' indicates scenario does not evaluate this intersection 1Compared to Cumulative Conditions
Project Dwy & Villa
Terrace
OWSC
Notes
For TWSC and OWSC intersections, delay represents worst approach delay and LOS represents worst approach LOS 572 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 23

5. Other Transportation Issues
This chapter presents other transportation issues associated with the project, including:
• Vehicle queuing analysis
• Site access and circulation
• Effects on pedestrians, bicycles, and transit facilities • Parking
The analyses in this chapter are based on the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by the traffic engineering community.

Vehicle Queuing Analysis
The analysis of intersection levels of service was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis for leftturn lanes or stop controlled approaches at intersections where the project would add a substantial number of trips. This analysis provides a basis for estimating future storage requirements at the intersections under existing, opening year, and cumulative conditions. Vehicle queues were estimated using Synchro software. The following movements were evaluated:
• San Mateo Drive and Villa Terrace (Northbound Approach) • San Mateo Drive and Villa Terrace (Eastbound Approach) The Synchro queueing analysis indicates that at the intersection of San Mateo Drive and Villa Terrace, the 95th percentile queue would not exceed one vehicle on the northbound or eastbound approach under any of the evaluated scenarios. Traffic associated with the project would contribute to a queue increase of up to one vehicle at the intersection’s northbound approach. The results of the queueing analysis are shown in Table 7.
573 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 24
Table 7
Intersection Queueing Analysis

AM PM AM PM
Existing
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 8.1 8.7 13.7 14.8
Volume (vph) 423 472 21 18
Number of lanes 1 1 1 1
Volume (vphpl) 423 472 21 18
95th %. Queue (veh/ln)2
0 0 1 1
95th %. Queue (ft/ln) 0 0 25 25
Storage (ft/ln)3
160 160 145 145
Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y
Opening Year Plus Project
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 8.1 8.8 17 20
Volume (vph) 430 490 65 38
Number of lanes 1 1 1 1
Volume (vphpl) 430 490 65 38
95th %. Queue (veh/ln)2
0 1 1 1
95th %. Queue (ft/ln) 0 25 25 25
Storage (ft/ln)3
160 160 145 145
Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y
Cumulative
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 8.2 8.9 15.2 15.8
Volume (vph) 479 519 24 20
Number of lanes 1 1 1 1
Volume (vphpl) 479 519 24 20
95th %. Queue (veh/ln)2
0 0 1 1
95th %. Queue (ft/ln) 0 0 25 25
Storage (ft/ln)3
160 160 145 145
Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y
Cumulative Plus Project
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 8.3 9 19.8 22.7
Volume (vph) 486 537 68 40
Number of lanes 1 1 1 1
Volume (vphpl) 486 537 68 40
95th %. Queue (veh/ln)2
0 1 1 1
95th %. Queue (ft/ln) 0 25 25 25
Storage (ft/ln)3
160 160 145 145
Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y
Notes:
1 Delay of movement used for unsignalized intersections. 2 Synchro reports the queue length. Assume 25 feet per vehicle queued. 3 Distance from intersection to project driveway on Villa Terrace and nearest commercial driveway on San Mateo Drive.

Analysis Scenario
L/T/R = Left/Through/Right movement
San Mateo Drive and Villa Terrace
NBL/T/R Lane EBL/T/R Lane
574 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 25
Site Access and Circulation
A review of the project site plan was performed to determine if adequate site access and on-site circulation would be provided and to identify any access or circulation issues that should be improved.

This review is based on the site plan dated November 7, 2025 (see Figure 2 in Chapter 1 and Figure 10).

Vehicular Site Access
Vehicular site access would be provided via a new 20-foot wide full-access driveway to enter the garage. The driveway would be on Villa Terrace, approximately 150 feet west of San Mateo Drive.

Based on the City’s Zoning Code Section 27.64.025, driveways serving three or more parking spaces must be minimum 12 feet wide and maximum 20 feet wide. Thus, the proposed 20-foot-wide driveway meets the city’s driveway width requirements.

Traffic Operations at the Project Driveway
The project is estimated to generate 69 trips (16 inbound and 53 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 69 trips (44 inbound and 25 outbound) during the PM peak hour (see Table 4). As shown in Tables 5 and 6, the driveway will operate at an acceptable level of service under all evaluated scenarios. Less than 1 vehicle per minute per direction is expected to utilize the driveway during either peak period assuming an even distribution. However, it is likely that there will be instances during which multiple vehicles arrive at the driveway at the same time, potentially causing a short queue to form temporarily.

The site plan indicates that a security gate would be installed at the driveway, approximately 17 feet from the sidewalk (see Figure 10). Assuming a vehicle length of 25 feet, it is possible that inbound vehicles may temporarily block the sidewalk while waiting for the gate to open. In the event that multiple vehicles arrive at the same time, vehicles may need to wait in the street and would temporarily block traffic. Storage space at the driveway before the security gate should be lengthened in order to prevent this. Given the existing site plan, the security gate should be relocated to approximately 30 feet away from the sidewalk.

Recommendation: The security gate at the driveway should be installed approximately 30 feet from the sidewalk in order to minimize the effect of queueing on the sidewalk and traffic operations on Villa Terrace.

Sight Distance at Project Driveway
The project driveway should be free and clear of any obstructions to provide adequate sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles and bicycles traveling on Villa Terrace. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway and provides drivers with the ability to locate sufficient gaps in traffic and exit a driveway.

Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. Based on the site plan, trees would be added along the project frontage on Villa Terrace. Trees near the driveway should have a high canopy so as to not obstruct the view of drivers.

The driveway is not set back from the sidewalk and has walls blocking exiting vehicles’ view of pedestrians using the sidewalk. A pedestrian warning system should be implemented in order to alert pedestrians on the sidewalk of exiting vehicles.

A minimum of 6 feet of red curb is required on each side of the driveway. The project would provide 6 feet of red curb to the east of the driveway, and 20 feet to the west, complying with this requirement.

In the vicinity of the project, Villa Terrace has a slight curve, though this does not affect sight distance. 575 of 833
Figure 10
Garage Plans
Basement Level Parking
1st Level Parking
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA
NPA Design Vehicle
NPA Design Vehicle

RAMP UP
827 SF
BOILER
STAIR 2 ELEV 1
ELEV 2
STAIR 1

BFPS AND PUMPS

ELEVATOR LOBBY
28'-0" RAMP UP
24'-0"
8'-6"
17'-0"
STALL
8'-0"
23'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
2'-6"
TO PL
17'-0"
STALL
2'-2"
TO PL
142'-0"
8'-0"
18'-0"
STALL
18'-0"
STALL
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
18'-0"
STALL
18'-0"
STALL
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
18'-0"
STALL
T T
8'-6"
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
8'-6"
18'-0"
STALL
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
18'-0"
STALL
T
22'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
8'-0"
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
8'-6" 9'-0"
9'-0"
3'-0"
T
24'-0"
9'-0" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0"9'-0" 9'-3" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 10'-0" 10'-0" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 9'-9" 8'-6" 9'-9"
3'-0"
8'-6" 8'-6" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3"
4'-81
2"
9'-0" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 9'-0"
5'-11" 9'-0" 8'-6" 9'-0"
9'-0" 10'-0"
3'-0"
9'-6"
9'-6" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0"
3'-0"
9'-6" 9'-6" 8'-0" 9'-6" 9'-6" 8'-0" 9'-6"
9'-3" 9'-3" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 10'-0"
17'-0"
STALL
9'-6" 8'-0" 9'-6" 9'-6" 8'-0" 9'-6"
22'-0"

DRIVE AISLE

7.5% 17.5%
EL = -8'-8"
17'-0"
STALL
3'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 9'-6" 8'-0" 9'-6" 9'-6" 8'-0" 9'-6" 9'-6" 8'-0" 9'-6" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 10'-0"
18" x 30" TYP.
18'-0"
18'-0"
9'-0"
22'-9"
DRIVE
AISLE
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2

RAMP DN

BIKEPARKING
EVCS-L2
EV
READY
EV
READY
W/ 8' SIDE
AISLE

RAMP DN
38' - 0 1/2"
1 1
ELEV 1
LOBBY

FIRE COMMAND

MAIL/PACKAGE
OPEN
22'-9"
DRIVE
AISLE
6'-6"
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
18'-0"
STALL
18'-0"
STALL
18'-0"
STALL
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
18'-0"
STALL
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
N. S A N M A T E O

S T A T E S T R E E TV I L L A T E R R A C E
18'-0"
STALL
18"
10'-0"
9'-3" 8'-6" 9'-3" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 10'-0"
3'-0"
8'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 10'-0"
3'-0"
10'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 10'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"9'-0"
9'-6" 8'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 7.5% 17.5% EL = 1'-6 1/2" 18" X 30" COL, TYP.
17'-0"
STALL
W/ 8' SIDE
AISLE
EV
READY
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 3'-0"
28'-0"
24'-0"
10'-0"
18'-0"
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
18'-0"
STALL
22'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE
EV
READY
EVCS
-L2
EVCS
-L2
576 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 27
Recommendation: Appropriate visual and/or audible warning signals should be provided at the project driveway to alert pedestrians of vehicles exiting the driveway.

Recommendation: Landscaping near the driveway should be placed and maintained such that it does not interfere with sight distance. Trees should have a high canopy of at least 6 feet and other landscaping should be kept at a low level below 3 feet.

Corner Visibility at Intersection
The project site fronts the corners of San Mateo Drive’s intersections with Villa Terrace and State Street. The intersection corners should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize corner visibility per the City’s standards, ensuring the vehicles approaching the intersection can see other vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians traveling on the cross street. Any landscaping and signage within the safety visibility triangle at the intersection corner should be no taller than 3 feet and located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers on the street.

The site plan proposes new bulb-outs at the eastern corner of San Mateo Drive and Villa Terrace and the southern corner of San Mateo Drive and State Street. The bulb-outs would shorten the crossing distances for pedestrians and increase driver visibility at the corners.

Recommendation: Landscaping provided at corners should be less than 3 feet tall at the corner to maintain the required sight distance.

Vehicular On-Site Circulation
Within the site, a two-way 24-foot-wide ramp provides access between the ground-level and basement parking levels. Each parking level provides only 90-degree parking spaces (see Figure 10).

Garage Ramp
City code requires two-way ramps within garages to be designed with gradual slopes and maintain a minimum width of 24 feet curb-to-curb and 28 feet wall-to-wall on turns. The site plan includes a ramp used to access the below-ground parking level from the ground-level parking level. The ramp has a slope of 17.5 percent with 7.5 percent transitions at each end. It has a width of 24 feet curb-to-curb and 28 feet wall-to-wall on its turn, meeting the City’s requirement for width.

Drive Aisles
Based on the City’s standard details for parking, two-directional aisles with standard 90-degree parking stalls on both sides should be a minimum of 24 feet wide, while two-directional aisles with compact 90- degree parking stalls on both sides should be a minimum of 22 feet wide. All proposed drive aisles with standard stalls on both sides are 24 feet wide, and the aisle in the basement level with compact stalls on both sides is 23 feet wide. The aisles with compact stalls on one side are 22 feet and 9 inches wide.

Each parking level also includes a drive aisle with no parking on either side measuring 22 feet wide.

Thus, the drive aisles provided within the garage areas would meet the City’s minimum requirements.

Parking Stalls
The proposed dimensions of standard stalls are 18 feet long and 8.5 to 9 feet wide. The proposed dimensions of compact stalls are 17 feet long and 8 feet wide. The proposed standard and compact parking stalls would meet the City’s minimum requirements. The below-ground parking level also includes 4 tandem parking stalls, which would be accessed through the adjacent parking stalls. The tandem parking space and adjacent parking should be assigned to one unit.

Recommendation: Each tandem parking space and adjacent parking should be assigned to one unit.

Accessible Stalls
577 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 28
5 ADA parking stalls would be provided on the ground floor parking level per the site plan. Each stall is adjacent to an 8-foot-wide access aisle and is 9 feet wide and 18 feet long. All accessible parking stalls are near an elevator and an entrance to the building lobby, connected with designated walkways.

Section 1109A of the California Building Code stipulates that residential parking facilities must provide ADA accessible parking stalls at a minimum rate of 2 percent of the covered multifamily dwelling units.

The project, having 181 dwelling units, must thus provide a minimum of 4 ADA accessible parking stalls, with 5 being indicated in the site plan. The proposed number of accessible parking stalls would meet the requirement.

Dead-End Aisles
On-site vehicle circulation was also evaluated to identify whether there would be dead-end aisles within the parking garage (see Figure 10). Dead-end aisles are undesirable because drivers can enter the aisle, and upon discovering that there is no available parking, must back out or conduct three-point turns. The garage plan shows dead-end aisles at the northeast edges of both garage levels with a minimum of 3 feet between the edge of the parking space and the wall.

Based on the City’s standard details, to provide sufficient area near the end of dead-end aisles for vehicles to turn around, there should be a minimum of 3 feet between the edge of the parking space and the wall. Thus, the project provides adequate turnaround space at the dead-end aisles per City requirements.

Passenger Loading
A 25-foot loading zone along the project’s State Street frontage is indicated in the site plan, which could be used for passenger loading. The lobby is accessible from this area by a nearby door along State Street, and by the main entrance which is connected to the loading zone with a sidewalk.

Truck Access and Circulation
The project site plan was reviewed for truck access including delivery and moving trucks, garbage trucks, and emergency vehicles, as described below.

Large trucks and vehicles are not expected to enter the parking garage levels.

General Loading Operations
The City of San Mateo requires multi-family residential projects of 50 or more units to provide one loading space that is a minimum of 10 feet wide and 25 feet long per City code section 27.64.390.

The proposed project contains 181 dwelling units and would thus be required to provide one off-street loading space that is a minimum of 10 feet wide and 25 feet long. This requirement may be modified by the provision of adequate on-street parking along the project frontage that is at least 50 feet from any intersections, has convenient access to building entrances, and is wide enough to accommodate loading vehicles without impeding the sidewalk or local traffic operation or otherwise be detrimental to public safety, as approved by the Zoning Administrator.

A freight/trash loading space is designated along the project’s frontage on State Street per the site plan.

The space is 25 feet in length and 8 feet in width and begins approximately 47 feet west of the intersection of San Mateo Drive and State Street. The lane width of the loading zone is narrower than City’s requirements, however, Public Works has accepted the width of the loading zone to avoid encroaching into travel lane. The placement of the loading zone is also less than 50 feet from the intersection. The proposed placement has also been accepted by Public Works.

Garbage Collection Operations
578 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 29
The site plan indicates a trash room on the north side building on the ground floor. Trash bins would be wheeled from the trash room to the loading zone on State Street.

Emergency Vehicle Access
Per the 2022 California Fire Code Section D106, multi-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units should have two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Where buildings or portions of buildings have floors used for human occupancy located more than 30 feet above the access road, the minimum unobstructed width is 26 feet for aerial fire apparatus access. At least one of the required access roads meeting this requirement should be located within a minimum of 15 feet and maximum of 30 feet from the building and parallel to one entire side of the building. All surrounding roads provide adequate width and distance for fire apparatus access.

The project site fronts San Mateo Drive, State Street, and Villa Terrace, which would be used as fire apparatus access roads. There is no vehicular access on the west side of the building.

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facility Assessment
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks and crosswalks. A complete network of sidewalks is present along all of the surrounding streets. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads are located at all of the signalized intersections in the project vicinity. The project is located between the downtown areas of Burlingame and San Mateo, with continuous pedestrian facilities connecting the project site to points of interest in each area.

The project would rebuild the sidewalk along its frontage on State Street, San Mateo Drive, Villa Terra removing existing curb cuts on State Street and San Mateo Drive. The new sidewalk would have a 5-foot through zone, a 4.5-foot furniture/planting zone, and pedestrian scale lighting, The project would add bulb-outs and new curb ramps at the south-west corner of San Mateo Drive and State Street, and at the north-west corner of San Mateo Drive and Villa Terrace. The new curb ramps would be built to ADA standards.

Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle access to the project site is provided via bike lanes on San Mateo Drive. The 2020 Bicycle Master Plan identified several bicycle improvements in San Mateo. The plan lists the following facilities in the project vicinity as proposed improvements:
• Class IV Separated Bike Lane on Peninsula Avenue between San Mateo Drive and Airport Boulevard
• Class II Bike Lane on Peninsula Avenue between Highland Avenue and San Mateo Drive • Class III Bike Route on Bellevue Boulevard between Delaware Street and Occidental Avenue • Class III Bike Route on Highland Avenue between Peninsula Avenue and Bellevue Boulevard The project provides long-term bicycle storage for the residents in a bike room on the ground floor of the project. This room is accessible from a corridor with an entrance on each frontage, including the San Mateo Drive frontage, and is thus accessible from the street’s bike lanes. The project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new bicycle facilities
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access to Schools
The project site is located within the San Mateo-Foster City School District and San Mateo Union High School District Boundary. San Mateo High School is within 0.5 miles walking distance from the project 579 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 30
site. It can be accessed via continuous pedestrian facilities along San Mateo Drive and Bellevue Avenue, and via Class II bicycle facilities along San Mateo Drive and Poplar Avenue. No public elementary or middle schools in the school district containing the project site are located within 0.5 miles of the project.

Transit Service
The project site is serviced by SamTrans routes ECR/397, 46, 53/53P and 292. The nearest bus stop to the project site is located at the intersection of San Mateo Drive/California Avenue and Peninsula Avenue, approximately 0.3 miles from the project site. The bus stop is served by SamTrans route 292.

The project site is located within 0.5 miles of the Burlingame Caltrain station.

It is expected that the project would generate some transit trips to get to the employment areas or to other destinations. Based on the 2023 San Mateo County Commuter Survey Results, 15% of respondents opted for transit as their mode of transportation, which would result in approximately 11 new riders during the AM and PM peak hours. The increase in transit ridership could be accommodated by the currently available capacity of the bus service as well as the Caltrain service in the area.

Parking
Vehicle Parking
The project proposes to provide 180 vehicle parking spaces, including 5 accessible spaces and 68 compact stalls.

California Assembly Bill 2097 (AB 2097) prohibits public agencies from imposing or enforcing any minimum vehicular parking requirement on developments located within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop as measured with a straight line between any point on any parcels containing the development and the nearest edge of any parcels containing the transit stop. 1 2
It is important to note that this
method of measurement is different than the method used to determine the applicability of “close to rail transit” trip generation rates, as discussed in Chapter 3.

A major transit stop is defined as an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by either bus or rail service, or a bus stop that is at the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a service interval of 20 minutes or less during peak commute periods. The project is located within 0.5 miles of the Burlingame Caltrain station as measured with a straight line (see Figure 1) and is thus not subject to a minimum parking requirement per AB 2097.

Bicycle Parking
Per the City’s Zoning Code Section 27.64.262, bicycle parking shall be provided for all new development projects.
1 Technical Advisory on the Implementation of AB 2097, Prohibition on Minimum Parking Requirements (Statutes of 2022) (California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2025) 2 AB 2097 Transit Distance Criteria – Letter of Technical Assistance (California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2025).
580 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential LTA March 5, 2026 P a g e | 31
Long-Term Bicycle Parking
The project would provide long-term bicycle parking in a bike room located on the ground floor. Per City Code, the project is required to provide 1 space per studio/one-bedroom unit, 1.25 spaces per twobedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces per three-bedroom unit. In total, the project is required to provide 196 long-term bicycle parking spaces. The project proposes to provide 196 spaces and thus meets the requirement. Required and proposed amounts of bicycle parking are shown in Table 8.

Short-Term Bicycle Parking
The project would provide short-term bicycle parking along the project frontage on San Mateo Drive.

Per the City Code, the project is required to provide 0.05 spaces per studio/one-bedroom unit, 0.1 spaces per two-bedroom unit, and 0.15 spaces per three-bedroom unit. In total, the project is required to provide 12 short-term spaces. The project proposes to provide 12 short-term bike parking spaces, meeting the City’s requirements.

Table 8
Bicycle Parking Requirements
Unit Type Amount
# of Spaces
Required2
# of Spaces
Proposed
# of Spaces
Required2
# of Spaces
Proposed
Studio 9 1.00 per unit 9 0.05 per unit 0
One-bedroom 116 1.00 per unit 116 0.05 per unit 6
Two-bedroom 52 1.25 per unit 65 0.10 per unit 5
Three+ bedroom 4 1.50 per unit 6 0.15 per unit 1
Total 181 196 196 12 12
TOTAL 196 196 12 12
Notes:

2. Per City code, if after calculating the number of required bicycle parking spaces a quotient is obtained containing a fraction of one-half or more, an additional space shall be required;if such fraction is less than one-half it may be disregarded.

1. Requirements per City of San Mateo Zoning Code requirements for developments outside of the Downtown Area.

Space
Requirement1
Space
Requirement1
Long-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces Short-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces 581 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive Residential Development
Transportation Analysis
Technical Appendices
March 5, 2026
582 of 833
Appendix A
Traffic Counts
583 of 833
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
6 4
4 3
8 11
2 3
41 8 4 15 4 5 9 6 24
15 8
Peak Hour 0 3 5 10 18 2 1
Count Total 2 6 9 19 36 6 1 14 9 30 8 10
8:45 AM 0 0 3 3 6 1 0 2 1 4 0 1 2 0
1 3 1 0 1 0
3 8:30 AM 0 1 1 2 4 0 1 1
1 2 4 1 3 4
2 3
8:15 AM 0 1 1 4 6 1 0
0 4 0 4 2 1
2 1 0
8:00 AM 0 1 0 1 2 0
0 0 4 1 5 0
0 0 0
1 7:30 AM 0 2 2 5 9 2 0 1
1 1 4 0 0 3
2 3 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 0 2 1 3
1 4 4
HV% - 0% 0% 0% - - 0% 1%
2 1
7:15 AM 1 1 0 1 3 2 0
0 0 2 2 0 3
West North South
7:00 AM 1 0 0
1 14 0 33 6 25 0 5 389 29 0 22 347
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
3% 0% 8% 3% - 5% 3% 0% 2%
Peak
Hour
All 0 4 3
45 0 7 636 50 0
0 2 0 0 4 1 0 1 9 0 18 0
8 885 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 9 5 26 0 77 17 26 591 11 1,500 0
0 8 2 7 0 1 111 9 0 6 91 1 241 885
10 89 1 217 876
8:45 AM 0 3 1 1
6 0 0 90 7 0
219 825
8:30 AM 0 0 0 6 0 6 2
0 10 2 6 0 1 97 9 0 3 84 2
3 83 4 208 728
8:15 AM 0 0 0 5
6 0 3 91 4 0
232 615
8:00 AM 0 1 2 2 0 9 0
0 12 4 7 0 0 94 5 0 2 102 2
1 67 0 166 0
7:45 AM 0 0 1 3
8 0 1 61 7 0
122 0
7:30 AM 0 1 0 4 0 14 2
0 12 4 4 0 1 52 6 0 1 36 1
0 39 0 95 0
7:15 AM 0 2 1 2
7:00 AM 0 2 0 3 0 6 1 1 0 0 40 3 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Villa Terrace Villa Terrace San Mateo Dr. San Mateo Dr. 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
Date: 10/30/2025
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 2.7% 0.94
TOTAL 2.0% 0.92
TH RT
WB 4.7% 0.89
NB 1.2% 0.87
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.0% 0.88
0 1
1 0
40 08
0 0
1 0
9 6
5 4
N
San Mateo Dr.

Villa Terrace
Villa Terrace
San Mateo Dr.

Villa Terrace
San Mateo Dr.

TEV: 885
PHF: 0.92
8 347
22 377
418
0 25
6 33
64 54
0 29
389
5 394
423
0 14
3 4
21 19
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 584 of 833
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 1 0
1 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
1 1 0 0 1 0
1 1 4 0 1 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
2 0 2
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 8 0 0 4 0 15
0 14 0 0 30 0
1 0
0 1
Peak Hour
Count Total 1 8
0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 15
3 16
8:45 AM
0 1 0 0
17 8:30 AM
0 1 0 0 2 0 4
4 17
8:15 AM
0 4 0
1 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
15 8:00 AM
0 4 0 5
4 0
7:45 AM
0 1 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4
0 0
0 0 0
7:00 AM 2 0
RT
18 0
Interval
Start
Villa Terrace Villa Terrace San Mateo Dr. San Mateo Dr. 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 1 0 2 0 0 4 1 0 1 9 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
1 18 0 36 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 7 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 6 18
0 2 0 4 15
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0
6 20
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0
0 1 0 2 17
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
3 18
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0
0 5 0 9 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 1 0
3 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 2 0 3 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Villa Terrace Villa Terrace San Mateo Dr. San Mateo Dr. 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 585 of 833
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
4 3
7 8
11 13
7 6
59 5 3 9 6 9 6 1 22
20 6
Peak Hour 0 1 3 7 11 0 1
Count Total 1 1 7 7 16 0 1 9 13 23 18 15
5:45 PM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 2 5 2 0 4 0
3 4 3 1 1 2
2 5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 4 2 5
4 1
5:15 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0
0 0 5 5 3 3
2 2 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 2 4
3 2 1
0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
2 1 3 0 2 1
1 2 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 0 0 1 2 3
0 2 1
HV% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 8% 0%
1 0
4:15 PM 0 1 1 3 5 0 0
1 1 0 2 1 2
West North South
4:00 PM 0 0 1
0 15 0 14 2 22 1 12 429 30 0 22 524
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
0% 0% 5% 0% - 5% 1% 20% 1%
Peak
Hour
All 0 2 1
38 1 24 869 64 0
0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 4 2 11 0
10 1,084 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 9 1 36 0 33 6 44 965 22 2,112 0
0 2 2 4 0 3 102 11 0 6 102 1 238 1,028
5 109 3 245 1,051
5:45 PM 0 2 0 3
4 0 2 98 3 0
288 1,083
5:30 PM 0 3 0 9 0 8 1
0 7 0 4 0 4 126 12 0 10 115 5
1 115 3 257 1,038
5:15 PM 0 2 0 3
4 0 3 114 8 0
261 1,084
5:00 PM 0 0 0 6 0 2 1
0 5 0 3 0 3 99 11 0 3 133 2
3 122 2 277 0
4:45 PM 0 1 0 1
6 0 2 128 9 0
243 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 4 0 1 0
0 5 2 4 0 4 90 2 0 5 123 4
11 146 2 303 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 4
4:00 PM 0 1 1 6 0 3 0 9 1 3 112 8 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Villa Terrace Villa Terrace San Mateo Dr. San Mateo Dr. 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
Date: 10/30/2025
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 1.3% 0.87
TOTAL 1.0% 0.89
TH RT
WB 2.6% 0.79
NB 0.6% 0.85
Peak Hour: 4:00 PM 5:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.0% 0.56
0 0
0 0
30 05
0 0
0 1
6 1
9 6
N
San Mateo Dr.

Villa Terrace
Villa Terrace
San Mateo Dr.

Villa Terrace
San Mateo Dr.

TEV: 1,084
PHF: 0.89
10 524
22 556
453
0 22
2 14
38 53
0 30
429
12 554
472
1 15
1 2
18 24
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 586 of 833
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0
0 2 0
0 5 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 5 0 0 3 0 9
1 7 1 0 23 0
3 0
1 1
Peak Hour
Count Total 1 12
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 14
4 11
5:45 PM
0 1 0 0
9 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 12
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
9 5:00 PM
0 0 0 2
2 0
4:45 PM
0 2 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3
0 0
0 0 0
4:00 PM 2 0
RT
11 0
Interval
Start
Villa Terrace Villa Terrace San Mateo Dr. San Mateo Dr. 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 4 2

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
1 4 2 16 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5
0 0 0 1 6
5:45 PM 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 0 0
2 6
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 9
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 11
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
1 0 0 1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1
0 0 1 2 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Villa Terrace Villa Terrace San Mateo Dr. San Mateo Dr. 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 587 of 833
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 2
4 3
0 5
3 5
22 3 0 4 12 0 0 1 13
0 3
Peak Hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Count Total 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 5 2 8 18 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 1
0 2 3 0 0 0
0 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
1 0 1 5 0 0
0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 3
1 0 2
0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 2 0 0
1 1 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
2 3 1
HV% - - - - - - - 0%
0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 0 0 0
0 0 0 13 0 3 0 0 23 8 2 4 28
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
0% - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% - 0%
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 0
5 0 0 31 10 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 81 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 1 21 0 9 46 0 125 0
0 2 0 1 0 0 4 1 1 1 2 0 12 81
1 8 0 21 79
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 5 1
22 71
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
0 4 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 8 0
2 10 0 26 63
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 9 0 0
10 44
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
0 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 0
1 9 0 13 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 2 0 0
14 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 3 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 2 2 0
2 3 0 7 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
N/A Villa Terrace Highland Ave Highland Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB 0.0% 0.71
TOTAL 0.0% 0.78

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
WB 0.0% 0.80
NB 0.0% 0.78
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM
HV %: PHF
EB - -
Date: 10/30/2025
N Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
Highland Ave
Villa Terrace
Villa Terrace
Highland Ave
Highland Ave
TEV: 81
PHF: 0.78
28 4 34
28 2
3 13 16
12 0
8 23
41 31
0 00 1
2 0
1 0
1 0
12 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 588 of 833
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 4 0
Count Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 8 0
0 1 0 0 0 1 4
2 4
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 1 5
8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 4
4 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 1
3 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 2 0 0
0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
0 0
Interval
Start
N/A Villa Terrace Highland Ave Highland Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 2 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 1 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
N/A Villa Terrace Highland Ave Highland Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 589 of 833
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
7 7
9 8
9 3
4 16
63 4 3 8 22 2 0 8 32
0 9
Peak Hr 0 1 1 1 3 0 1
Count Total 0 3 1 1 5 0 1 5 4 10 51 3
5:45 PM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 5
2 5 1 2 0 1
2 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
1 1 2 1 0 0
0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1 9 0
1 0 0
5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 7
0 0 0
0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 7 0 0
0 1 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 1
0 0 9
HV% - - - - 0% - - 0%
0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1 6 0
West North South
4:00 PM 0 1 0
0 0 1 14 0 12 0 0 19 12 0 7 19
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
0% - 8% 8% - 0% 5% - 4%
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 0
23 2 0 39 18 0
0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0
0 84 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 2 23 0 17 41 0 165 0
0 4 0 3 0 0 4 5 0 1 6 0 23 84
4 3 0 19 77
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 5 3 0
17 76
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 2 0
0 3 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 1 4 0
1 6 0 25 82
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 6 4 0
16 81
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
0 1 0 3 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 0
3 6 0 18 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
2 2 0 3 1 0
23 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 4 0 3 0 0 6 1 0 4 5 0
2 6 0 24 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 6 3 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
N/A Villa Terrace Highland Ave Highland Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB 3.8% 0.93
TOTAL 3.6% 0.84

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
WB 3.7% 0.84
NB 3.2% 0.78
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB - -
Date: 10/30/2025
N Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Highland Ave
Villa Terrace
Villa Terrace
Highland Ave
Highland Ave
TEV: 84
PHF: 0.84
19 7
26 31
0 12
14 27
20 1
1912
33 31
0 21 4
0 1
0 0
8 2
22 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 590 of 833
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 2 0 8 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 1 3 0 10 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 8
5 8
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 1 1 0
0 2 3
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 2
2 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
3 0
Interval
Start
N/A Villa Terrace Highland Ave Highland Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 5 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 3
0 0 0 0 2
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
1 2
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
N/A Villa Terrace Highland Ave Highland Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 591 of 833
Appendix B
Volume Sheets
592 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive
San Mateo, CA
Intersection Number: 1
Traffix Node Number: 1
Intersection Name: San Mateo Drive and Villa Terrace
Peak Hour: AM
Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 8 347 22 25 6 33 29 389 5 14 3 4 885 Proposed Project Trips 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 22 0 22 58
Opening Year + Project Conditions 15 347 22 25 6 33 29 389 12 36 3 26 943 Cumlative No Project Conditions 9 392 25 28 7 37 33 440 6 16 3 5 1000 Cumulative + Project Conditions 16 392 25 28 7 37 33 440 13 38 3 27 1058 Intersection Number: 2
Traffix Node Number: 3
Intersection Name: Highland Avenue and Villa Terrace
Peak Hour: AM
Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 28 6 3 0 13 8 23 0 0 0 0 81
Proposed Project Trips 0 0 1 4 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 10
Opening Year + Project Conditions 0 28 7 7 0 17 9 23 0 0 0 0 91 Cumlative No Project Conditions 0 32 7 3 0 15 9 26 0 0 0 0 92 Cumulative + Project Conditions 0 32 8 7 0 19 10 26 0 0 0 0 102 Intersection Number: 3
Traffix Node Number: 9
Intersection Name: Proj Dwy and Villa Terrace
Peak Hour: AM
Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 33
Proposed Project Trips 8 0 45 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 69
Opening Year + Project Conditions 8 0 45 14 19 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 102 Cumlative No Project Conditions 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 37 Cumulative + Project Conditions 8 0 45 14 21 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 106 10/30/25
10/30/25
N/A
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2/4/2026
Sum_AM
715 N San Mateo Volumes
593 of 833
715 North San Mateo Drive
San Mateo, CA
Intersection Number: 1
Traffix Node Number: 1
Intersection Name: San Mateo Drive and Villa Terrace
Peak Hour: PM
Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 10 524 22 22 2 14 30 429 13 15 1 2 1084 Proposed Project Trips 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 10 0 10 56
Opening Year + Project Conditions 28 524 22 22 2 14 30 429 31 25 1 12 1140 Cumlative No Project Conditions 11 576 24 24 2 15 33 472 14 17 1 2 1192 Cumulative + Project Conditions 29 576 24 24 2 15 33 472 32 27 1 12 1248 Intersection Number: 2
Traffix Node Number: 3
Intersection Name: Highland Avenue and Villa Terrace
Peak Hour: PM
Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 19 7 12 0 15 12 19 0 0 0 0 84
Proposed Project Trips 0 0 3 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 10
Opening Year + Project Conditions 0 19 10 14 0 17 15 19 0 0 0 0 94 Cumlative No Project Conditions 0 21 8 13 0 17 13 21 0 0 0 0 92 Cumulative + Project Conditions 0 21 11 15 0 19 16 21 0 0 0 0 102 Intersection Number: 3
Traffix Node Number: 9
Intersection Name: Proj Dwy and Villa Terrace
Peak Hour: PM
Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 44
Proposed Project Trips 4 0 21 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 69
Opening Year + Project Conditions 4 0 21 37 25 0 0 0 0 0 19 7 113 Cumlative No Project Conditions 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 48 Cumulative + Project Conditions 4 0 21 37 28 0 0 0 0 0 21 7 117 N/A
10/30/25
10/30/25
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2/4/2026
Sum_PM
715 N San Mateo Volumes
594 of 833
Appendix C
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
595 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
1: San Mateo Dr & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Existing AM 8:00 am 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 3 14 33 6 25 5 389 29 22 347 8
Future Vol, veh/h 4 3 14 33 6 25 5 389 29 22 347 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 3 15 36 7 27 5 423 32 24 377 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 866 895 382 876 883 439 386 0 0 454 0 0 Stage 1 429 429 - 449 449 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 437 465 - 427 434 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 273 280 666 269 285 618 1173 - - 1106 - - Stage 1 604 584 - 589 572 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 598 563 - 606 581 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 247 271 666 251 275 618 1173 - - 1106 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 247 271 - 251 275 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 587 568 - 585 568 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 562 559 - 572 565 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 13.74 18.76 0.1 0.49

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 21 - - 435 331 105 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - 0.053 0.21 0.022 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.1 0 - 13.7 18.8 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 0.8 0.1 - -
596 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Highland Ave & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Existing AM 8:00 am 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 3 23 8 6 28
Future Vol, veh/h 13 3 23 8 6 28
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 17 4 29 10 8 36
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 86 35 0 0 40 0
Stage 1 35 - - - - -
Stage 2 51 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 915 1038 - - 1570 -
Stage 1 988 - - - - -
Stage 2 971 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 911 1038 - - 1570 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 911 - - - - -
Stage 1 988 - - - - -
Stage 2 966 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.95 0 1.29

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 932 318 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.022 0.005 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.9 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
597 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
9: Villa Ter & Project Dwy 01/29/2026
Existing AM 8:00 am 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 14 19 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 14 19 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 15 21 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 21 0 - 0 36 21
Stage 1 - - - - 21 -
Stage 2 - - - - 15 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1595 - - - 977 1057
Stage 1 - - - - 1002 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1008 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1595 - - - 977 1057
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 977 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1002 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1008 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1595 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
598 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
1: San Mateo Dr & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Existing PM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 1 15 14 2 22 13 429 30 22 524 10
Future Vol, veh/h 2 1 15 14 2 22 13 429 30 22 524 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 1 17 16 2 25 15 482 34 25 589 11
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1156 1189 594 1167 1178 499 600 0 0 516 0 0 Stage 1 644 644 - 528 528 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 512 545 - 639 649 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 174 188 505 171 191 572 977 - - 1050 - - Stage 1 461 468 - 534 528 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 544 519 - 464 465 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 155 177 505 155 180 572 977 - - 1050 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 155 177 - 155 180 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 445 451 - 523 517 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 508 508 - 432 449 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 15.21 20.72 0.24 0.34

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 49 - - 373 271 71 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - 0.054 0.157 0.024 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.7 0 - 15.2 20.7 8.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 0.5 0.1 - -
599 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Highland Ave & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Existing PM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 12 19 12 7 19
Future Vol, veh/h 15 12 19 12 7 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 18 14 23 14 8 23
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 69 30 0 0 37 0
Stage 1 30 - - - - -
Stage 2 39 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 936 1045 - - 1574 -
Stage 1 993 - - - - -
Stage 2 983 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 931 1045 - - 1574 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 931 - - - - -
Stage 1 993 - - - - -
Stage 2 978 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.81 0 1.97

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 978 485 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.033 0.005 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.8 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
600 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
9: Villa Ter & Project Dwy 01/29/2026
Existing PM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 19 25 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 19 25 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 21 27 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 27 0 - 0 48 27
Stage 1 - - - - 27 -
Stage 2 - - - - 21 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1587 - - - 962 1048
Stage 1 - - - - 995 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1002 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1587 - - - 962 1048
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 962 -
Stage 1 - - - - 995 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1002 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1587 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
601 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
1: San Mateo Dr & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Opening Year Plus Project AM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 3 36 33 6 25 12 389 29 22 347 15
Future Vol, veh/h 26 3 36 33 6 25 12 389 29 22 347 15
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 28 3 39 36 7 27 13 423 32 24 377 16
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 885 914 385 891 906 439 393 0 0 454 0 0 Stage 1 433 433 - 465 465 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 452 480 - 427 441 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 265 273 662 263 276 618 1165 - - 1106 - - Stage 1 601 582 - 578 563 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 587 554 - 606 577 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 237 262 662 234 264 618 1165 - - 1106 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 237 262 - 234 264 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 584 565 - 569 555 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 546 546 - 551 561 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 16.99 19.72 0.23 0.48

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 50 - - 371 314 102 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - - 0.191 0.222 0.022 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.1 0 - 17 19.7 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.7 0.8 0.1 - -
602 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Highland Ave & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Opening Year Plus Project AM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 7 23 9 7 28
Future Vol, veh/h 17 7 23 9 7 28
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 22 9 29 12 9 36
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 89 35 0 0 41 0
Stage 1 35 - - - - -
Stage 2 54 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 912 1038 - - 1568 -
Stage 1 987 - - - - -
Stage 2 969 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 906 1038 - - 1568 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 906 - - - - -
Stage 1 987 - - - - -
Stage 2 963 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.96 0 1.46

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 941 360 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.033 0.006 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 9 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
603 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
9: Villa Ter & Project Dwy 01/29/2026
Opening Year Plus Project AM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 14 19 14 45 8
Future Vol, veh/h 2 14 19 14 45 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 15 21 15 49 9
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 36 0 - 0 48 28
Stage 1 - - - - 28 -
Stage 2 - - - - 20 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1575 - - - 962 1047
Stage 1 - - - - 994 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1003 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1575 - - - 960 1047
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 960 -
Stage 1 - - - - 993 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1003 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.91 0 8.93

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 225 - - - 973
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.059
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.3 0 - - 8.9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2
604 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
1: San Mateo Dr & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Opening Year Plus Project PM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 1 25 14 2 22 31 429 30 22 524 28
Future Vol, veh/h 12 1 25 14 2 22 31 429 30 22 524 28
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 1 28 16 2 25 35 482 34 25 589 31
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1207 1239 604 1207 1238 499 620 0 0 516 0 0 Stage 1 654 654 - 569 569 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 553 585 - 639 670 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 160 175 498 160 176 572 960 - - 1050 - - Stage 1 456 463 - 507 506 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 517 497 - 464 456 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 138 160 498 137 161 572 960 - - 1050 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 138 160 - 137 161 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 439 446 - 481 480 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 468 472 - 421 439 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 21.14 22.47 0.56 0.33

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 112 - - 265 248 68 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.036 - - 0.161 0.172 0.024 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.9 0 - 21.1 22.5 8.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.6 0.6 0.1 - -
605 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Highland Ave & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Opening Year Plus Project PM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.7
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 14 19 15 10 19
Future Vol, veh/h 17 14 19 15 10 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 20 17 23 18 12 23
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 78 32 0 0 40 0
Stage 1 32 - - - - -
Stage 2 46 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 925 1042 - - 1569 -
Stage 1 991 - - - - -
Stage 2 976 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 918 1042 - - 1569 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 918 - - - - -
Stage 1 991 - - - - -
Stage 2 969 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.86 0 2.52

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 970 621 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.038 0.008 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.9 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
606 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
9: Villa Ter & Project Dwy 01/29/2026
Opening Year Plus Project PM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 19 25 37 21 4
Future Vol, veh/h 7 19 25 37 21 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 8 21 27 40 23 4
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 67 0 - 0 83 47
Stage 1 - - - - 47 -
Stage 2 - - - - 36 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1534 - - - 919 1022
Stage 1 - - - - 975 -
Stage 2 - - - - 987 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1534 - - - 914 1022
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 914 -
Stage 1 - - - - 970 -
Stage 2 - - - - 987 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.98 0 8.99

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 485 - - - 930
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - - 0.029
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.4 0 - - 9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
607 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
1: San Mateo Dr & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Cumulative AM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 3 16 37 7 28 6 440 33 25 392 9
Future Vol, veh/h 5 3 16 37 7 28 6 440 33 25 392 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 3 17 40 8 30 7 478 36 27 426 10
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 980 1013 431 991 999 496 436 0 0 514 0 0 Stage 1 485 485 - 509 509 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 495 527 - 482 490 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 229 239 624 225 243 574 1124 - - 1051 - - Stage 1 563 551 - 547 538 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 556 528 - 565 549 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 201 229 624 207 233 574 1124 - - 1051 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 201 229 - 207 233 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 544 533 - 542 534 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 515 524 - 528 530 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 15.25 22.85 0.1 0.5

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 22 - - 377 279 105 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.069 0.28 0.026 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.2 0 - 15.2 22.8 8.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 1.1 0.1 - -
608 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Highland Ave & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Cumulative AM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 3 26 9 7 32
Future Vol, veh/h 15 3 26 9 7 32
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 19 4 33 12 9 41
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 98 39 0 0 45 0
Stage 1 39 - - - - -
Stage 2 59 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 901 1032 - - 1563 -
Stage 1 983 - - - - -
Stage 2 964 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 896 1032 - - 1563 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 896 - - - - -
Stage 1 983 - - - - -
Stage 2 958 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.03 0 1.31

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 916 323 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.025 0.006 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 9 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
609 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
9: Villa Ter & Project Dwy 01/29/2026
Cumulative AM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 16 21 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 16 21 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 17 23 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 23 0 - 0 40 23
Stage 1 - - - - 23 -
Stage 2 - - - - 17 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1592 - - - 971 1054
Stage 1 - - - - 1000 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1005 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1592 - - - 971 1054
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 971 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1000 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1005 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1592 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
610 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
1: San Mateo Dr & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Cumulative PM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 1 17 15 2 24 14 472 33 24 576 11
Future Vol, veh/h 2 1 17 15 2 24 14 472 33 24 576 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 1 19 17 2 27 16 530 37 27 647 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1270 1306 653 1282 1294 549 660 0 0 567 0 0 Stage 1 707 707 - 580 580 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 563 599 - 702 713 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 145 160 467 142 163 536 929 - - 1005 - - Stage 1 426 438 - 500 500 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 511 490 - 429 435 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 127 149 467 126 152 536 929 - - 1005 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 127 149 - 126 152 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 408 419 - 487 487 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 471 478 - 393 417 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 16.35 24.31 0.24 0.34

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 48 - - 340 232 70 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - 0.066 0.198 0.027 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.9 0 - 16.3 24.3 8.7 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.2 0.7 0.1 - -
611 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Highland Ave & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Cumulative PM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 13 21 13 8 21
Future Vol, veh/h 17 13 21 13 8 21
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 20 15 25 15 10 25
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 77 33 0 0 40 0
Stage 1 33 - - - - -
Stage 2 44 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 926 1041 - - 1569 -
Stage 1 990 - - - - -
Stage 2 978 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 921 1041 - - 1569 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 921 - - - - -
Stage 1 990 - - - - -
Stage 2 972 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.86 0 2.02

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 969 497 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.037 0.006 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.9 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
612 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
9: Villa Ter & Project Dwy 01/29/2026
Cumulative PM 1:19 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 21 28 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 21 28 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 23 30 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 30 0 - 0 53 30
Stage 1 - - - - 30 -
Stage 2 - - - - 23 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1582 - - - 955 1044
Stage 1 - - - - 992 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1000 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1582 - - - 955 1044
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 955 -
Stage 1 - - - - 992 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1000 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1582 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
613 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
1: San Mateo Dr & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Cumulative Plus Project AM 1:20 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 27 3 38 37 7 28 13 440 33 25 392 16
Future Vol, veh/h 27 3 38 37 7 28 13 440 33 25 392 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 29 3 41 40 8 30 14 478 36 27 426 17
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 999 1032 435 1007 1022 496 443 0 0 514 0 0 Stage 1 489 489 - 524 524 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 510 542 - 482 498 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 222 233 621 220 236 574 1117 - - 1051 - - Stage 1 560 549 - 536 530 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 546 520 - 565 544 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 193 221 621 192 224 574 1117 - - 1051 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 193 221 - 192 224 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 541 530 - 527 520 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 500 511 - 507 526 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 19.79 24.32 0.22 0.49

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 47 - - 317 264 103 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - - 0.233 0.297 0.026 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.3 0 - 19.8 24.3 8.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.9 1.2 0.1 - -
614 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Highland Ave & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Cumulative Plus Project AM 1:20 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 7 26 10 8 32
Future Vol, veh/h 19 7 26 10 8 32
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 24 9 33 13 10 41
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 101 40 0 0 46 0
Stage 1 40 - - - - -
Stage 2 62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 897 1032 - - 1562 -
Stage 1 983 - - - - -
Stage 2 961 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 891 1032 - - 1562 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 891 - - - - -
Stage 1 983 - - - - -
Stage 2 955 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.04 0 1.46

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 925 360 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.036 0.007 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 9 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
615 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
9: Villa Ter & Project Dwy 01/29/2026
Cumulative Plus Project AM 1:20 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 16 21 14 45 8
Future Vol, veh/h 2 16 21 14 45 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 17 23 15 49 9
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 38 0 - 0 52 30
Stage 1 - - - - 30 -
Stage 2 - - - - 22 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1572 - - - 956 1044
Stage 1 - - - - 992 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1001 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1572 - - - 955 1044
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 955 -
Stage 1 - - - - 991 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1001 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.81 0 8.96

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 200 - - - 967
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.06
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.3 0 - - 9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2
616 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
1: San Mateo Dr & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Cumulative Plus Project PM 1:20 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 1 27 15 2 24 32 472 33 24 576 29
Future Vol, veh/h 12 1 27 15 2 24 32 472 33 24 576 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 1 30 17 2 27 36 530 37 27 647 33
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1321 1357 663 1322 1354 549 680 0 0 567 0 0 Stage 1 717 717 - 621 621 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 603 639 - 702 734 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 134 149 461 133 149 536 913 - - 1005 - - Stage 1 420 433 - 475 479 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 486 470 - 429 426 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 113 134 461 111 135 536 913 - - 1005 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 113 134 - 111 135 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 402 415 - 448 452 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 432 443 - 382 408 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 24.22 26.76 0.54 0.33

HCM LOS C D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 106 - - 232 211 68 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 - - 0.194 0.218 0.027 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9.1 0 - 24.2 26.8 8.7 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C D A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.7 0.8 0.1 - -
617 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Highland Ave & Villa Ter 01/29/2026
Cumulative Plus Project PM 1:20 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.7
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 15 21 16 11 21
Future Vol, veh/h 19 15 21 16 11 21
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 23 18 25 19 13 25
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 86 35 0 0 44 0
Stage 1 35 - - - - -
Stage 2 51 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 916 1039 - - 1564 -
Stage 1 988 - - - - -
Stage 2 971 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 908 1039 - - 1564 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 908 - - - - -
Stage 1 988 - - - - -
Stage 2 963 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.91 0 2.52

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 961 619 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.042 0.008 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.9 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
618 of 833
HCM 7th TWSC
9: Villa Ter & Project Dwy 01/29/2026
Cumulative Plus Project PM 1:20 pm 11/12/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 21 28 37 21 4
Future Vol, veh/h 7 21 28 37 21 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 8 23 30 40 23 4
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 71 0 - 0 89 51
Stage 1 - - - - 51 -
Stage 2 - - - - 38 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1530 - - - 912 1018
Stage 1 - - - - 972 -
Stage 2 - - - - 984 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1530 - - - 908 1018
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 908 -
Stage 1 - - - - 967 -
Stage 2 - - - - 984 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.84 0 9.02

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 450 - - - 924
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - - 0.029
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.4 0 - - 9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
619 of 833
1 Holeva Finau
From: Joanna Winter
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:27 AM
To: Steve Carlson
Cc: Greg Powell
Subject: RE: PA 2025-031 715 North San Mateo Drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Mr. Carlson,
Thank you for sharing your comments, which have been received and will be shared with the Planning Commissioners. Please see the updated staff report, viewable at our Public Meeting Portal, which contains the requested study. I am copying the project planner, Greg Powell, in case you have questions.

Thanks,
Joanna Winter (she/her)
Planning Manager | Community Development Dept.
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7211 | [email protected]
From: Steve Carlson
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2026 2:04 PM
To: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Subject: PA 2025-031 715 North San Mateo Drive
Mr. Winter:

I was revieing the online Staff Report for PA 2025-031 and it identifies a Transportation Study prepared by Hexagon in Attachment 6. However, it is not attached to the packet. The issue of impaired views for operators of vehicles egressing from the garage and pedestrians along Villa Terrace is a vital safety concern.

The vehicle entry should be from San Mateo Drive in order to minimize increasing vehicle congestion on Villa Terrace, eliminating vehicle headlight glare into neighboring single family dwellings living rooms, eliminating noise from the garage operations, and reducing the impacts of vehicles exiting the project site traveling westbound on Villa Terrace and using the newly improved Highland Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (providing enhanced safety for pedestrian and cyclists) - eastbound vehicles attempting to make left turn onto North San Mateo Drive at Villa Terrace and State Street is becoming increasing difficult due to the increased traffic volumes and sight line on North San Mateo Drive so much so that I try to avoid making turns these intersections. Traffic and parking effects associated with this major residential development is of utmost concern. I did review the brief summary in the 620 of 833
2 Staff Report and found lacking in detail and substance. The project target clients appears to be single tech sector workers (based on the amenities, cowork space, package room, ample bike storage, lounge, pool and spa and predominance of single bedroom units etc.) that the project is intended to rely on third party transportation vendors for travel and service. The analysis from this project appears to undercount the traffic associated with this project as it does not appear to include taxi service (eg.uber, lyft, waymo) parcel/package deliveries (e.g. Amazon, Fed Ex, UPS) or other services (eg. grocery and food) with I raised this and other concerns at the Neighborhood Meeting conducted on Feb 26, 2005. Please provide a copy of the said Attachment 6.

Respectfully, Steve Carlson
621 of 833
1 Holeva Finau
From: Joanna Winter
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:24 AM
To: Holeva Finau; Greg Powell; Steven Lizzarago
Cc: Zachary Dahl; Sung H. Kwon
Subject: FW: 715 /723 N. San Mateo Drive 247 Villa Terrace Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Comment letter received.

Joanna Winter (she/her)
Planning Manager | Community Development Dept.
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7211 | [email protected]
From: KATHY WEINGAND
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:18 AM
To: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>; sue dreyer ; Stone, Jonathan
Subject: 715 /723 N. San Mateo Drive 247 Villa Terrace
March 20, 2026

Dear Joanna Winter, Jonathan Stone, Prometheus Real Estate Group, and Members of the City of San Mateo Planning Department and Commission,

We, the undersigned residents of San Mateo Heights, respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed development at 715/723 North San Mateo Drive and 247 Villa Terrace..

While we recognize the importance of thoughtful development, we believe that the current proposal raises several significant issues related to scale, design compatibility, and neighborhood impact. As currently planned, the project appears substantially taller and denser than surrounding structures, with minimal setback from the sidewalk. We respectfully request that the height of the development not exceed that of existing buildings on the west side of North San Mateo Drive, in order to maintain consistency with the established neighborhood character.

In addition, the architectural style of the proposal does not reflect the predominantly early-20thcentury character of the neighborhood, which includes Arts and Crafts, Craftsman, Victorian, Spanish, and Colonial influences. We encourage consideration of a design approach that is more harmonious with these existing styles.

622 of 833
2 We also note the absence of meaningful green space or landscaped areas in the current plans. Given that such features are a defining element of the neighborhood, we respectfully request the inclusion of park-like landscaping, a community green space, or similar amenities that contribute positively to the environment and quality of life.

Setbacks are another important concern. Homes along Villa Terrace and State Street maintain consistent front yard setbacks, contributing to the visual cohesion of the neighborhood. We ask that the proposed project incorporate a comparable setback—approximately 15 feet—along these streets to align with existing development patterns.

With regard to parking and traffic, residents have consistently expressed concerns about existing congestion and limited street parking. At the preliminary meeting on February 26, 2025, it was clearly communicated that current conditions are already strained. The proposed ratio of 181 residential units to 180 parking spaces appears insufficient given typical household vehicle ownership and visitor needs. We respectfully request that the project include adequate parking provisions to prevent further burden on surrounding streets and residents.

We are also concerned about potential impacts on airflow, sunlight access, and overall quality of life for neighboring properties. Appropriate setbacks and design considerations should be incorporated to mitigate these effects.

Furthermore, we ask that construction logistics be carefully managed to minimize disruption.

Specifically, we request that construction vehicles and equipment not be permitted to park on State Street or Villa Terrace at any time during the construction period.

In addition, the City Council of San Mateo recently voted to close Villa Terrace and Bellevue Ave. at the train tracks which will obviously restrict traffic flow and cause immeasurable congestion throughout the entire neighborhood adding another reason why this project needs to be scaled back..

We would also like to raise concerns regarding information presented in the project application about the property on Villa Terrace (Parcel B). It is our understanding that this property is currently a duplex and occupied, contrary to its description as a single-family residence. We respectfully request that all project documentation accurately reflect existing conditions to ensure transparency and informed decision-making. Also the notice of the Planning Commission public hearing reflects Ross and Diana Bowling as property owners giving the insinuation that they are somehow project developers when in fact they are not. This affordable housing Duplex will be torn down to make way for these market rate unaffordable apartments.

Finally, we believe that new development should contribute positively to the broader community. In light of the cumulative impact of development over recent decades, we encourage the inclusion of community-oriented amenities such as green space, a garden, or a small recreational area.

Furthermore, many of us just received notice of the hearing on March 19th for the March 24th hearing which is not adequate time for residents to adjust their schedules to attend the hearing.

As a neighborhood, we remain committed to constructive dialogue and collaboration. As long-time residents, we expect to be heard, if not by the Prometheus Group, then by the Planning Commission of San Mateo, as we are direct stakeholders and expect that the planning commision advocate for us. We provided these comments a years ago and have not seen any change to the project based on our comments. We respectfully ask that Prometheus Real Estate Group work with residents and the 623 of 833
3 City to develop a revised proposal that is lower in density, consistent in scale with surrounding buildings, architecturally compatible, and inclusive of adequate setbacks, parking, and green space.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Residents of San Mateo Heights

Kathy Weingand

Shawn Carter

Paige DeRadt and Ankit Singh

Ray Parres

John Junkerman

Camella Mumm

624 of 833
4 David and Suzanne Dreyer

Julia Jun

625 of 833
1 Holeva Finau
From: James Lloyd
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 12:40 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: City Attorney's Office; Clerk; Community Development Distribution; City Mgr; Joanna Winter
Subject: public comment re item 1 for tonight's Planning Commission hearing Attachments: San Mateo - 715 N. San Mateo Drive - HAA.pdf Dear San Mateo Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 1 for tonight's Planning Commission hearing, the proposed 181-unit housing development project at 715 N.

San Mateo Drive, which includes 19 very low-income units.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund

626 of 833
Mar 24, 2026
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
By Email: [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear San Mateo Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 181-unit housing development project at 715 N. San Mateo Drive, which includes 19 very low-income units.

These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and AB 130.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j)) or render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)), unless again, such written findings are made. As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.

Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
627 of 833
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to height, floor area ratio (FAR), setbacks/yards, landscape buffers, blank walls, open space, and yard dimensions. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. 2 of 3
628 of 833
629 of 833
1 Holeva Finau
From: Joanna Winter
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:35 PM
To: Zachary Dahl; Prasanna Rasiah; Greg Powell; Steven Lizzarago; Holeva Finau Subject: FW: PA 2025-031
Forwarding comment received
Joanna Winter (she/her)
Planning Manager | Community Development Dept.
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7211 | [email protected]
From: Steve Carlson
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:01 PM
To: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Subject: PA 2025-031
Ms. Winter:

Thank you for placing Attachment #7 Transportation Study on the Staff Report. am submitting a few comments regarding the proposed project with this email.

Respectfully,
Steve Carlson
To: San Mateo Planning Commission
From: Steve Carlson
Re: PA 2025-031

PROJECT NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW
Due to the incompleteness and inadequacy of the project description and the incompleteness of the Notice, and the 73-page Transportation Study referenced in the City Staff Report made available on-line mid-day on Monday March 22, 2026.

Staff Report does not include sufficient analysis of Transportation Study nor several other long term and project related issues of importance to neighborhood residents including concerns voiced at other projects, and voiced at the applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting conducted on 630 of 833
2 February 26, 2025 – over one year ago. Building brutalist design, 75-foot height, massive bulk, large scale details, lack of setbacks and landscaping, lack of on-site parking, impact to on-street parking, generation of noise, odors, off-site glare, and construction impacts.

Several studies associated with project need to be completed prior to any public hearing decisions-makers can make an informed design on the appropriateness of the design and the life safety and economic harms caused to the area residents.

On-street Parking Study, Wind Alteration, Shading Study, Noise Study, Off-Site Lighting and Glare Studies Soils and Geotech, and a Phase I Environmental Assessment. The applicant and City Staff have had ample time upwards of one year to conduct these studies and has not significantly modified the site plan nor the building design.

The meeting needs to be continued.

ISSUES
NOTICE
Incomplete description and identification of required entitlements.

DESCRIPTION
Incomplete Key details left out. Off-site improvements 750 linear feet and soil nailing permanent use of public right-of-way, and on-street garbage bins loading zone and truck loading Removal of 4 tree qualifying as major vegetation. Bicycle parking for 208 bicycles.

Grading of 53,000 square feet and excavation of 21,000 cubic yards. Elimination of unknown number of on-street parking spaces.

ENTITLEMENTS
All of the required entitlements are not identified.

SITE PLAN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW

VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
No description of purpose of the map.

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING APPROVAL
The purpose of the ADPA, removal of 4 trees constituting major vegetation is absent. 631 of 833
3 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING APPROVAL
Grading of over 53,000 SF and Soil Excavation/Off-haul of over 21,000 cubic yards.

TRANSPORTATION STUDY – Attachment #7 – The 73 page report was made available on March 23, 2026 and only after public comment that the attachment was missing from the Staff Report.

The public nor the Planning Commission can reasonably be expected understand the traffic impacts without reading the report. Reliance on a public presentation by the City’s Transportation consultant nor the Staff Reports two paragraph summary adequately conveys the details of the study – e.g. what was included, what trip distributions were assumed, what data bases were utilized, what intersection were evaluated, were building operations included (e.g. garbage pickup, taxi and delivery service, unit turnover, visitation, business use).

LIFE SAFETY HAZARDS
Construction, Grading and Excavation Impacts – Fugitive dust, odors noise, parking, traffic and circulation impacts lasting weeks. Sensitive receptors including children, nearby schools, transitional housing, day care, CDBG related service and senior assisted living Auto related uses.

Excavation - Adverse harms imposed on abutting residences. Forced financial burden associated with protecting their own properties from excavation (e.g. legal representatives insurance costs, bonding and Geotech consultants, and shoring (sheet piling?)).

Villa Terrace Garage Entry – Creates permanent Pedestrian/Vehicle conflicts at garage entry/public sidewalk leading to potential accidents. The pedestrian/vehicle conflict created by the building design by the lack of an adequate sight-line has not been addressed.

Phase I Environmental Assessment – Specifically required as a Condition of Approval by CEQA, but not included. Given the age and past use of existing structures and buildings likely contain toxic and hazardous materials. Given the immediate adjacency of residential properties identification and removal is important for the public safety. Ideally, this study would have been completed so that the decision-makers and the public were informed prior to a decisional meeting.

NOISE ODORS AND OFF-SITE LIGHTING GLARE AND NIGHTTIME AMBIENT

LIGHTING LEVELS
The Villa Terrace garage entry will create permanent off-site glare on single family dwellings opposite the entry.

Operation of the west facing open recreation areas will generate noise odors and off-site glare.

All uses in the E2 zone district are required by the SMMC Title 27 to be enclosed. 632 of 833
4 The nighttime use of the building may significantly increase the nighttime ambient lighting levels on neighboring residential properties adversely affecting occupancy and landscaping.

WIND
Building height and slab design, with limited setbacks may block prevailing west winds resulting in channeling and altering winds, accelerating ground level wind speeds adversely affecting neighboring residential properties and potentially the sidewalk areas.

PRIVACY
VIDEO RECORDING CAMERAS- Video recording of persons walking, cycling and driving will have images recorded by an unknown vendor and final image disposition. Can acts to deter anyone using project streets. Vendor, Length of storage, sale of image information.

ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS - West facing dwelling units and open recreation areas and observation deck lounge have unobstructed views of neighboring properties thereby eliminating what little privacy residents possess.

DESIGN
QUALITY OF FIT – Building height, bulk, non-existent setbacks, it emphasis on verticality, brutish design, large scale details, single entry, lack of unified single-entry garage and pedestrian entry, self-contained gated community and pedestal design with open recreation pools fronting on public streets is incompatible with open landscaped small scale 1 to 2 story residences neighborhood. Existing suburban residential neighborhood is intended to encourage neighborliness and foster calm. The proposed monumental building does not reflect any of the established pattern or qualities of access to light air and tranquility. The building does not increase opportunities for neighborliness and engagement with area residents except within the building- an essential hallmark of suburban community design.

The building creates more isolation through limited access gated pedestrian entry on North San Mateo Drive facing the commercial areas and the separate single garage enty/exit on Villa Terrace.

Concentration of vehicle traffic on Villa Terrace and on-street truck and garbage loading.

Potential significant reduction and adverse impact to existing supply of essential street parking.

Spreading parking impacts to the area on adjacent streets.

Increase in traffic and noise will not increase the areas attractiveness and interest, but will increase nuisances and congestion and conflicts.

ECONOMIC HARM
633 of 833
5 EXCAVATION, SHADING AND WIND – The proposed building and immediate juxtaposition to abutting properties subject the owners and residents to permanent harm. To protect their property from the proposed excavation, owners are required to shore their property and improvements and protect the excavated property from harm. Owners may need to hire a Geoteh engineer, a contractor legal counsel and may experience insurance issues.

The Shading caused by the building will likely permanently increase energy costs during the period between the Fall and Spring Equinox. This will likely be exacerbated by rising energy costs. The shading will adversely affect landscape planting and use of outdoor area resulting in further costs.

Increases in ground level wind speeds may contribute to increased energy costs by affecting ground level temperature and evaporation. Outdoor use areas may be adversely affected in terms of activity and landscape planting. Increase wind speeds can adversely affect door and window operation.

634 of 833
1 Holeva Finau
From: Max Mautner
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 9:24 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Greg Powell
Subject: Thank You – Approval of PA-2025-031 – 715/723 N San Mateo Drive Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for unanimously approving the multi-family residential project at 715/723 N San Mateo Drive (PA-2025-031) on March 24.

I live three blocks away on Highland Avenue and want my support on the record.

This project is exactly the kind of infill density San Mateo needs on a transit, walking & biking accessible corridor: 181 units including 19 for very-low income households.

Today, it is a vacant surface parking lot that has blighted my neighborhood for years--but I hope that a few years from now it will have foot-traffic and vibrancy, especially with its lower parking ratio:
635 of 833
2 I hope to see more decisions like this one.

I also want to validate my neighbors who spoke at public comment: curb parking congestion will occur when this project is fully leased.

While a review of the city's curb parking program is outside the planning commission's purview, I urge you to push council to act.

My neighborhood would benefit from a residential parking permit program, and with continued infill development citywide it will become an unavoidable political priority that is best addressed sooner rather than later.

Yours truly,
Max Mautner
636 of 833
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Telephone: | Facsimile:
www.allenmatkins.com
David H. Blackwell
E-mail:

Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
July 14, 2026
San Mateo City Council
San Mateo City Hall
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
[email protected]
Re: City Council July 20, 2026 Meeting
Agenda Item __(1. Old Business)
Appeal of 715 N. San Mateo Drive
(PA-2025-031)
Hon. Mayor Loraine and Council Members:

This office represents Prometheus Real Estate Group, the applicant of the above-referenced multifamily residential development project. We have reviewed the Application for Appeal filed by Steve Carlson. Rather than addressing the merits of the appeal, or lack thereof, the purpose of this correspondence is to set forth the statutory framework applicable to this project. A brief analysis of this framework should assist with the Council’s consideration of this matter and should lead to an immediate denial of the appeal.

I. AB 130
On June 30, 2025, a new statutory CEQA exemption for multifamily housing development projects was enacted as part of Assembly Bill 130 (“AB 130”) and became effective immediately. (See Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66.) The new AB 130 statutory CEQA exemption is similar to the existing categorical Class 32 exemption under the CEQA Guidelines, except that AB 130 reduces legal risks by limiting opportunity for third party challenges because no “unusual circumstances” challenges are permitted.

Unlike the Class 32 exemption, an analysis of potential impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality is not required to support the exemption. Instead, the project site must meet all of the SB 35 siting criteria, as here. In advance of the Planning Commission’s consideration of the project, this office submitted a memorandum to the City that demonstrates the 637 of 833
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
San Mateo City Council
July 14, 2026

project’s qualifications under AB 130. That memorandum should be incorporated into the administrative record for this Agenda Item. It is clear from the evidence in the record that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA, and the CEQA-related complaints raised in the appeal1 are irrelevant.

II. HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
A. Background
The Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) establishes the state’s overarching policy that a local government may not deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible qualifying housing development projects. The express intent of the HAA is to promote housing development: “It is the policy of the state that this section [HAA] should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).)
As enacted in 1982, the original HAA (referred to as “the anti-NIMBY law”) directed local governments to approve housing projects that complied with local land use standards. Now codified in subdivision (j), the HAA specifies that a city cannot disapprove a project or condition it to be developed at a lower density if the project complies with all objective local development standards, unless the city finds that the project would have non-mitigatable health or safety impacts.

Subdivision (j) applies to both market-rate and affordable housing projects.

B. Legal Standards
In order for a local agency to disapprove a housing development project, it must base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence2 on the record. (Gov.

Code § 65589.5(d)(j)(1).) If a court determines that the local agency violated the HAA, the court:
may direct the local agency to comply with the HAA; may direct it to approve the project if it determines the agency acted in bad faith; shall award attorneys’ fees and costs; and may impose fines and multiply those fines under certain circumstances. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A).) 1 With regard to the appeal’s complaint that the project should be conditioned on the submission of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Prometheus had already prepared both a Phase I and a Phase II for the project, thus making the requested condition moot.
2 “The HAA evidentiary standard of a preponderance of the evidence is a high bar for a local agency to make a finding of a ‘specific, adverse impact.’” (HCD Letter of Support and Technical Assistance to City of Los Angeles, 10/18/24.) “The expression ‘preponderance of the evidence’ does not suggest deference to the City factfinders. The City must find that the balance or the weight of the evidence supports its determination.” (HCD Notice of Potential Housing Law Violations to City of Simi Valley, 7/22/20.) 638 of 833
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
San Mateo City Council
July 14, 2026

As noted above, the project is protected by subdivision (j), which applies to any housing project that is consistent with the local agency’s objective planning, zoning and design standards.

Under this subdivision, the key written finding that a local agency must make to disapprove a project is that, based on a preponderance of evidence in the record:

The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(1)(A).)
There is simply no evidence, nor could such evidence be created, that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety based on objective, written public health or safety standards. The appeal provides no such evidence. Therefore, there is no legal basis to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval.

III. DENSITY BONUS LAW
The other relevant pro-housing statute is the Density Bonus Law (DBL), which “is a powerful tool for enabling developers to include very low, low, and moderate-income housing units in their new developments.” (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 1329, 1339.) The DBL is one of several California statutes designed to implement “an important state policy to promote the construction of low-income housing and to remove impediments to the same.” (Bldg.

Indus. Ass’n v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 744, 770; Gov. Code § 65582.1(f).) We recognize that the City has processed a number of DBL projects over the years, and that this Council is already aware of the DBL’s four distinct primary components: (1) density bonuses; (2) incentives/ concessions; (3) development standard waivers; and (4) parking ratio reductions.

Therefore, this letter will not provide an exhaustive analysis of the DBL’s application to the project, which your Staff can clearly provide if necessary. In addition, the appeal does not reference the DBL or any of these components, nor does it identify any City objective development standards to which the project does not comply. As set forth in the Staff Report, waivers have been applied to the handful of development standards to which the project does not comply, which both Staff and the Planning Commission support.

This letter serves as a reminder that a city may refuse a request to waive or reduce development standards only if it makes written findings that the waiver or reduction would have a 639 of 833
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
San Mateo City Council
July 14, 2026

specific adverse impact on the public health or safety. (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1).) In addition, appellate court and HCD options3 make clear that waivers are based on the project as proposed by the developer: “even if we assume the Project as designed is inconsistent with some of the City’s design standards, the Density Bonus Law would preclude the City from applying those standards to deny this project.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Therefore, a local agency may not respond to a waiver request that a project could be redesigned to avoid the need for a waiver. (Id. at 774-775 [rejecting argument that the project “could have been built more horizontally” to comply with design standards.”].) As the state Department of Housing and Community Development recently advised another local agency that it cannot deny a waiver request based on the possibility of a redesigned project, “the courts have made it very clear that if a project qualifies under [the Density Bonus Law], and if waivers are needed to physically allow that project to go forward with the incentives and concessions granted, the waivers must be granted.” (1/20/22 Notice of Violation to City of Encinitas.)
Based on the foregoing, Prometheus respectfully submits that because the project is subject to the DBL and is also protected by the HAA, there is no basis upon which this Council can grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s approval. The required “specific, adverse impact” finding that applies throughout this statutory framework simply cannot be met here. As such, Prometheus respectfully requests that the Council deny the appeal.

Very truly yours,
David H. Blackwell
cc: Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney
Don Peterson
3 See, e.g., HCD Letter of Technical Assistance to City of Oceanside dated January 10, 2023; HCD Letter of Support of Technical Assistance to City of Riverside dated February 27, 2025. 640 of 833
1 Simin Zakavand
From: [email protected]
Subject: FW: 715 723 N SAN MATEO DRIVE
From: Allen Slichter < >
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 10:53 AM
To: Greg Powell <[email protected]>
Subject: 715 723 N SAN MATEO DRIVE

Greg,
I'm a little late to the table but I'm trying to get a better understanding of this project. Yes. I'm a neighbor. Not opposed to the project in principle but would like to see that it's done right.

Can you help me locate a couple documents?
Traffic Study: I've seen references to it but I have yet to find the actual document. Can you steer me to that?
The underlying appeal that is the basis of the recommendation to Council to deny in tonights Council meeting.

A couple of follow on thoughts:

Has there been any discussion of permitting the parking in the surrounding neighborhoods? Concern being that new residents will leave second vehicles on surrounding city streets. With 181 units varying in type from studio to 2 bedroom there might be perhaps 300 people occupying the building? Have construction details been evaluated? Specifically haul routes and parking? A concern here with neighborhood disruption from construction vehicles and construction worker parking while the project is getting built.

Thanks,
Mark Slichter
Thanks,
Mark
641 of 833
Jul 20, 2026
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Dear San Mateo City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 181-unit housing development project at 715 N. San Mateo Drive, which includes 19 very low-income units.

These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), the Density Bonus Law (DBL), and AB 130.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j)) or render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)), unless again, such written findings are made. As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.

Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
642 of 833
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to height, floor area ratio (FAR), setbacks/yards, landscape buffers, blank walls, open space, and yard dimensions. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. 2 of 3
643 of 833
644 of 833
1 From: Steve Carlson
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2026 4:09 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fw: Appeal of PA2025-031 - 715 North San Mateo Drive Attachments: Appeal of 2025-031 Letter to Honorable Mayor and City Council.docx; PA 2025-031 ATTACHMENTS.docx; PA 2025-031 APPEAL.docx
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Steve Carlson
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2026 at 02:26:14 PM PDT
Subject: Appeal of PA2025-031 - 715 North San Mateo Drive To whom it may concern,
Attached is supplemental material in support of the Appeal of PA 2025-031 that is scheduled to be on the City Council Agenda of July 20, 2026.

Respectfully,
Steve Carlson
645 of 833
Appeal of PA25-031
Residential Development at 715 North San Mateo Drive
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
The project does not comply with provisions of the General Plan, the SMMC Title 27 Zoning Ordinance nor other provisions of the SMMC and it is not documented that it is in compliance with pertinent State storm water requirements.

Neighborhood resident’s concerns stated at the Applicant’s Neighborhood meeting conducted on February 26, 2025 nearly a year and half ago have not been addressed by the applicant nor City. Residents attending the Applicant’s Neighborhood meeting supported conversion of the project site to residential use but, had issues with the project’s ambitious development intensity and the quality of the fit. They were concerned with the exposures of neighborhood residents to serious life safety and public health hazards, economic harm, public nuisances including excessive levels of noise, off-site glare into residential living quarters, objectional and toxic odors.

Studies that can address the resident’s concerns are either incomplete and inadequate or have not been undertaken. Studies that need to be conducted Revised Shading Study examining effect on adjacent residences, Energy Impact Study, Wind Alteration Study, Public Nuisance Study of noise, glare, effect on neighborhood ambient lighting, and odors associated with the State Street on-street garbage operation, Villa Terrace garage entry/exit and open recreation areas.

Revised Transportation Study including pedestrian and bicycle use, taxi and delivery service, Safe Routes-to-School and Transit, on-street loading operations, State Street on-street garbage operations, and Villa Terrace “blind intersection” garage entry/exit sight-line study, and On-Street Parking Study.

The Phase I Environmental Assessment, Preliminary Geotechnical Study and Recology letter need to be available to the public and reviewed by the City. Will serve letters from utilities serving the project need to be submitted Letters from Cal Water providing drought policies regarding both the pool and spa, and from the Regional Water Quality Board regarding compliance of the State Street on-street 646 of 833
Appeal of PA25-031
Residential Development at 715 North San Mateo Drive
garbage operation and facilities and the storm water drainage treatment facilities piping into the drainage swales with storm water regulations and permit.

Pursuant to State law the project is exempt from environmental review. However, State law does not restrict the City from undertaking studies to provide relevant information shedding light on the project’s effects nor on life safety issues, economic harm and public nuisances that will assist the public and decision makers of making informed choices. As acknowledged in the applicant’s submittal letter, State specifically allows to deny projects that create life safety hazards.

The applicant’s project as designed and the requested entitlements should be denied. Concerns forming a basis of denial include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Exposing neighborhood residents and the community to significant life safety and public health hazards, economic harm, and public nuisances including excessive levels of noise, off-site glare into residential living quarters, and objectional and toxic odors. a. The State Street on-street garbage operations creating a “blighting effect” on the neighborhood and an attractive nuisance leading to illegal dumping and vandalism increasing police intervention.
b. The Villa Terrace “blind intersection” garage entry/exit design with the public sidewalk that exposes pedestrians to a significant threat to life safety.

2. The project does not comply with the adopted General Plan and numerous provisions of SMMC Title 27 both substantive and procedural, and violations of the State laws and regulations regarding storm water and protection of bay waters.
647 of 833
Appeal of PA25-031
Residential Development at 715 North San Mateo Drive
The Findings Attachment accompanying this appeal provides a more robust and detailed basis of denial.

In hindsight, during the time between the Applicant’s Neighborhood meeting on February 26, 2025 and the project resubmittal at the end of 2025, the project would have benefitted from greater City outreach and open dialogue with neighborhood residents, conducting project workshops and a Planning Commission study session giving both residents an opportunity to speak and the City to engage in active listening.

Lastly, I apologize in advance for the length and wordiness and take full responsibility for any errors and omissions.

Respectfully,

Steve Carlson
Attachment:

Appeal of PA 2025-031
648 of 833
1 ATTACHMENT #1

VILLA TERRACE GARAGE ENTRY/EXIT
The garage entry on Villa Terrace will cause off-site lighting glare associated with night time exiting vehicles to residents occupying the one (1) story single-family dwellings situated on the south side of Villa Terrace opposite the proposed project. Off-site lighting glare and gate and vehicle noise (which are more intrusive at night) can be eliminated by relocating the garage entry/exit onto North San Mateo Drive where commercial uses are situated across the street. The owner’s plans need to be revised to relocate the garage entry/exit to North San Mateo Drive and demonstrate how the proposed project garage entry/exit will not create off-site lighting glare and noise to existing residential areas.

PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE CONFLICTS
The garage entry/exit sight line for exiting vehicles does not allow exiting vehicle operators to view pedestrians using the adjacent public sidewalk – this design is a life safety matter because it creates a dangerous conflict and is not in keeping with the City’s efforts to provide safe streets for everyone. This can be remedied by relocating the garage entry/exit to North San Mateo Drive where there the ability to eliminate this safety matter and protect the residential area from additional vehicle traffic.

Installation of a mirror, a stop sign or gate alarms are not a more effective remedy than a design that provides a clear sight-line. Further, these measures rely on perfect driving behavior, and are not effective for all pedestrians - especially the children, the elderly, hearing or sight impaired, and the young (and cellphone and earphone users) (nor pets), and unless maintained become an after the fact enforcement matter. Moreover, they generate intrusive Noise and Glare that are Public Nuisances which are not permitted by SMMC Title 27.

Redesigning the garage entry/exit and relocating it on North San Mateo Drive to an area that has adequate setback from the public sidewalk (e.g. near the pedestrian primary entry) and allows operators of exiting vehicles and pedestrians to clearly view one another and thus minimize accidents.

Relocating the garage entry/exit also facilitates project access and helps to protect the neighborhood from additional vehicles traffic and congestion conflicts on Villa Terrace and adjacent local streets. Left turn movements from Villa Terrace to Northbound San Mateo Drive is becoming increasingly constrained as platoons of vehicles traveling along North San Mateo Drive making it difficult to complete a turning movement in a reasonable amount of time. Future residents will unfortunately learn to avoid making left turns onto North San Mateo Drive and instead travel through the residential neighborhood to access US Highway 101 and ECR. 649 of 833
2 Project related traffic traveling west on Villa Terrace and onto Highland Avenue conflicts with the intended purpose of the Highland Avenue Bicycle Boulevard - to provide increased safety for pedestrian and cyclists and streets with smaller traffic volumes. The use of Villa Terrace as the garage entry/exit will also likely result in more traffic on neighborhood streets.

The location of the garage entry/exit, potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, impacts to onstreet parking, and impacts to neighborhood traffic and other traffic issues were identified at the project applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting conducted on February 26, 2025. At the time the applicant advised that it would be challenging to modify the garage entry to cut back the walls increasing visibility for vehicle operators and pedestrians as the pool and spa were located above the entry - it would be a difficult structural issue. The owner’s conceptual plans need to be revised to relocate the garage entry/exit and protect pedestrians (in the spirit of Safe Streets for Everyone).

Even were the garage entry to remain on Villa Terrace the pedestrian/vehicle conflict at the garage entry has not been addressed either by the applicant nor the City Staff.

Planning Condition of Approval #4 Parking Garage, based on the recommendation of the City’s Transportation consultant, requires the garage entry/exit gate to be relocated to a minimum distance of 30 feet from the sidewalk. While this will allow entry vehicles not to block the sidewalk (an ADA violation), it does not address the sight line issue caused by placement of a solid wall adjacent to and perpendicular to the sidewalk creating a “blind intersection”. The plans need to be revised to demonstrate a clear line-of-sight eliminating pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. 650 of 833
3 ATTACHMENT #2

ON-STREET PARKING STUDY
The proposed project provides only 181 on-site parking spaces for the 180 dwelling units and no on-site visitor spaces (including both business and casual). It is important to note that not all of the units will be provided with a parking space as many spaces with be reserved for other vehicle services.

The proposed project appears to result in the loss of on-street parking spaces through the inclusion of extensive bulb outs at the corners of State Street/North San Mateo Drive and Villa Terrace/North San Mateo Drive, the provision of two on-street loading zones – one (1) on State Street for permanent exclusive daily garbage bin pickup and one (1) on North San Mateo Drive (designated as short-term parking), and the provision of drainage swales situated in in the public right-of-way along North San Mateo Drive, State Street and Villa Terrace.

Neighborhood residents rely heavily on street parking to meet their needs. The San Mateo Heights area originally subdivided in 1895 and was later largely developed with single family residences in the early 1900s and 1920s and later followed with small-scale apartment construction in the 1960s (accommodating most of San Mateos apartment construction during the 1960s). The majority of sites provide only 1 on-site parking space per dwelling. Most driveways are designed to provide access and do not allow additional parking (so additional onsite parking opportunities are few). Many residents are thus forced to use on-street parking (originally intended primarily for visitor and service vehicles).

Nearby businesses along North San Mateo Drive also rely on street parking to meet their business clients. The elimination of parking spaces especially those on North San Mateo Drive and State Street will adversely affect their business operation.

While no known formal On-street Parking Study has been conducted by the City, residents have made the City staff, Commission and Council aware of the parking issues. The implementation of the Poplar Bicycle Lanes combined with the State limitation on parking with 20 feet of intersections has already reduced the supply of on-street parking and exacerbated the supply/demand imbalance. In association with the Poplar Bicycle Lane previous Councilmembers in the recent past have stated that the City would be studying the parking issue and develop solutions. No follow-up with neighborhood residents by the City has ever occurred.

Parking was a key concern of residents speaking at the Applicant’s February 2025 Neighborhood meeting well over a year ago (a copy of the meeting notes was provided to the City and a City staff member was at observer at the meeting.

City staff is aware of the neighborhood on-street parking issue as it was raised most recently at the Humboldt/Poplar Street Bicycle Lane improvements public meetings. City staff worked on this matter and presented verbal reports identifying potential parking losses due to red curbing to meet improve sight-lines at corners (improving vehicle and pedestrian safety), but little to no 651 of 833
4 public information has ever been offered regarding the number of on-street spaces (though it was apparent that the City apparently possesses digital street maps with parking space information) nor the demand/supply imbalance. Since these meetings, the number of on-street parking has been further reduced by the State of California safety requirement to eliminate on-street parking spaces within 20 feet of intersections (a potential loss of upwards of 50 parking spaces in the area). However, this has not been fully implemented in the area (e.g. parking spaces at the Tintersection of Highland Avenue/Villa Terrace are not permitted within the intersection).

As requested by neighborhood residents, City staff needs to conduct a Neighborhood Parking Study to determine the number of on-street parking spaces and the number available spaces (especially after 8 PM) to determine the extent of the existing demand/supply of on-street spaces and determine the proposed development impact on parking. Should the study determine the supply is inadequate, (as field observation indicates only 1 to 2 spaces are available overnight per each block face). It is incumbent for the City to study and mitigate the impact of the adverse parking effects associated with the increase in development in the adopted General Plan. As has been identified in past meetings a possible solution would be the implementation of a Parking Permit Program. Because it is a CDGB Priority Area grant funding should be considered to defray costs for eligible households.

Already, as a likely result of the parking reductions, and that some multifamily building owners are apparently disaggregating the rent and charging residents separately for on-site parking) more residents are parking on the street (to reduce rent obligation) and are parking vehicles on the street and as much as a block away from their residences, as no spaces are available near their dwellings. This will likely only get worse with future development and the problem will spread to adjoining residential areas and potentially leading to greater demand for police services. 652 of 833
5 ATTACHMENT #3

NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
The Planning Commission Staff Report provided limited or no data and analysis of neighborhood residents concerns stated at the Applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting of February 26, 2025 (nearly over a year and half ago) and at the Planning Commission hearing (e.g. the lack of an adequate number of on-street over-night parking spaces, and traffic on local neighborhood streets (e.g. Highland Avenue, Bellevue Avenue and State Street) long-known to the City staff and representatives) traffic impacts to neighborhood streets and access to the regional highways, public nuisances generated by the project including, but limited to, off-site noise, glare and odors, unsafe “blind intersection” (i.e. lack of adequate sight-line) garage entry/exit presenting a clear danger to pedestrians, construction impacts (i.e. fugitive dust, toxic spent fuel odors, high noise levels (e.g. exceeding 90 dB), parking and traffic congestion in the area related to the 18 month to 2-year construction, excavation of the underground garage, slope stabilization and construction of foundation walls in close proximity to existing occupied residences, and identification of and removal of any toxic and hazardous materials from the site structures.

1. No resident offered that the project was a good fit with the neighborhood. Residents stated that while at best it was an attractive building, it was completely out of character with the landscaped small-scale neighborhood predominated by two (2) story landscaped pedestrian scale residential buildings and landscaped front and side yards.

The massive 75+-foot tall brutalist design building with little to no setbacks was a better fit in a Downtown location with other similar large-scale buildings.

2. Residents recommended relocating the garage entry/exit to North San Mateo to an area with and to eliminate the safety issue and reduce public nuisances associated with the garage vehicle traffic. Increasing setbacks from the existing residents to reduce public nuisance impacts to allow for a tall landscape screen and relocate the open recreation areas to face North San Mateo Drive to eliminate public nuisances.

3. Residents commented extensively on the lack of on-street parking in the neighborhood and were concerned about the proposed project effects on street parking, especially given the proposed reduction of on-street parking, the proposed on-site parking ratio of less than one (1) parking space per dwelling unit and no on-site visitor parking.

4. Residents commented on the poor and dangerous design and location of garage entry/exit adjacent to the sidewalk creating and obvious danger to pedestrians and generation of offsite glare and noise to adjacent single-family residences on Villa Terrace.

5. Residents were concerned about the generation of Public Nuisances including off-site glare, and increased ambient lighting levels) noise and odors, and wind given the 653 of 833
6 proximity of the open pool, spa and outdoor cooking and dining and outdoor lounge adjacent to existing residential areas, and the six (6) story height with limited setbacks potentially may block and channel westerly winds thereby accelerating wind and increasing ground level wind speeds adversely affecting the adjacent residences, the public sidewalk areas and possibly the on-site open recreation areas.

6. Residents identified that project related traffic is likely to rely on local neighborhood streets given the proposed garage entry/exit on Villa Terrace (this appears to have been borne out in the Transportation Study). Given the increasing peak hour congestion at the intersection of Villa Terrace/North San Mateo Drive drivers will utilize alternate routes through the residential neighborhood to access the regional highways.

7. Life safety issues related to the poor traffic engineering of the “blind” intersection of the garage entrance/exit abutting the pedestrian sidewalk - creating a hazard where none exists.

8. Decreased safety of the Highland Avenue Bike Boulevard (offering a much higher level of safety to encourage pedestrian and cycling travel) users due to increased project related traffic and using the street as a primary access route for the proposed project.

9. Construction effects associated with the proposed project including grading, excavation and off-haul of soil (now known to total over 53,000 square feet, and off-haul of 21,000 cubic yards of soil), construction aspects including, but not limited to, duration, staging areas, parking areas equipment to be used and effects on adjacent sensitive receptors including a nearby special needs school, affordable family housing and assisted living facilities.

10. Life safety related to the demolition of contaminated buildings, asphalt parking lots and catch basins and the construction of a tall retaining wall abutting two (2) residential properties and a soil nailing wall.

11. Imposition of economic harm to the adjacent residents due to costs associated with measures to protect the property as required by California Civil Code, possible impacts associated with wind channeling and acceleration, and the elimination of solar access for future solar panels on existing neighborhood residences due to the project building casting shadows.
654 of 833
7 ATTACHMENT #4

TRANSPORTATION STUDY
The Transportation Study is incomplete and inadequate. The Transportation Study appears to have only included the 181 on-site parking, and only examined a couple of local intersections, and based on that limited data, the report authors determined that no traffic impacts would occur.

The Commission action based in part on the adequacy of the Transportation Study (a key report) is questionable. Staff Report included limited and incomplete information of the Transportation Study, and could not and cannot be relied to understand the project traffic effects (e.g. Several intersections are included in the study but, were not identified, no operational analysis was included). Given that the study was only made public midday the day before the Commission Hearing neither the public nor the Commission had sufficient to review the 73 page technical report and had no way of independently knowing if the study was adequate nor complete.

No in-depth presentation of the report was given by either the City’s consultant nor staff. Perhaps understandably, The Commissioners had few questions regarding traffic. However, it is troubling that prior to taking action no Commissioner stated in the affirmative that they had reviewed the Transportation Study. The Commission Hearing should have been continued and re-noticed to allow the public (and apparently Commissioners) an opportunity to review and comment on the study.

The study appears to undercount the traffic associated with the project and thus undercounts the impacts. The study includes no analysis of pedestrian travel to and from the Burlingame Caltrain station, no assessment of bicycle/scooter traffic generated by the project, no operational assessment, no assessment of the proposed daily garbage truck pick-up, and no assessment of alternative transportation forms associated with the project (e.g. taxi service, parcel delivery services, maintenance, visitor traffic both business and casual, and turnover moving loading operations). The study only examined a couple of intersection in the immediate project vicinity and the garage entry/exit. It should have included key intersections in proximity to the project that provide access to the regional highways.

The Transportation Study, identified in the Planning Commission Staff Report as Attachment #6 (later at the PC Hearing revised to Attachment#7), was not included in the attachments until the Monday the day before the Planning Commission Hearing. This is an inadequate amount of time for the public nor the Commissioners to review the important report.

Persons attending the applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting conducted on February 26, 2025 identified several Transportation related issues including that the project garage entry design and location on Villa Terrace was inappropriate to use a local residential neighborhood street rather than the arterial street - North San Mateo Drive as all the other buildings fronting on North San Mateo Drive, the blind intersection of the garage entry/exit was a danger to pedestrians and should be redesigned and relocated on North San Mateo Drive, traffic associated with the project 655 of 833
8 impacts on local streets, the status of the City’s State Street closure study, the status of the City’s on-street parking study that was identified as part of the Humboldt and Poplar Bike Lane project and the project impacts to existing on-street parking (due to lack of on-site resident and visitor parking).

The applicant responded that the City would respond to all of the traffic and parking questions.

No public notice of the start nor completion of the Transportation Study, dated March 5, 2026 was given. At the PC Hearing City staff provided no response to the resident’s questions other than to state that limited impacts to local streets would occur.

While the Staff Report concludes that little traffic impacts would occur, the limited, yet incomplete information and analysis contained in the Staff Report, and the report itself suggested that the study did not include the full range of traffic sources related to the project particularly to alternative transportation forms (e,g, taxi and delivery services including parcel and food) associated with this type of development that would substantially increase the traffic effects.

An Operational Study needs to be completed that examines alternative transportation forms including vehicle, loading related to occupancy turnover move-in and out, bicycle (over 200 bicycle parking facilities are proposed), visitor traffic, pedestrian (as it is intended that many residents will walk to the Burlingame Caltrain station over a ½ mile away), mail, maintenance, and daily garbage steel bin pick-up. Additionally, the Transportation Study only examined the intersection immediately adjacent to the project at the proposed Villa Terrace garage entry/exit and the intersection of Villa Terrace/ North San Mateo Drive.

The Study should have examined the impact to key intersections that provide access to the regional highways US 101 ad ECR. At a minimum, intersections that should have been included are North San Mateo Drive/Poplar (as it is congested during peak commute hours and the leftturn pocket is too short in length to accommodate the demand) North San Mateo Drive/ Peninsula Avenue, ECR/ Bellevue, ECR/State Street. The report identifies that the project will rely on Highland Avenue (a local residential street) as a primary access route (a Bicycle Boulevard providing access to the Poplar Bicycle Lanes) the intersection of Bellevue/Highland also needs to be included.

As identified in the Transportation Study Highland Avenue (and presumably other local residential street e.g. Bellevue, State Street and Villa Terrace) will become key routes to access development along North San Mateo Drive. It is incumbent on the City to implement safety features on Highland Avenue Bicycle Boulevard as it has with all the other Bicycle Boulevards.

It needs to conduct neighborhood meetings and work with the residents to develop and implement safety improvements (e.g. corner bulb outs at the intersection of Bellevue/Highland, additional street lighting, stripped cross walks, speed tables, and intersection controls). These features will help to protect pedestrian and bicyclists from vehicles and act to ensure increased traffic proceeds at lower speeds.
656 of 833
9 The Transportation Study authors suggestion that mirrors, lights and alarms should be added to the garage entry/exit to address the pedestrian danger posed by the blind intersection design is inappropriate. These features represent new Public Nuisances (Noise and Off-site Glare) not permitted by the SSMC Title 27, they do not constitute reliable solutions in that they are not effective in the case of children and the infirmed and they rely on perfect drivers, and they are not a superior solution to simply redesigning and relocating the garage entry/exit to North San Mateo Drive.

The Transportation Study needs to be amended to include an Operational Study focusing on the use of a high-density residential building with reduced parking near a train station that appears to cater to a population of single (and younger?) tech workers. (The applicant apparently has not provided a description of the target audience for the proposed project.) This is evidenced by the number of one bedroom and studios in the proposed project, the type and amount of on-site recreation areas and facilities, including observation deck lounge, pool and spa with BBQ facilities, parcel package room, wi-fi, and large amount of bicycle parking facilities. Because the facility offers a coworking area, residents are likely to conduct business on premise increasing the daytime visitor population.

While the development provides 181 parking spaces, and ample supply of bicycle parking (208 bicycles), the future occupants are likely to place greater reliance on alternate transportation assets including, but not limited to, taxi service (e.g. uber, lyft, waymo, etc), mobile grocery and food service vendors, and package deliveries (e.g. FedEx, Amazon, UPS). The traffic associated with building’s own service vendors needs to be included as does occupant turnover and demand for moving vehicles.

Based on the limited trip generation data in the Staff Report, the Traffic Study likely undercounted the vehicle trips the proposed project is likely to generate, and does not appear to have evaluated the adequacy of the on-street loading space and on-street parking to accommodate the proposed project.

Additionally, the Transportation Study did not include a review the proposed operation of the daily on-street garbage pick-up on State Street juxtaposed with the intersection of North San Mateo Drive. This is concerning, in that the letter submitted by the applicant from Recology regarding the project. Recology indicates that the pick-up is likely to require daily pickup of several bins (on-line indicates upwards as many as six (6) six cubic yard bins would be needed) and that the Recology trucks to be used would have a width of 12 feet, a length of 39+ feet and a minimum turning radius of 39-40 feet similar to the Fire truck turning movement shown on the applicants plans.

The curb-to-curb width of State Street is 35-36 feet which includes two travel lanes (9.9 feet) shown on the applicants plans and parking (8 feet width each) on both sides. By way of comparison the minimum drive lane is 12 feet and a driveway aisle in a City parking lot is 12 feet.
657 of 833
10 Given a shy away distance of two feet from the bins (so as not to damage the vehicle) the Recology trucks will occupy 14 feet of a two way travel way of a combined area of approximately 19.8 feet. This does not include additional area needed if an electric tug is used by the operator to move each bin into position it in front of the truck lifting forks. What this means is that the daily operation of loading and unloading will block the State Street travel lanes in both directions and adversely affect the intersection (for 15 minutes?) for Recology.

The building owner’s workers will also disrupt traffic. They will need upwards of 15 minutes to transport the bins to and from the street disrupting pedestrian use of the sidewalk and traffic on the east bound travel lane.

What it also apparently means is the Recology trucks cannot navigate a turn onto the southbound travel lane North San Mateo Drive without utilizing a portion of the on-coming north bound travel lane on North San Mateo Drive. These are unacceptable safety concerns created by the applicant not providing the trash pickup on-site
658 of 833
11 ATTACHMENT #5

ON-STREET GARBAGE OPERATIONS
Garbage collection operation is a safety issue for the public, pedestrians and traffic on both State Street and North San Mateo Drive. The applicant proposes to permanently use State Street as a garbage bin storage and pick-up area (8 feet x 25 feet) instead of locating the facility on-site. The nature of the refuse collection operation, the size of the trucks (width of 12 feet and length of

39.5 plus bin lifting forks) and the limited curb-to-curb street width (35 feet) and substandard travel lanes of 9.9 feet (12 feet is the standard width), will result in daily temporary closure of State Street traffic. Because of the very close proximity of the garbage to the intersection of State Street/North San Mateo Drive will potentially affect traffic on San Mateo Drive and other local streets.

The collection process will inevitably result in solid refuse and liquids being spilled on the public street and sidewalks (leaking bins or during collection). This is a Public Health Hazard especially for humans, pets, and wildlife. Aside from the health effects from potentially noxious odors, over time built-up refuse on the ground and safety will result in slippery surfaces which is a hazard to pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

This subject was not covered in the staff report nor discussed at the hearing. Because the bins need to be placed on the street prior to pick-up each day (from 5 AM to 8 PM) the loading area would need to be for the exclusive use of the building owners (which constitutes an apparent gift of public resources as well as the loss of 2 neighborhood on-street parking spaces).

The permanent use of the street for a dedicated garbage collection area and virtually permanent curb side bin storage is likely in violation of the Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and other state and regional regulations in that the bins are not weather proof nor leak proof, the bin on-street storage does not provide cover from inclement weather nor a sewage drain to capture bin leakage and protect liquids from entering into the City’s storm drainage system (which flows untreated into the bay).

No condition of approval is included which defines City and applicant’s responsibilities and liabilities, and other features including but, not limited to, requirement for a financial deposit for placement of the bins on the street, standards for installation of bollards to protect the bins from vehicle traffic, financial deposit required for refuse collection operation damage to the improvements in the public right-of-way (i.e. street and sidewalk surfaces which are typically engineered concrete, rather than asphalt), program for identifying requirements for street and sidewalk closure (e.g. flagman and signs), program for annual inspections, monitoring and reporting to safeguard the public health and safety.

Virtually permanent placement of six (6) bins in the public right-of-way are themselves a threat to public safety. The SMMC requires special standards for temporary debris box placement in the street that are far more limiting and restrictive. Permanent placement of debris boxes in any 659 of 833
12 portion of the public right-of-way are not allowed in any area of the City. The six (6) bins are the equivalent to a large debris box and apart form the public health and traffic issues and should only be allowed on private property.
660 of 833
13 ATTACHMENT #6

ON-STREET LOADING OPERATIONS
Loading services whether refuse or other items in the street is a safety concern that was not addressed. The SMMC requires a 10-foot x 25-foot on-site loading area. The applicant plans do not include such a facility and will depend on the City right- of-way. No analysis of the loading nor operational requirements of a project of this type and size was provided. Design features included in the project, temporary 30-minute parking on North San Mateo Drive at the project pedestrian entry/exit, internet service, business work space, parcel package room, substantially reduced parking no on-stie visitor parking, and more on-stie bicycle parking than vehicle parking spaces, indicate the building heavily relies third party service deliveries (package and food) and taxi services (e.g. Lyft, Uber, Waymo, etc). Past experience suggests that these service vehicles will park wherever and whenever meaning they will park in the Bicycle Lane when the proposed 30- minute parking spaces are occupied (forcing cyclists into the street travel lanes (one of the tools of safe streets). Given the number of dwelling units this can adversely disrupt traffic and bicycle lane operations along North San Mateo Drive.

Given no on-site loading zone, moving operations are an important safety concern. Large commercial trucks including tractor trailers have nowhere to park except on the local streets - probably on Villa Terrace as State Street has a substandard travel lane width and is proposed to be dedicated to refuse collection operation. This will impact Villa Terrace traffic conditions, access to properties and reduce on-street parking. The lack of a Loading and Operational Study hampers making an informed decision.
661 of 833
14 ATTACHMENT #7

SHADING AND ENERGY IMPACT STUDY
The proposed project height, length, limited setbacks and u-shaped design appears to cause significant shading of residences and improvements on abutting properties on the west project boundary, most notably State Street Condominiums. However, the applicant did not submit a Shading Study of the project on the adjacent residential area as required by the City.

Shading from the Fall Equinox the Spring Equinox, given climate weather changes with expected more intense cold weather patterns and coupled with increasing energy costs, will likely result in raising energy costs for these residents and cause owners to absorb cost increases from utility suppliers. This is an economic harm.

The owner needs to be required to conduct a detailed Shading Study in accordance with the City’s Shading study guide and determine the energy cost increases and loss of potential solar roof panels to adjacent residential properties. The City should require the owner to absorb the increased energy costs or work with the affected property owners to develop and implement alternative solutions such as augmenting the insulation of adjacent building offsetting the energy costs. Similarly, the shading may adversely affect the landscaping of adjacent properties and compensate the owners for loss of plants, useable outdoor area previously required by the City and develop and implement a landscape plan including planting of new material acceptable to the adjacent owners. The Shading Study and improvements to adjacent properties needs to be completed and agreed to by the adjacent land owners prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for the site. The City needs to be provided with documentation that the adjacent landowners have accepted the plans and the plans have been implemented including off-site improvements to neighboring properties.
662 of 833
15 ATTACHMENT #8

WIND STUDY
The proposed building height of 75 feet east-west facing slab design and close proximity to the property boundaries may have the potential to interrupt the flow of prevailing westerly winds causing wind acceleration along the westerly façade and adversely affecting the wind speed at ground level on the adjacent properties. The owner needs to submit a Wind Study prepared by a qualified professional acceptable to the City that evaluates the project impact on wind speeds and identify design that changes to eliminate impacts on adjacent properties. A provision should be added to require a minimum 15-day notice to residents in the project area of the availability of the Wind Study for public review and comment. Because of the complexity and technical nature of the Wind Study, the City’s Building Official and Environmental Officer need to meet with residents to review the Wind Study. To ensure its completeness the review must be conducted prior to the City’s acceptance of the Final Report and design changes. The Wind Study needs to be completed and plans revised incorporating the report recommendations prior to the issuance of any Building Permit.
663 of 833
16 ATTACHMENT #9

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Rockridge Geotechnical September 17, 2025) was submitted to the City as part of the applicant’s plans. The report information was not summarized in the City staff report nor discussed at the Commission hearing.

The report identifies some key findings including that the depth to water at the site at about 12 feet. The report recommends that given the near vertical cut slopes for the proposed garage will necessitate either a soil nailing wall or other more expensive casing to protect the slopes during construction of the foundation walls. Dewatering wells (unknown locations) will need to be constructed to remove water from the site and other provisions undertaken to protect the foundation from ground water. Rods that are a component of the soil nailing wall would need to extend an unknown distance into adjacent properties.

This raises concerns that the project relies on improvements larger than the property itself (not described in the project description nor disclosed to the public). The temporary or permanent installation of rods into both private and public property (potentially affecting future work in the public right-of-way and development on the adjacent residential properties. The site dewatering can have adverse consequences for the soil and foundation stability for the adjacent residential properties. The soil nailing wall and the dewatering of the properties an unfair cost burden on adjacent owners to hire legal and technical expert to review the proposed foundation system and provide advise including, but not limited to, the short-term and long-term effects on their property and improvements, and any potential liability or insurance costs.

Similarly, rods placed in the public right-of-way can have implications for City street utilities and other improvements (e.g. street trees) and presumably requires an written agreement between the City and the project owners. It raises the concern that as the project requires use of the City right-of-way to construct the project the City adopts a liability exposure for the integrity of the foundation system and/or the soil nailing wall. This is yet another example that the project description was inadequate and that without use of City right-of-way and neighboring properties that the project in its current configuration would not be feasible. By failing to disclose this and other information the City becomes a “hidden project partner”.

The applicant responded numerous times at the Applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting (February 2025) that the City will address all the resident’s questions and concerns in particular those involving traffic and parking. The City has not. The same questions and concerns regarding safety, traffic, garage entry/exit design and location, the projects generation of public nuisances, the project impacts to on-street parking, traffic, and operational effects were not addressed or dismissed.
664 of 833
17 RETAINING WALL
The construction of the tall retaining wall itself represents a life safety concern to the adjacent residents and properties. Given the high-water table and the need for site dewatering during construction of shoring in the form of an apparent soil nailing wall and permanent foundation walls, it is especially important to take precautions to ensure that the walls are not adversely affected by hydrostatic pressure. Placement of a wall over 15 feet in height from finished grade within five (5) feet of the shared property line (with occupied residences does not afford much room for margin of error. The owners of adjacent properties under CA Civil Code are responsible for maintaining the stability of their properties and improvements so that they do not damage the project site (which may include shoring of their own site).

The need for an agreement between the project site and residential properties is apparent to protect their property and improvements, and in the situation where, if for some reason, the project construction is stalled after the site is excavated the contingencies are unknown at this time (would the City allow the existing residences to be occupied?). This is especially concerning given that another major project site in the City stalled and left an excavated site from some time.

The proposed massive block long 75-foot tall building is placed in very close proximity to property boundaries abutting adjacent residences, and the public right-of-way. This is a life safety concern for several reasons. The project site is situated in an area with sensitive receptors and residential buildings and is fronts on 3 streets including a minor arterial roadway. San Mateo experiences increased gusty wind speeds in the from the Fall through Spring. Unless very special precautions are taken the site construction from excavation to construction of the upper floor levels can result in material being blown off the site and building and onto adjacent properties and the roadway. The subject matter is lacking in the staff report and hearing. While a Construction Management Plan is required no detailed performance measures are identified to protect public safety.

The open nature of the recreation areas and placement adjacent to the Villa Terrace and residences is a life safety concern. Materials thrown or blown off the 6th floor lounge can cause serious harm to adjacent residential buildings and occupants. Similarly, objects cast from the 2nd story recreation, pool, spa and outdoor cooking and dining area (intentional or not) can cause physical harm to pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic along Villa Terrace.

Given the length and height of the building and very limited to zero setbacks, it has the potential to channel and accelerate ground wind speeds onto adjacent residential properties and public right-of-way including the sidewalk. Unless a Wind Analysis, is performed and design modifications implemented to eliminate the adverse ground level wind effects this represents a safety issue.
665 of 833
18 The construction of the building is a life safety concern. Given its 75-foot tall height, length, massive underground garage and close proximity to occupied residential properties and three streets including a minor arterial roadway. The estimated 18 month to 2-year construction timeframe exposes neighborhood residents, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic on adjacent streets to long-term construction related effects including but not limited to high noise levels, debris, fugitive dust, spent fuel odors, traffic and parking congestion/disruptions and creates a potential exists for off-site. While construction effects were discussed in very broad terms and a CMP identified as a condition of approval, few specific provisions are identified to assure protection of existing residents and properties.
666 of 833
19 ATTACHMENT #10

FINDINGS
A. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
The proposed project is not consistent with SMMC Section 27.08.030 Site Plan and Architectural Review findings.

1. The structure, site plan, and landscaping are in scale and harmonious with the character of the neighborhood.

The existing neighborhood, subdivided in 1895, and developed in the 1900s to 1920s witnessed approximately 50% of the single-family dwellings converted into small multifamily buildings (5- 10 dwellings) that generally matched or completed the neighborhood architectural quality, pedestrian scale, materials and finishes, height and setbacks. The area is primarily comprised of low-density residential buildings with a mix of older single-family and multifamily buildings that are predominantly one and two-story dwellings, a few three-story buildings and a handful of four-story residential buildings.

The surrounding area subdivided in 1895, is largely characterized developed with small parcel developments of between 5,000 SF to 7,500 SF developed with 1 and 2 story single family and small apartment buildings. These buildings are pedestrian in scale and possess small windows, with wood trim, wood and/or stucco cladding, have small scale wood doorways and single or double width driveways, have open landscaped front yards have 15 foot minimum front and back setbacks and 5-to-6 foot side setbacks - often landscaped. Exterior lighting is minimal with little or no off-site glare. Sidewalks are separated from the streets with landscaped buffers and street trees.

No existing building in the neighborhood matches its height, bulk nor scale of the proposed project. Out of 255+ parcels, only two (2) are four (4) stories in height (none adjacent to the site), and seven (7) are three (3) stories in height. Over 75% of the existing buildings are 1-to-2 stories in height. The buildings immediately abutting the site and across Villa Terrace and State are one story in height with one small townhome condominiums two (2) stories in height over a partially subterrain garage. To the west of the site beyond the two (2) abutting residential buildings are predominately two (2) story buildings. Across the street on Villa Terrace is a very small three (3) story building.

The massive proposed six (6) story building with a 75-foot height covering 90%+ of the site with minimalist landscaping, limited to no building setbacks, excessive floor area containing 181 dwellings represents a jarring departure from the existing scale and building forms in the area.

The project is not in keeping with the pattern of development, architecture, scale nor character of the neighborhood. The project is inconsistent with the predominate neighborhood building height of one (1) and two (2) story dwellings including the residences abutting and adjacent to the 667 of 833
20 proposed project. Abutting the proposed site are a small one (1) story single family dwelling fronting on Villa Terrace and a small two (2) story condominium development fronting on State Street.

The project “brutalist fortress” design, the 75-foot height, massive size and pedestal appearance - found nowhere in the neighborhood - will forever dominate views and alter the appearance and visual image of the neighborhood. The building will be visible from the neighborhood and blocks beyond. The building will block easterly sky views, and cast shadows on neighboring residences. The building will significantly reduce any semblance of privacy for residents of the surrounding area.

The project’s finish materials, large format scale and details are neither characteristic of the neighborhood’s small-scale wood and stucco clad low-rise dwellings with small scale trim, with open landscaped yard setbacks and limited lot coverage nor complementary to existing buildings and will degrade the appearance and character of the existing open garden apartment character of the neighborhood.

The size of the building over 258,000 square feet is clearly inconsistent with the small dwellings and apartment complexes ranging from approximately 1,200 square feet to 10,000 square feet The lack of generous landscaped open space and setbacks and lush streetscape that define the neighborhood are not incorporated in the project’s minimalist landscape program. The projects lack of on-site ground level landscaping and open space and landscaped yards is inconsistent with the more open landscaped appearance of the neighborhood.

The six (6)-story 75-foot building (3 to 4 times taller than existing building heights) and vastly more massive and little to no on-site parking, no on-site loading facility and minimal landscaping will significantly degrade the quality and appearance of the low scale landscaped family neighborhood. The increased population will result in greater traffic increases and more congestion on local serving neighborhood streets, reducing safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, and result in a significant loss of on-street parking and create an imbalance of greater demand for parking than supply – directly impacting neighborhood viability and a deterrent to investment.

The consolidation of the four (4) parcels into a site area containing over 53,000 square feet is not reflective of the small 5,000 square foot to 7,500 square foot rectilinear lot pattern development improved with small-scale low-rise buildings that occupy only a portion of the lot.

The residential density of 148 dwellings per acre (exceeding even San Francisco’s average density of 97 dwelling per acre) is vastly greater (4-7 times) than the prevailing residential building density (8 to 35 dwellings per acre with an average constructed density of approximately 15-20 dwellings per acre) in the neighborhood. 668 of 833
21 The provision of open recreation areas concentrated in two areas on the upper floors and designed for large numbers of people and proximately to residences creating excessive public nuisances including noise, glare and odors is not harmonious with the relatively quiet familyoriented neighborhood.

The use the State Street for on-street garbage storage and collection will have a “blighting effect” and an attractive nuisance on a key entrance to the neighborhood. The public nuisances associated with the on-street garbage operation including noise and objectional and toxic odors will impair the tranquil residential qualities of the neighborhood and degrade the safety of residents.

2. The development will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the city.

The neighborhood has played a major role in accommodating development over the last 65 years, in a manner that generally fit the scale and pattern of existing development. The project will disrupt the pattern of investment and growth.

Development activity in the area has been steady but at a slower pace since the conversion of 50% of the SFRs in the 1960s to small apartment buildings (five (5) to ten (10) units over parking) transforming the area into a garden apartment type of area. During this time the area absorbed the City’s largest number of apartment developments. Many remaining SFRs have been significantly upgraded over the past few years and several two (2) story condominiums have been constructed. All roadways have recently been repaved over the past few years representing a major public investment.

The City transformed North San Mateo Drive into the city’s first complete streets development a few years ago.

Several one (1) story community care facilities have been recently constructed notably along Jefferson Court within 300 feet of the project site. Other non-profit uses including the lowincome transitional housing within 210 feet of the project site. The Avlon Academy was recently completed in 2026 and serves special needs clientele.

Sterling Court a four (4) story assisted living senior facility was constructed on a former elementary school in the 1980s. The largest residential project at 888 North San Mateo Drive four (4) stories in height was constructed in 2015 adjacent to the Caltrain tracks. Commercial properties have also experienced upgrades and reuse.

The Project density of 148 dwellings per acre (nearly 1.5 times than the average density of San Francisco and central core city) is vastly out scale and inconsistent with the maximum 35 dwelling acre neighborhood density and the constructed density of approximately 15-20 dwellings per acre. The neighborhood already has a diverse mix of dwelling types both single family and multifamily and is already over-crowded compared to other areas. 669 of 833
22 Through City land use changes, the neighborhood witnessed significant development in the 1960s concentrating the vast majority of multifamily buildings in the City at the time and allowing protection of newer lower density subdivisions. During this timeframe the neighborhood witnessed massive conversion of over 50% of the single-family dwellings to multifamily buildings resulting in a greater concentration of multifamily dwellings than most of the City’s remaining neighborhoods.

The neighborhood is in the City’s only Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Priority Area – an area with a high concentration of working class and seniors overpaying rent and living in overcrowded conditions. Even so, the City has maintained and is continuing land use and zoning policies of over-concentration of development in the neighborhood.

The project’s nineteen (19) very low-income households dwellings representing a furtherance of over concentration of low-income housing in the neighborhood. The City’s only transitional housing development is within 210 feet of the project site. The neighborhood has also become overly concentrated with community care services that support working class households throughout the City.

The over concentration of development, community social service uses and low-income housing are socially inequitable housing policies. These policies result in over-crowding, loss of the sense of privacy, increased noise, increased traffic and collisions, over concentration of community care operations and gentrification and displacement.

The six (6)-story 75-foot building (3 to 4 times taller than existing building heights) and vastly more massive and little to no on-site parking, no on-site loading facility and minimal landscaping will significantly degrade the quality and appearance of the low scale landscaped family neighborhood and make it less appealing to families.

The increased population will result in greater traffic increases and more congestion on local serving neighborhood streets, reducing safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, and result in a significant loss of on-street parking and create an imbalance of greater demand for parking than supply – directly impacting neighborhood viability and a deterrent to investment.

The project’s 180 on-site parking spaces (a ratio much less than 1 to 1 with parking reserved for other vehicle services), no visitor parking and no on-site loading is inadequate to meet parking and service delivery demand by future occupants. Despite being exempted from minimum parking standards under State law, no study was submitted unequivocally demonstrating that the project’s limited supply will be adequate and that residents will travel by train. Undercutting the concept that residents living in close proximity to train station are inclined to travel by train and not own vehicles, 50% of the adjacent residential developments have similar of greater parking ratios (and whether existing residents use the train or not) neighborhood on-street parking demand is very high (and near and imbalance point) despite Caltrain service improvements from the past. Further, given Caltrain’s serious budgetary issues, any significant cuts in train service 670 of 833
23 will likely result in less travel by train and more reliance on vehicle travel (and thus likely to own vehicles and park on-street). Lack of adequate parking will impair the desirability of the neighborhood for families.

The project is not consistent with the Zoning Code in that the project exposes residents to permanent safety hazards, public health hazards, public nuisances of noise, glare increased ambient lighting and odor and wind and creating a “blighting” effect on the neighborhood. The Villa Terrace “blind intersection” garage entry/exit with inadequate sight line creates a permanent safety hazard for pedestrian from exiting vehicles. The garage and generates significant noise especially during hours of darkness and off-site glare directly into to living spaces of residences across the street.

The State Street on-street garage operation exposes residents and pedestrians to objectionable and toxic odors and noise, and traffic congestion and conflicts due to collection activities requiring temporary daily street closure and trucks traveling in on-coming travel lanes on both State Street and North San Mateo Drive. The operation will have a “blighting effect” and is an attractive nuisance that will attract illegal dumping and vandalism requiring the need for police intervention and code enforcement. The Transportation Study did not evaluate the on-street garbage operation.

The E2 Zone District requires all uses to be fully enclosed to eliminate exposure of adjacent residents to public nuisances. The 2nd floor open recreation and 6th floor lounge areas will generate excessive levels of noise, odors and glare.

The project does not provide on-site loading as required by the Zoning Code and will cause traffic congestion and conflicts on adjacent streets. The Transportation Study did not study the project loading requirements which are likely to rely heavily on taxi and delivery services. As no on-street loading area is designated it is not clear how the operation will be conducted.

3. The development will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the vicinity, and otherwise is in the best interests of the public health safety and welfare.

The development will impair the desirability of the neighborhood by altering and reducing the mix of households, by putting upward pressure on rental costs causing displacement or workingclass households and seniors, and result in restricting the occupation in the neighborhood to households with higher incomes.

The project’s significant investment of and the high rents will be a catalyst contributing to area gentrification and displacement of lower income households and families contrary to the City goals of providing dwellings for working class households and assistance to working class households in the CDBG Priority Area. Given their age the smaller 1960s apartments that are found throughout the neighborhood and likely in need of major seismic, insulation, and infrastructure upgrades will be targets for smaller investors to either rehabilitation or tear down and replacement. This activity coupled with the building’s higher cost rentals will push rental 671 of 833
24 increases and displacement of neighborhood residents and will be detrimental to the stability of the neighborhood.

The project will likely cause significant energy and wind impacts to adjacent dwellings, increase undue off-site noise, off-site glare and odors to adjacent users, the Villa Terrace garage entry/exit creates an unnecessary life safety conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, significantly reduce the sense of privacy, increase traffic on local street, and reduce the availability of on-street street parking spaces that are needed to meet the needs of existing residents. The project will make the area more intense and a less pleasant place to live.

4. The development meets all applicable standards as adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, conforms, with the General Plan, and will correct violations of the zoning ordinance, building code. Or other. Municipal codes that exist on the site.

The proposed project requires the City grant eight (8) Variances several of which are not included in the SMMC Title 27 which contribute to the building incompatibility with the neighborhood and directly associated with the harms to public health, safety, and welfare. The project includes open recreational areas and an observation deck and lounge that conflict with the provision of the zoning code requiring all uses to be fully enclosed. The project will generate off noise, lighting glare and odors that are not allowed by the SMMC Title 27. The SSMC Title 23 requires that the proposed project excavation of over 21,000 cubic yards and off haul of soil and grading of over 53,000 square feet requires a site Development Planning Approval. The construction impacts associated with the proposed project will be significant as they last on the order of eighteen (18) to twenty-four (24) months generating substantial noise, spent fuel odors, fugitive dust and traffic congestion and on-street parking impacts to the surrounding area.

Impacts to residents and sensitive receptors residing in nearby and adjacent dwellings have not been evaluated.

The payment of $5.9 million in development impact fees will in no way either directly benefit the neighborhood or off set the impacts to the neighborhood and if past practice is any guide the City will allocate the funds to improve other areas. While the project provides market-rate and a few below-market-rate housing, it requires the demolition of a two dwelling units that fit with the neighborhood and it does not provide new housing options that are not already located in the neighborhood. The massive project’s very high density (more characteristic of San Francisco than San Mateo) will create more public nuisances, traffic congestion and conflicts, result in a significant loss of and a supply imbalance of on-street parking, increase in shading of residences and streets, loss of solar access, a loss of a sense of privacy and introduce a “blighting” effect on State Street.

The project, even as conditioned, would result in significant impacts to public health, safety, and welfare. The City did not conduct several studies necessary to more clearly document the project effects on the neighborhood and determine the adequacy of the Conditions of Approval. The Transportation Study is incomplete in that it only evaluated two (2) local street intersections on 672 of 833
25 Villa Terrace and did not evaluate the intersection necessary to access regional highways notably, North San Mateo Drive/Peninsula Avenue, North San Mateo Drive/Poplar Avenue, Poplar Avenue/Delaware Street, ECR/State Street, ECR/Bellevue Avenue. The study undercounted traffic associated with the project including, visitor traffic, daily taxi and service deliveries, loading operations, on-street garbage operation, bicycle use, pedestrian travel, safe routes-toschool, safe routes to Burlingame train station.

The Phase I Environmental Assessment is incomplete in that it did not evaluate the materials in the former vehicle maintenance building, did not evaluate the asphalt slurry sealants nor on-site catch basins and the document was not disclosed to the public. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was not disclosed to the public. The Shading Study is incomplete in that it did not evaluate the effect on adjacent residences and right-of-way. An Energy Study was not conducted to determine the impacts to adjacent resident’s costs and habitability. A Wind Study was not conducted to evaluate the project effect on wind channeling and ground level wind speed effects and energy implications to adjacent residences and effects on the use of the pedestrian sidewalks.

A Loading Operation Study was not conducted evaluating the taxi, service deliveries and moving activities and the need for loading facilities. A State Street Garbage Operation Study was not conducted evaluating the effects on pedestrian and vehicle traffic and congestion and conflicts. A Glare and Ambient Lighting Study was not conducted to evaluate the project effects on the neighborhood with measures to eliminate glare, especially in association with night time garage exiting, and any increases in ambient lighting. An Odor Study was not conducted to identify and evaluate the odors associated with the outdoor cooking and the on-street garbage operation with measure to eliminate off-site odors. An Acoustic Study was not conducted to evaluate the noise levels and effects associated with the Villa Terrace garage entry/exit, the open recreation areas, and the on-street garbage operation.

While the project provides right-of-way improvements along North San Mateo Drive, State Street, and Villa Terrace the drainage swales of State Street and Villa Terrace will result in the loss of on-street parking that may shift the area into supply deficit. The City has not stated that the drainage swales on local streets are a mandatory requirement or an option. State Street has substandard travel lane widths of 9.9 feet as compared to a width of 12 feet. The plans do not include an evaluation of the travel lane widths as they are directly related to the vehicle congestion and conflicts created by the on-street garbage operations.

The Project will be constructed in compliance with all applicable building and fire codes, as well as the City’s building security requirements. However, the Fire Department has provided documentation that the inadequate turning radius requiring Fire trucks to use part of the oncoming travel lane on northbound traffic on North San Mateo Drive is an acceptable traffic hazard. In the past applicants the City would have been required a street dedication to prevent this type of traffic hazards. The Fire Department has not provided documents that local area hydrant flows are adequate and that the building height is within its laddering capabilities. The 673 of 833
26 city has not provided a study that the sidewalk width is sufficient in the area to accommodate all future occupants during a mandatory building evacuation.

The development does not meet all applicable standards as adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, does not conform with the General Plan, and does not correct any violations of the zoning ordinance, building code, or other municipal codes that exist on the site, in that:

The project does not fully comply with the General Plan, Zoning Code, nor Objective Design Standards, and will create several violations of the Zoning Ordinance. The project provides no on-site loading zone in conflict to the SSMC Title 27 requiring on-site loading, the open recreation areas are in conflict with the E2 Zone District that all uses are to be fully enclosed to eliminate public nuisances, the project creates public nuisances that are not allowed by the SMMC Title 27, the project creates several safety hazards and public health hazards that are not consistent with SMMC Title 27 provisions to protect the public, health and welfare. The project on-street garbage operation will have a “blighting effect” and an attractive nuisance leading to illegal dumping and vandalism creating security concerns and degradation of the quality and desirability of the neighborhood and adversely affect investment.

5. The development will not adversely affect matters regarding police protection, crime prevention and security.

The development will adversely affect matters regarding police protection, crime prevention, and security in that a standard security lighting requirement was deleted by the City derived from the City Security Ordinance and the on-street garbage operation will create an attractive nuisance leading to illegal dumping and vandalism and create traffic congestion and conflicts increasing police and code enforcement intervention.

The State Street on-street garbage operation adjacent to the intersection with North San Mateo Drive will necessitate temporary daily street closures due to blockage of the street by garbage trucks occupying both travel lanes. This will effectively obstruct traffic on State Street causing vehicle congestion at the intersection with North San Mateo Drive. Recology tuck turning southbound onto North San Mateo Drive will need to use a portion of the northbound trave lane creating potential traffic conflicts and congestion on an arterial road. This activity is likely to increase the potential of vehicle collisions requiring police and emergency assistance.

Views of rolling unsecured steel garbage bins and its blighting effect and an attractive nuisance that will act to encourage unauthorized dumping and vandalism increasing the need for police intervention.

Through compliance the Conditions of Approval the development will be required to install and operate cameras including the surveillance of adjacent public rights of way adversely affecting existing resident’s privacy and security while using the public right-of-way. No information has been provided as to how personal images and vehicle images will be stored or used. 674 of 833
27 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (VTM)
The Project would merge the four parcels into one parcel. Per SMMC section 26.48.060, the Planning Commission must deny the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, if any of the following are true:
a. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
c. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map would facilitate the construction of the building that is inconsistent with many provisions of the General Plan and is not conducive to the harmonious and orderly growth of the neighborhood nor community.

The site is suitable for multifamily housing, but not the very high density (148.7 dwelling units per acre) and the design creates life safety hazards, public health hazards and public nuisances.

The Project density of 148 dwellings per acre (nearly 1.5 times than the average density of San Francisco and central core city) is vastly out scale and inconsistent with the maximum 35 dwelling acre neighborhood density and the constructed density of approximately 15-20 dwellings per acre. The neighborhood already has a diverse mix of dwelling types both single family and multifamily resulting from a massive conversion of over 50% of the single-family dwellings to multifamily buildings in the 1960s. Past development has created a greater concentration of multifamily dwellings than most of the City’s other neighborhoods. 675 of 833
28 The neighborhood is in the City’s only Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Priority Area – an area with a high concentration of working class and seniors overpaying rent and living in overcrowded conditions. Even so, the City has maintained policies of over-concentration of development in the neighborhood. The project’s nineteen (19) very low-income households dwellings representing another step towards over concentration of low-income housing in the neighborhood as the area already has the City’s only transitional housing development within 200 feet of the project site. The neighborhood is also overly concentrated with community care services that support working class households throughout the City. The overconcentration of development and social serving uses and low-income housing are socially inequitable housing policies that are inconsistent with the General Plan notion of harmonious and orderly development.

Past land use policies and the City deferred maintenance of neighborhood infrastructure contributed to neighborhood degradation, over-crowding, loss of the sense of privacy, increased noise, increased traffic and collisions, over concentration of community care operations and gentrification and displacement.

The site is not physically suitable for the type of development as it does not comply with numerous provisions of the Geneal Plan and SMMC Title 27 exposes neighborhood residents to significant life safety hazards, public health hazards, public nuisances, adds to neighborhood over-crowding, significantly increases loss of the sense of privacy, increased traffic and collisions, loss of on-street parking, reduction of sunlight and casting shadows, over concentration of low-income housing, displacement of two households and significantly contributes to neighborhood gentrification.

The proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map would merge four (4) parcels into one site with a combined lot area of over 53,000 square feet (1.22 acre neighborhood. Residential lots of this size are more commonly located San Mateo Park. Commercial lots on the one block north of State Street are larger (2-3 times the area) than the residential lots and date back to the 1920s.

The proposed lot size of 1.22 acres and configuration is vastly larger (ten (10) times the average lot in the area) and does not match the size and pattern of existing lots nor development layout.

The project is not in keeping with the small lot size and pattern of development including small driveways placed in close proximity of primary pedestrian entries with lush landscaped setbacks, landscaped open space and small-scale buildings of 1 to 2 stories in height. The massive proposed six (6) story building with a 75-foot height covering 90%+ of the site with minimalist landscaping, limited to no building setbacks, excessive floor area containing 181 dwellings represents a jarring departure from the existing scale and form of the area. The single point large garage entry/exit on Villa Terrace separation from the primary pedestrian entry on North San Mateo Drive is inconsistent with the neighborhood pattern. 676 of 833
29 The project’s high concentration of dwellings even with eight (8)+ variances and reduced on-site parking no on-site loading facility and landscaping apparently cannot be accomplished without radically disrupting the pattern of development. The vast site grading and excavation necessary to construct the massive foundation and subterranean garage create significant soil and slope stability safety hazards for adjacent residences. The State Street on-street garbage operation (not found in the area) exposes residents to life safety and public health hazards and public nuisances.

The reliance on street for daily loading operations exposes residents and motorists to life safety hazards not commonly found in the area.

The Project may result in environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that the project’s use of State Street for on-street garbage storage and collection operation appears to be violation of the Clean Water Act, the Porter-cologne Act and National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit as garbage bins are not allowed to be stored on-street unprotected during inclement weather, no provisions are included with would protect the solid or liquid pollutants from the bins or loading spillage from entering the storm water drains harming bay waters and wildlife, no letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board has been submitted that authoritatively states the operation and facilities are in compliance with NPDES permit. Storm water from the site also appears to flow into the drainage swales into the public right-of-way that may not be in compliance with the requirement that all storm water treatment occur on-site. No letter or testimony from the applicant or City documenting that the site does not include off-site treatment are included in the application. The project will generate public nuisances that adversely local air quality, generate excessive levels of noise, and produce nighttime lighting that may raise the ambient lighting levels of nearby residences and cause offsite glare into residential living quarters.

The design and improvements associated with the parcel map will cause serious public health problems in that the project is not in compliance with Federal, State and City and standards regarding stormwater, and not incompliance with City standards regarding air quality, noise, and nighttime lighting. The on-street open air unsecured garbage operation will expose residents, pedestrian, pets and wildlife to objectional toxic odors and hazardous solid waste from the garbage operations and illegal dumping representing a serious public health hazard.

The project is partially in conformance with the Bicycle Master Plan and the Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan. The project does not enhance the Bicycle experience in that the replacement of existing facilities damaged during construction does not constitutes an obligation. As documented in the Transportation Study that vehicle traffic will increase on the Highland Avenue Bicycle Boulevard increasing the risk to bicyclists and pedestrian in that which safety improvements found on the City’s other Bicycle Boulevards have not yet been planned nor constructed by the City. The Transportation Study did not evaluate the bicycle travel associated with the project despite the projects provision of over 200 on-site bicycle parking facilities (an extraordinary number compared to other past developments). The Transportation Study did not evaluate the “safe route-to-transit” route to the Burlingame train station that forms the very basis 677 of 833
30 for the limited on-site parking. At least a portion of the route does not appear to meet minimum neither ADA nor City standards for width or slopes. The Safe Routes-to-School to San Mateo Park Elementary School to be used by the projects residents was not evaluated and the exiting route west of El Camino Real does not meet neither the ADA nor City minimum standards for an all-weather impervious concrete sidewalks with curb ramps. Much of the route is earthen surface that is impaired by tree roots making pedestrian travel hazardous especially during inclement and low light conditions. The City has known of the condition issues for years and taken no action to meet standards.
678 of 833
31 ATTACHMENT #11

CITY CONCIL REVIEW
A. BUILDING HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF SIX (6) STORIES
The proposed project requires review and approval by the City Council to allow a building height in excess of six (6) stories identified in the City 2040 General Plan Land Use Map. The proposed project includes at least three (3) roof mounted penthouses for elevator and roof access, each in excess of fourteen (14) feet in height – there by constituting a 7th Floor.

The General Plan defines the maximum number of stories allowed on sites, but provides no definition of stories other than as a measure of height and does not identify any exception for penthouses (e.g. non-habitable spaces such as above ground garage are considers as story height).

The SMMC title 27 provides definition of stories as a measure of height and a height measurement guide, but provides no exclusion for penthouses from inclusion of building height.

In fact, in residential areas SMMC Title 27 specifically includes non-habitable attics as part of building height.

Should the City Council prefer to allow penthouses to be exempted from inclusion in the height, then it should either amend the General Plan or at adopt a Resolution clarifying that penthouses are exempt and may prefer to define a maximum penthouse height, roof location (setback from the exterior parapet wall), number of penthouses and combined maximum floor space area.

B. VARIANCES
The proposed project requires the review and approval by the City Council to allow the multiple Variances. While the owner’s proposed deviations from the City’s minimum Zoning requirements are allowed by state law, the City Council does not appear to have delegated such authority to the Planning Commission either through SMMC Title 27, nor any apparent City Council Resolution. The SMMC Section 27.78.040 identifies only setbacks as eligible, and none of the other Variances sought by the owner.

Since approval authority is delegated by the City Council, until such time as the City Council has delegated such authority through an adopted a Resolution or more appropriately amended SSMC Title 27, the Planning Commission is advisory only in granting such Variances.

C. OPEN USES
The proposed project includes open recreation areas on the west side of the proposed building including a second (2nd) story recreation area consisting of a pool, spa, cooking and dining area, and open area, a sixth (6th) floor open observation and lounge. These areas are located in the E2 Zone District portion of the project site. The on-street garbage operation is also not allowed to be open in the C3 District.
679 of 833
32 SMMC Section 27.48.050 requires that all uses be fully enclosed (eliminating off-site effects such as noise, odors and lighting glare). The Planning Commission exceeded its authority in approving the open areas that will generate public Nuisances in violation of the City’s ordinances.

The proposed project plans need to be revised to enclose all proposed open recreation areas including the observation deck lounge and pool spa area with open cooking and dining facilities and not allow the on-street garbage operation. The owner needs to factually demonstrate that the proposed project will not cause off-site noise, odors and lighting glare through redesign and performing professional studies including acoustic, lighting and odor.

Because its height, number of units and close juxtaposition the adjacent existing dwellings, the building at occupancy can significantly raise the ambient lighting levels on adjacent properties and cause harm. The Conditions of Approval need to be revised to require a lighting plan that demonstrates that the ambient lighting levels on the abutting property will not be raised from existing levels.

D. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION (SDPA)
The Planning Commission Staff Report did not offer an explanation of why a SDPA is not required for this proposed project involving grading an area of over 53,000 square feet and excavation and off-haul of site soils in excess of 21,000 cubic yards.

In recent City Staff Reports associated with similar other developments, the City staff offered that construction of a basement does not require a SDPA because Section 23.040.030(d) Exceptions exempts site excavation for basements and foundations.

SMMC Section 23.040.030(d) does not identify underground vehicle parking garages as an exception. The exceptions include small projects including mechanical basements (e.g. small basements largely found in older residences for the placement of coal supply, furnaces and waters heaters), underground tanks (e.g. oil tacks for heating) that are governed by building restrictions covering property placement in proximity to property boundaries, and projects that purely public or quasi-public such as utility vaults and trenching predominantly located in public rights-of-way and controlled/monitored by the City.

City staff’s interpretation is not in keeping with SMMC Section 23.40.040 which is a graduated approval process reserving the authority to review and approve larger grading and excavation over 5,000 cubic yards with the Planning Commission.

If endorsed by the planning Commission, it results in usurping the authority of the Planning Commission, eliminates public review, appears to violate the provisions of CEQA (which only exempts small grading activities causing no harm), and on residential urban sites endangers the occupants and owners of existing abutting properties.
680 of 833
33 The Staff Reports code interpretation does not make common sense in that it offers no upper limit on size of excavation - contrary to the graduated decision-making authority of the SMMC (e.g. theoretically Hillsdale Shopping Center 32 acres could be graded and excavated to unknown depths without public review).

Should the City Council and Planning Commission desire to allow large scale grading activities and exaction it would be more appropriate and in keeping with past tradition, that they amend the SMMC providing clear distinctions of review authority and defining eligible types of projects.

It makes common sense to require SDPA for grading and excavation of large developments especially in developed urban settings and continue the practice of review and approval by the Planning Commission in order for decision-makers to understand the nature of the soil conditions and engineering requirements associated with the proposed building, and determining that the site can safely accommodate the proposed project while protecting the life safety of residents and properties, and providing opportunities for residents to review and comment on the proposed SDPA. This is especially true for urban infill developments that abut residential properties.

Not doing so limits the decision-makers understanding of the proposed project, impacts to abutting properties, construction impacts associated with grading and excavation and the capability of the site to accommodate the development and avoid potential harm environmental effects associated with grading and excavation.

The safety of owners and improvements of adjacent properties and the economic impact from efforts to protect their property can be significant. Pursuant to California Civil Code 832 owners of abutting properties are responsible for protecting their property and the adjoining excavated property. Owners are responsible for bearing the cost of hiring legal and Geotech representatives and constructing shoring improvements to protect their property from sliding into the excavated property.

In this particular case the proposed project includes an approximately fifteen (15+) foot deep cut and the construction of retaining wall that appears to extend upwards of twenty (20) feet in height above grade. The safety risk to adjacent small residential properties is apparent and would place an unfair economic burden on them (not including potential liability and insurance costs).

Taking the City staffs approach would conflict with CEQA, because large scale grading and excavation activities are not exempt. At some point, the City would be required to undertake an environmental review to determine the cumulative effects of the collective grading activities authorized by the City.

Nevertheless, should the City Council concur with City Staff to exempt excavations for underground parking garages regardless of size, it cannot exclude the grading in excess of 5,000 square feet – and so it would need to add a SDPA for grading in excess of 53,000 square feet. 681 of 833
34 ATTACHMENT #12

CONDITION OF APPROVAL
The Conditions of Approval need to be revised because of the unusual nature of the proposed project, the multiple variances and the delimited public review process, the lack of project information regarding various aspects of the project, the potential construction impacts and harm to public health and safety.

The Conditions of Approval need to be revised to include, but not limited to, the following: a Phase I Environmental Assessment required by CEQA, provide a public information feedback loop including notice and public review, to require a On-Street Parking Impact Study to identify the project’s impact to existing limited supply on-street neighborhood parking spaces, to prohibit future residents of proposed project of either leasing, owning or having more than a single vehicle per dwelling unit, to require a Soils and Geotech Study to provide for the protection of the safety of residents occupying dwellings and protect the property improvements abutting the project site on the westerly property boundary, to require a Wind Study to determine the proposed projects impact on ground level wind speeds vis the blockage of westerly winds on adjoining properties, to require a Shading and Energy Impact Study of the proposed project on adjacent properties to permanently offset the energy cost impacts to owners and residents of the abutting properties on the westerly property boundary of the project site, and to require an OffSite Lighting Glare Study and implementation of lighting to avoid any offsite glare impacts.

A. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CEQA Section 21.080.66 requires that the City add a condition of approval requiring the owner to submit a complete Phase I Environmental Assessment of the existing buildings and structures prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for demolition activities.

It has come to light after the Planning Commission hearing that the applicant submitted a Phase I Environmental Assessment to the City. While it is not clear that the report evaluated the AC paving surfaces, catch basins, or materials left in the vehicle maintenance facility the report confirmed that Toxic and Hazardous substances inhabit the existing buildings. The duplex appears to contain lead and asbestos. The vacant medical office building constructed in the late 1980s was utilized for imaging and may therefore contains some materials utilized in preparation of X-ray images. The report did not evaluate whether the parking lots and catch basins contain carcinogens from long-term use for vehicle parking and older slurry seal products containing coal tar banned after 2013.

The Conditions of Approval do not include this specific State of California requirement, even though a report has been submitted. In so doing it provides documentation that in fact a report was submitted. But more importantly, the condition is important to protect public health and safety (because of the immediate proximity to residents and sensitive receptors) a provision needs to be added that prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for demolition of existing 682 of 833
35 improvements that the City shall notice the adjacent area residents providing a minimum 15-day in advance of the pending issuance of the City permit of the surrounding area of the availability of and the opportunity to review the Phase I Environmental Assessment with the City’s Building Official and Environmental Officer.

B. #3 LIGHTING
The condition needs to be revised to require that the owner’s plans demonstrate that partial or full lighting will not cause off-site glare and will not cause undue lighting impact on adjacent properties through raising the existing ambient night time lighting levels and through exiting vehicle from the garage entry. The applicant needs to submit Lighting Study that evaluates the building effect on the existing hours of darkness ambient lighting levels in the project area. The report needs to be prepared by a qualified professional acceptable to the City’s Building Official.

A provision should be added to require a minimum 15-day notice to residents in the project area of the availability of the Lighting Study for public review and comment. Because of the complexity and technical nature of the Lighting Study, the City’s Building Official and Environmental Officer need to meet with residents to review the report and recommendations. To ensure its completeness the review must be conducted prior to the City’s acceptance of the final report and issuance of any Building Permit. Prior to the Occupancy Permit and the Final Inspection the owner should be required to submit a report documenting the compliance with the report recommendations.

C. #7 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP)
The Condition of Approval needs to be revised to add the full list of City’s requirements, rather than simply referencing its availability somewhere on the City’s website. This is especially important for persons not having access to or capable of navigating the City’s website. A provision should be added to require a minimum 15-day notice to residents in the project area of the availability of the CMP for public review and comment. Because of the complexity and technical nature of the CMP, the City’s Building Official and Environmental Officer need to meet with residents to review the CMP. To ensure its completeness the review must be conducted prior to the City’s acceptance of the CMP.

E. SITE STREET SURVEILLANCE
The Conditions of Approval #52 Video Surveillance Submittal Requirement to install a surveillance system including a video recording camera. However, the Staff Report contained no information regarding the surveillance of persons using public sidewalks and vehicles travelling on public rights of way. In an era when public surveillance, especially by third party vendors, is becoming a growing privacy concern to many citizens, the Staff Report should be amended to include discussion of what areas will be subject to coverage, who and how long will the information be kept and for what purposes will it be utilized and who will control its usage and access. If public rights of way are included in the coverage area, exterior signs could be placed 683 of 833
36 on the property letting the public be aware that the public area is under surveillance by third party vendors
684 of 833
37 CONCLUSION
The applicant conducted a Neighborhood Meeting nearly a year and half ago in compliance with local requirements. Despite the extensive comments and that residents were in concurrence with the comments, the applicant made no changes to the plans except for a small change to the foundation wall to protect the tree roots of one tree situated at the State Street Condominiums. This is the same foundation wall that the applicant has stated that they cannot change. The City cannot compel the applicant to undertake several of the studies. Nevertheless, the City has had ample opportunity to undertake the identified studies. Much of the needed information is accessible on-line, in the City files of previous similar projects, other City records and documents and local field survey.

Due to the incomplete Notice including both the description and the entitlements, the lack of the Transportation Study Attachment #6 of the Staff Report, the limited amount of information contained in the Staff Report, the need to conduct an Operational Traffic Study, a On-street Parking Study, Off-site Lighting and Glare Study, evaluating the proposed building lighting system including units, recreation areas and common areas, Off-site Noise Study, Off-site Odor Study, make changes to the building design to include a fully enclosed open recreational areas (e.g. observation deck lounge, spa and pool and BBQ and outdoor dining area, relocate the garage entry/exit to North San Mateo Drive providing more efficient project access and reducing traffic congestion on Villa Terrace and Highland Avenue Bikeway Boulevard and local area streets and eliminate the proposed project’s design creating an unsafe vehicle/pedestrian conflict area on the Villa Terrace public sidewalk, amend the Conditions of Approval to add State Requirement for a Phase I Environmental Assessment, provide an opportunity so adjacent owners have an opportunity to review the Soils and Geotechnical Report required for site grading and excavation (so that adjacent owners have an opportunity understand the proposed effects of the grading and excavation, shoring and retaining wall on their property and determine their cost obligations, to add public noticing and opportunities for public review of the CoA #7 Construction Management Plan, Construction Impact Study of grading and excavation, and building construction in its entirety of operations (e.g. construction parking areas, staging areas, truck haul routes. Location of dewatering wells, location and design of soil nailing walls, etc.).
685 of 833
38 The City Council should deny the project or with the applicant’s consent continue matter off calendar to allow the applicant to revise the plans and City staff to complete the studies and expand the analysis in the Staff Report.
686 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
1 NEIGHBORHOOD BACKGROUND
The neighborhood is a mix of young and old, well to do and working class. It is also part of a long-standing Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Priority Area that has many working class and retired residents living in rentals. Numerous community care facilities are located in the area as does the City’s only very low-income transitional housing development.

The neighborhood has seen steady development over the years especially in the 1920s, and again in the 1960s – the latter resulting in conversion of approximately 50% of the single-family dwellings into small multifamily housing. The 1960s apartment buildings represented the bulk of multifamily housing development in all of San Mateo during that decade. The neighborhood already provides a mix of housing and socio-economic diversity that is sorely lacking in other neighborhoods, in very low-density areas and especially those areas west of ECR.

Constant small-scale investments have occurred over the decades leading up to today. The largest and most recent multifamily residential development (completed in 2015) is located at 888 North San Mateo Drive - no doubt influenced the applicant decision to propose the project.

QUALITY OF PROJECT FIT
The proposed six (6) story luxury residential project with a density of 148 units per acre (more than the four (4) times the maximum density allowed and more than five (5) times the average density of the neighborhood) does not complement the low-density neighborhood. By way of comparison the project density exceeds the average density of San Francisco of 97 units per acre.

The projects dominating scale and size with little to no landscaped setbacks is completely out of character with the small scale and one to two story single and multifamily housing (5 to 10 units) on small landscaped lots.

The proposed 1.22 acres site is approximately ten (10) times the size of the average residential lot in the neighborhood. The lack of on-site parking will cause increased demand daily demand for taxi and delivery services and for the few limited available overnight on-street parking spaces that the neighborhood residents rely on to meet parking needs - directly contributing to the deterioration of the quality of life through increased conflicts (this has already started as a direct result of the Poplar Avenue Bicycle Lane elimination of on-street parking and compliance with state law parking restrictions within twenty (20) feet of intersections) partially implemented in the neighborhood.

The project design exposes neighborhood residents to life safety issues, public nuisances, and potential economic harm - none of which were identified nor evaluated by the City. Access to the site from the regional highways will increase traffic on local neighborhood streets causing greater congestion and increased safety concerns for pedestrian and bicyclists especially on the Highland Avenue Bicycle Boulevard and on State Street (with substandard travel lane widths).

Use of the State Street at the intersection with North San Mateo Drive for daily garbage storage 687 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
2 and collection will result in daily temporary street closure and traffic conflicts, and expose residents to toxic and objectional odors and will have a detrimental and blighting effect on the neighborhood and adjacent residents
This project represents a major step in private redevelopment of the area. Given the age of neighborhood buildings and some larger scale commercial lots, it is likely to generate interest in further area development with all of the adverse consequences associated with private redevelopment of older neighborhoods into high density enclaves resulting in displacement of the very families the HUD Priority Area was established to benefit and of the existing community.

Below is a brief introduction to the key concerns that are the foundation of the appeal. More detailed information is provided in the attachments.

ISSUES OF CONCERN
The project information and analysis are not sufficient for either the public not the City to make an informed decision. The lack of disclosure or many issues and the lack of meaningful response to long-standing neighborhood issues whether unintentional or not, leaves too many important un-answered questions. The project is likely to have log-term consequences affecting the safety and stability of the neighborhood.

Where the State of California has exempted the project from environmental review, it has not overridden the local community’s identification and analysis of safety issues – these are lacking in the City review. Even the applicant acknowledges in the project submittal letter that the project can be denied by the City on making findings that the project exposes the community to safety risks and public nuisances.

At the Applicant’s Neighborhood meeting conducted on February 26, 2025 (nearly over a year and half ago), neighborhood residents identified several safety issues, public nuisances and quality of life issues that were not addressed by the City nor the applicant. (See Attachment #3) Several studies than are essential to evaluate the proposed project (and which in the past have been included in the City’s analysis of other similar projects) were not undertaken by the applicant nor City staff. (Attachments #1,2,4,5,6,7,8)
While CEQA is both substantive and procedural, at its heart it provides information that is beneficial for making informed choices by both the public and decisions makers. In the absence of the state requirement that the applicant provide essential information, it is incumbent on the City to provide the information and analysis. Most of the needed information and analytical tools are accessible on-cline, in City files of similar prior projects and other City records, documents and maps.
688 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
3 Basic intent and purpose of the SMMC Title 27 is to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community. With so many outstanding life safety, public nuisance and public health issues not evaluated, these goals have not been achieved in this case and conclusive findings supporting the project cannot be made
The immediate and obvious remedy should have been for the Planning Commission to have directed the continuance of the matter to allow for corrections to the description and respond to the public request for information and re-notified the project.

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND STAFF REPORT

NOTICE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
An adequate project description encapsulates the projects key aspects so that the public has a fairly clear idea of what is being proposed and what legal entitlement are being requested. The description does neither. The required public Notice and Project Description are incomplete in that:

1. Not all of the project legal entitlements were included or were not adequately described in sufficient detail for the public to comprehend the proposed project.

MISSING ENTITLEMENTS
A. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION (SDP) allowing the removal of major vegetation comprised of 19 trees.

B. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION (SDP) allowing grading over 53,000 square feet and excavation and off-haul of over 21,000 cubic yards of soil.

C. VARIANCES requested by the applicant from at least eight (8)+ requirements of the SMMC Title 27 including, but not limited to, building setbacks, landscaping, floor area and building height.

INCOMPLETE ENTITLEMENT DESCRIPTION
A. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (VTMP) does not describe the proposed map to merge four (4) parcels into a single parcel and does not describe the benefit that the applicant is requesting nor the significance of the vesting of the entitlement and restrictions placed on the City.

B. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (SPAR) significant details including the does floor area ratio, density, 19 affordable dwellings in association with a 50% density bonus, number of bicycle parking facilities, open recreation area on 2nd and 6th floors, permanent on-street garbage operation, and no on-site loading 689 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
4 2. The Planning Commission “approved” several project features that are in apparent violation of the provisions of SSMC Title 27 Zoning.

A. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION (SDPA) GRADING. The Planning Commission apparently determined that grading of any area and excavation any size of basement is subject to the approval by City staff. The SMMC does not provide such authority to City staff and instead identifies the Planning Commission as the appropriate reviewer. The SMMC provides graduated decision-making authority allowing City staff to authorizes grading of areas less than 5,000 square feet and excavations of less than 5,000 cubic yards.

B. OPENS USES in an E2 zone district. All uses are required to be fully enclosed including the proposed recreation areas on the 2nd and 6th floors likely to expose adjacent residents to public nuisances in the form of noise, glare and odors and other safety issues. The SMMC intention is to protect residences from adjacent uses as the E2 Zones District were placed immediately adjacent to residential areas.

C. DELETION OF ON-SITE LOADING AREA. Large scale projects are required to provide a minimum on-site loading area of ten (10) feet by twenty-five (25) feet and no Variances are permitted by the SMMC. Loading operations will occur in the public rightof-way. Given the lack of available on-street parking and the large project size daily loading activities are likely to be substantial and expose pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles to safety hazards.

D. ON-STREET GARBAGE STORAGE AND COLLECTION No such provisions allowing the permanent daily use of the public right-of-way for the storage of large steel rolling bins and collection are provided in the SMMC. An exception (with safety and other provisions) is provided for temporary short-term use of the public right-of-way for construction debris boxes. The open-air garbage operation exposes residents to a public health threat, public nuisances, pedestrian and traffic safety hazards, loss of on-street parking and will have a detrimental and blighting effect on the neighborhood.

3. The Planning Commission approved project features requiring City Council review.

A. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW required for buildings over six (6) stories in height.

B. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW of the requested Variances as several are not identified in the SMMC. The City Council has not formally adopted by resolution or amendment to the SMMC Title 27 regulations regarding the requirements, procedures and findings allowing the review and approval by the City Council, Planning Commission or City staff.

Therefore, the authority to review and approve such Variances requested by the applicant vests with the City Council.
690 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
5 C. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW of the approval of development features precluded by the SMMC and reinterpretation of SMMC provisions affecting the disclosures of legal entitlements. The City Council has not formally conducted public hearings or adopted by resolution or amendment to the SMMC Title 27 reinterpreting, procedures and findings allowing the review and approval by City staff of Site development Permit Applications for grading in excess of 5,000 square feet and excavation of greater than 5,000 cubic yards. Therefore, the authority to review and approve the approval authority vest with the Planning Commission. Similarly, neither the Planning Commission nor the City staff has authority to relieve the applicant of providing an on-site loading area of a minimum dimension of 10 feet by 25 feet. The authority vests with the City Council until formally delegated.

D. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW of in effect of a permanent restriction of a portion of the City public right-of-way for a single property owner for the permanent on-street garbage operations, and off-site treatment of site generated storm water The City Council has not formally adopted by resolution or amendment to the SMMC Title 27 regulations regarding the requirements, procedures and findings allowing the review and approval by the Planning Commission or City staff. Therefore, the authority to review and approve the use of the public right-of-way such as those requested by the applicant vests with the City Council.

Further information can be found in Attachment #12.

FINDINGS
Several of the key findings supporting the SPAR and VTPM are not evidenced based, but based rather on speculation and conjecture with no linkage to evidenced based facts established in the staff report. The facts needed to adequately evaluate such a major project lie in the studies not conducted by either the applicant or the City.

The findings supporting the SPAR and VTPM cannot be made as the project as designed is not in any way architecturally compatible with the low scale and low-density landscaped neighborhood and the small lot format. The proposed lot area of 1.22 acres is ten (10) times the size of the average neighborhood lots.

The project includes several design features which expose neighborhood residents to safety and public health issues and to public nuisances in the form of noise, glare, ambient lighting and odors which are not supported by the General Plan and provisions of the SMMC. These issues have not been addressed by the City.
691 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
6 KEY SAFETY AND PUBLIC NUISANCE ISSUES
Key safety issues include the Villa Terrace “blind intersection” garage entry/exit at the public sidewalk exposing pedestrians to vehicle accidents, construction of a subterranean garage within five (5) feet of a shared property boundary with existing residences, the long-term exposure of residents and sensitive receptors to demolition and construction effects lasting 18 months to 24 months without identified mitigation measures to protect public health and safety, the permanent daily use of State Street (with substandard travel lane widths of 9.9 feet) for garbage operations including storage (upwards of six (6) six cubic yard steel rolling bins) and collection requiring street closure and requiring an inadequate turning radius, daily loading operations conducted in the public right-of-way, increased traffic on local streets especially Highland Avenue and State Street as access routes to the project rather than North San Mateo Drive an arterial roadway, building exterior maintenance conducted in the public right-of-way requiring sidewalk closures, and building fires. Other safety issues identified in this document in different sections.

Key public nuisances including noise, glare, ambient lighting, and odors associated with the use of the open recreation areas, the on-street State Street garbage operations, and the garage entry/exit on Villa Terrace.

While many of the project’s design features are associated with the State allowances for waivers, the State explicitly identifies that it does not relieve the applicant of designing a project which does not create life safety and public health issues nor expose residents to public nuisances. The City and applicant have known of most of these issues since the Applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting conducted on February 26, 2025. Neither the City nor applicant have addressed these issues.

OWNERNSHIP
The ownership of the land is not clearly identified as required by SMMC Title 27 submittal requirements. The Proposed project Notice identifies property owners as Ross and Diana Bowling, Kadiros and Chau Wu yet all of the project documents (e.g. letters, plans Vesting Tentative Parcel Map) identify a different owner as Prometheus and all of communications are from Prometheus representatives.

PLANS
The applicant’s plans indicate that the proposed project will comply with the 2022 Building Codes. The City appears to have adopted the 2025 Building Codes effective January 2026. The plans need to be revised to reflect that the plans comply with the 2025 codes. This is important to eliminate any future confusion over the approvals and is especially important in that the applicant is also proposing that the City approve a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map which grants the owners legal protections from some future City changes. 692 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
7 SITE DESCRIPTION
The description focuses on the project building site, but does not disclose the full extent of the actual project site including the exclusive use of a portion of the public right-of-way for garbage operations, loading and drainage swales nor other relevant features of the site.

1. The site description does not identify that the project is situated in the E-2-1.5 Executive Office and C-3-2 Regional/Community Commercial Districts.

2. The description does not identify that given the project design a portion of the City rightof-way on State Street and Villa Terrace will of practical necessity be restricted for the property’s owner’s exclusive use for on-street garbage operations, periodic exterior building maintenance, and apparent off-site treatment of site generated storm water.

Because these operations cannot be performed in any other fashion without the use of the public right-of way, the granting of exclusive rights needs to be disclosed as another legal entitlement.

3. It does not disclose that the construction of new on-street drainage swales, permanent onstreet garbage operations area and restriction of five (5) parking spaces on North San Mateo Drive of 30-minutes resulting in the loss of exiting long-term public on-street parking spaces (available to both residents and businesses) situated on State Street, North San Mateo Drive and Villa Terrace. The description does not identify restricting the five (5) on-street parking spaces (shown on the applicant’s plans situated at the project primary residential entry on North San Mateo Drive) essentially provides for the project’s exclusive use (ostensibly for visitors, third party vehicle operators and delivery services) given the location and distance from existing residences and businesses. (The area heavily relies on street parking to meet local parking demand and that even few spaces are available overnight). The City does not identify the procedures of approval of the applicant’s proposed 30 minute parking restrictions nor information regarding enforcement.

4. It does not identify that the project apparently relies on the permanent placement of soil nailing wall tie rods into adjacent private and public properties and that without which the project would need to consider more costly slope shoring techniques. Placement of tie rods into private property or the public right-of-way require prior approval as they may act as future site constraints).

5. It does not disclose that other off-site utility improvements serving the project (e.g. storm water drains and the sanitary sewer line extending from the project site along North San Mateo Drive to Bellevue Avenue) given the age of the existing facilities may likely 693 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
8 resulting in undisclosed construction impacts to neighborhood residents. Except for Recology, no will serve letters were provided.

6. It does not reveal that the project and the neighborhood are situated in a major portion of a long-standing Housing Urban Development (HUD) Priority Area. The Priority Area identified decades ago, that also includes North Central area, is populated by many working-class families living in overcrowded conditions and with high percentages devoting over 40% of household income to rent. The Priority area provides a key basis for the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) the City receives to support the programs and civic improvements that benefit the area residents. If history is a guide, major private developments in such areas may have unintended neighborhood consequences.

STAFF REPORT AND PRESENTATION
The Planning Commission Staff Report and presentation were incomplete. One of the key concerns is that the 73-page Transportation Study (PC Staff Report Attachment #7) was not made available until mid-day Monday March 23 the day before the Planning Commission Hearing (and no Commissioner made an affirmative statement that they had read the report), neither the City staff nor the City’s Transportation Consultant that made the report who was not present did not make a more detailed presentation of the report other than the little information contained in the Staff Report. The public at large was not notified of the availability of the study in advance of the hearing. The Staff Report did not identify nor provide adequate analysis of the following:

SAFETY
Several safety issues identified by the neighborhood residents, but not evaluated by the City including, but not limited to,
1 Pedestrian hazard at the Villa Terrace blind intersection of the garage entry/exit and the public sidewalk.

2 Pedestrian and traffic hazards and public health threat associated with on-street operation of garbage bin storage and collection. Daily garbage pickup of up to six (6) six cubic yard steel rolling bins (estimated total loaded weight of 9,000+ lbs.) within fifty (50) feet to State Street /North San Mateo Drive (resulting in daily temporary blockage of State Street and the intersection with North San Mateo Drive. Life safety of establishing an inadequate turning radius for garbage trucks (width of 12 feet and length of 39.5 feet not including forks) required to use a portion of the on-coming northbound lane of traffic on North San Mateo Drive.
3 Pedestrian and traffic hazards associated with on-street daily loading activities. 694 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
9 4 Pedestrian and traffic hazards associated with exterior building maintenance needed to be conducted in the public right-ot-way due to the provision of little to no setbacks requiring sidewalk closures.
5 Pedestrian and traffic hazards associated with the operation of the open recreation and adjacent to the street due to the potential of distracted driving and errant projectiles objects from the recreation areas landing in the public right of way. 6 Health hazards associated with the identification and removal of toxic and hazardous materials from all of the site structures.
7 Safety hazards associated with the project construction involving grading, excavation and off-haul of soil for a subterranean garage and building foundation within five (5) feet of existing shared property boundary and the potential for slope failure and site subsidence associated with site dewatering.
8 Pedestrian and traffic effects with the construction of a building over six (6) stories in height within five (5) feet of residential property boundary line and little to no setback from the public right-of-way including north San Mateo Drive an arterial roadway. 9 Pedestrian safety of the use of the identified Safe Routes-to-School path way to San Mateo Park Elementary School from the west of ECR that does not appear to comply with local and federal requirements for an impervious concrete surface and ADA ramps and slope requirements.
10 Pedestrian safety of the use of the identified Safe Routes-to-Transit path way to Burlingame Caltrain Station from the project site to the station platforms a portion of which does not appear to comply with local and federal requirements for sidewalk clearance minimum width and ADA ramps and slope requirements. 11 Life safety at the project related to the Planning Commission approval to delete the Police Department standard lighting requirements with no input from the Police Department, but City staff assertion that they will work something out during the Building Permit stage without public input.
12 Building Fire safety related to the local Fire agency’s capability of laddering the proposed project, the adequacy of fire flow at the local area fire hydrants, and the ability of the frontage sidewalks to accommodate all of the future occupants in the event of an 695 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
10 evacuation order (avoiding occupants standing in the adjacent streets and interfering with Fire operations). Because of the buildings close proximity to adjacent residential properties the potential for damage to adjacent residences needs to be evaluated as well as other safety pre-cautions.

OTHER ISSUES

1. Substantive and procedural zoning issues associated with the project entitlements appear to be in conflict with provisions of the SMMC Title 27. The Planning Commission appears to have reinterpreted key provisions of the SMMC without public disclosure, and approved project(s) without adopted or established City procedures.

2. Neighborhood concerns expressed at the Applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting of February 26, 2025 including, but not limited to, pedestrian safety, impact on-street parking, channeling traffic through the neighborhood, shading of adjacent residences, wind acceleration, identification and removal of toxic and hazardous substances form site structures, placement of open recreation areas adjacent to existing residences, project generation of public nuisances including off-site glare, noise, odors and facilitating distracted driving, and construction impacts exposing residents to toxic odors, spent fuel, fugitive dust, traffic, lighting, noise and slope stability or graded slopes. Not addressed by the City. (Attachment #3)

3. Transportation Study. Inadequate time was provided for the public nor Planning Commissioners to review the 73-page Transportation Study (provided on-line midday before the Planning Commission hearing - approximately 30 hours). While originally identified as an attachment it was not included in the Staff Report package of materials. The Staff Report and presentation did not provide a detailed assessment of the study to act as an adequate substitute (e.g. the report study intersections were not identified, intersections to the regional highways were not included, that access to the project would likely rely on local residential streets, that no evaluation of lineof-sight associated with the garage entry/exit was included, the evaluation of the project operational needs in terms of third party vehicles and service deliveries, no evaluation of loading operation associated with dwelling unit in/out was evaluated (essential given no on-site loading area), nor was the on-street garbage operation on State Street identified nor examined. (Attachment #4)

4. The Phase I Environmental Assessment identifying toxic and hazardous materials submitted by the project applicant was unknown to the public and Planning Commission. The study did not evaluate the materials stored in the former “vehicle 696 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
11 service” building and did not evaluate the slurry seal and catch basins for toxic or hazardous materials given the long-use for auto sales and as a medical imaging services parking lot.

5. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation submitted by the project applicant containing information regarding the site soils, the presence of ground water, liquefaction potential, identifying the need for dewatering and the placement of an unknown number of extraction wells in unknown locations to the public and recommendations for slope shoring of the proposed steep slopes during excavation of Steep slopes are needed given the close proximity of the foundation to shared property boundary lines.

6. The Shading Study submitted by the project applicant did not evaluate the effect on the adjacent residential properties nor investigate the energy cost impacts from increased shading nor the loss of ability of residential owners to install solar roof panels.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Conditions of Approval are incomplete in that the CEQA requires that the City adopt a Condition of Approval that the applicant provide a Phase I Environmental Assessment. The Planning Commission deletion of a standard security lighting requirement without discussion nor analysis of the impacts of such action and without the advice of the City’s Police Representative is concerning.

Conditions of Approval relating to toxic and hazardous identification and removal, demolition, grading, excavation construction should be amended to provide opportunity for City staff and residents to meet to review the Geotechnical Report, and provide input on the applicant’s Draft Environmental Assessment Plan, and Draft Construction Management Plan.

Conditions of Approval need to be added requiring several studies be completed prior to any building permit issued for demolition (e.g. including, but not limited to, Phase I Environmental Assessment, project operational noise, off-site glare, odors, wind and energy impacts to and mitigation measures for adjacent residences and nearby sensitive receptors, and an on-street parking study and measures to protect and manage the supply of on-street parking spaces).

Conditions of approval need to be amended to require neighborhood notice of document availability and the opportunity to review the reports and information with the City Building Official. (Attachment #13)

STUDIES RELATED TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
697 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
12 The staff report did not adequately respond the issues raised at the Applicant’s Neighborhood Meeting of February 26, 2025. (Attachment #3) Several studies essential to responding to the concerns, and to understanding the proposed development compliance with local and state regulations, and its effects on the neighborhood include:

1. Shading Study of the project effects on adjacent residential properties, as required by SMMC Title 27 submittal requirements, to determine the Energy and cost impacts to adjacent residents especially during the period from Fall to Spring and to determine the project effect on the potential for future roof mounted solar panels as required by California Solar Access requirements. With energy costs expected to increase the ability to install solar roof panels is becoming and important tool to defray costs.

2. On-Street Parking Study to determine the project effect on the limited on-street parking and measures to protect existing residents access to street parking, especially in that the project provides less than a 1 to 1 parking ratio, no loading area and no visitor parking.

This issue was identified a year and half ago at the Applicant’s Neighborhood meeting in February 26, 2025 (nearly one and a half years ago) and the applicant repeatedly stated at that meeting that the City would respond to the resident’s parking and traffic concerns.

Neither the staff nor the Commissioners responded to the parking concerns.

3. Transportation Study was provided but was deficient in that it only examined the project entry and 2 intersections on Villa Terrace. The study does not appear to have included an assessment of alternate form of transportation likely to utilized in a building and reliance on third party daily delivery services (e.g. Uber, Lyft, Waymo, UPS, FedEx, etc.). The effect of not including these services is likely to have undercounted traffic impacts. The study did not include neighborhood intersections leading to the regional highways. At a minimum, intersections that should have been included are: North San Mateo Drive/Peninsula, North San Mateo Drive/Poplar, ECR/State Street and ECR/Bellevue.

4. Safe Route-to-School study of the existing condition, safety and adequacy of the path to the neighborhood public school San Mateo Park Elementary School serving the proposed project. The route, west of ECR, has not been improved since it was identified several years ago. At that time the route utilized pathways consisting of earthen materials and imperious concrete sidewalks, earthen paths were obstructed with tree roots, and pathways did not contain ADA compliant sidewalk cross slopes and curb ramps.

5. “Safe Route-to-Transit” study of the pathway from the project to the Burlingame Train Station, over 1/2mile from the project site, was not included. This is essential in that the project has reduced the on-site parking because it is near the Burlingame Train Station.

Because many future project occupants are expected to use the train system, and given 698 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
13 the project reduction of on-site parking because it is near a train station, it is important to evaluate the sidewalk condition, safety and compliance with ADA standards for slopes and ramps. Portions of the route do not appear to be compliant with ADA width requires and slopes. The path needs to be studied in its entirety from the project pedestrian entry to the station platforms. Recommendations should be included where improvements are warranted to meet Federal, State and local requirements and be implemented prior to project occupancy.

6. Loading Study of the daily building operations including use of third-party vehicle service deliveries (e.g. Uber, Lyft, Waymo, UPS, FedEx, moving operators, etc.) as no on-site loading area is proposed (as required by SMMC Title 27). The study should examine the size, location and number of loading areas required. The study should also include an analysis of the proposed need for five (5) 30-minute on-street parking spaces at the project pedestrian entry on North San Mateo Drive and enforcement operations.

7. Garbage Bin Storage and Collection operation on State Street proposed to include a permanent restricted on-street curb-side daily storage area for upwards of six (6) steel bins, requiring use of a portion of the sidewalk, and requiring both travel lanes for garbage truck maneuvering and collection of the bins and including a Vehicle Turning Study of the Recology trucks (width twelve (12) feet and length of 39.5 feet) traveling from State Street to southbound North San Mateo Drive. The applicant’s diagram uses a smaller truck turning radius that the utilized by Recology as stated in their letter. The study needs to identify if the on-street street facility design (without no apparent storm drain protection, no rain protection bins with lids are not considered adequate), and sanitary sewer inlet) and operation are compliant with the Clean Water Act, the PorterCologne Act and the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Measures to protect the sidewalk and street from operational damage, protect public health by requiring daily steam cleaning of affected surfaces (and documented periodic City inspection), and spilled solid and liquid debris and pollutants from entering the City’s storm drainage system.

8. Glare and Ambient Lighting Study including off-site glare and increased ambient lighting levels in the adjacent existing residences especially that associated with the night-time garage exiting traffic on Villa Terrace facing single-family residences, the night-time lighting levels of the project recreation areas, State Street, Villa Terrace and the west façades adjacent to residential areas, with measures to maintain existing ambient lighting levels in the adjacent residential areas. Increased ambient lighting levels may have adverse effects on habitability of adjacent residences, and residential yards areas use and landscaping.
699 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
14 9. Acoustic Study including the 18-month to 2-year construction phase, the operation of the Villa Terrace garage entry/exit (including vehicle, and gate operation (and gate alarm proposed by the Transportation Study consultant), the permanent daily operation of the on-street garbage storage and collection operations on State Street, operation of the open recreation areas adjacent to existing residences, and the State Street utility room operation. The study needs to include measures to prevent off-site an increase in acoustic levels above City standards for residential areas.

10. Odor Study of the outdoor cooking and lounge area, and permanent outdoor storage of and collection of up to six (6) steel 6 cubic yard steel rolling garbage bins with measures to eliminate off-site odors including toxic odors associated with the garbage, to residential areas and the public right-of-way.

11. Preliminary Geotechnical Study of the site soil, drainage conditions and depth to water table with recommendations regarding site dewatering via well extraction, and slope protection measures associated with the excavation of 21,000 cubic yards for a subterranean garage and the building foundation. Measures need to be included to protect adjacent residential and public properties and the safety of existing residents and existing adjacent properties and improvements from site construction. Pursuant to the California Civil Code CIV 832 the existing residential property owners abutting to the project are responsible for protecting their property and improvements from sliding into and damaging the project site. Prudent owners at a minimum would need to consider hiring legal counsel and technical advisors to advise regarding the construction documents and confer with the City representatives and applicant.

12. Phase I Environmental Assessment of the existing site structures and improvements required by the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) with measures to protect the public health and safety regarding removal of any toxic and hazardous materials identified at the site.

13. Infrastructure Capacity and Condition Study of neighborhood utilities serving the proposed project including the existing capacity and condition of the sanitary sewer lines, storm drainage facilities, water lines, and hydrant flow with recommendations. These studies while required in the Conditions of Approval are after the fact and do not provide the information to determine the true extent of the project site and community effects.

14. Storm Drainage. No information of the relationship with the on-site storm drainage system and the conveyance to the drainage swales in the public right-of-way was 700 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
15 provided. It appears that treated storm water from the site would be conveyed to the drainage swales via a pipe rather directly into storm drain pipes. This is a violation of the Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the Porter-Cologne Act and Regional Water Quality Board regulations, requiring all storm water generated on-site be treated on-site.

15. Socio-Economic Analysis that includes establishing a current profile the neighborhood including the full spectrum of population demographics, housing characteristics, density, mix of housing types, and characteristics of the existing commercial buildings, assessment of the potential effects of market rate “luxury” housing on neighborhood rents and on neighborhood development, gentrification and displacement. Since the 1960a the neighborhood has historically been a diverse mix of old and young, well to do and working class, with a mix of small-scale residential buildings, older small commercial uses and newer community care uses - offices, transitional housing serving the low income and community care facilities including group care type facilities and a private school serving special needs clientele. Private large-scale investments in market housing in areas with working class in the past have generally not been a good fit in terms of the long-term transformative and disruptive changes in the residential neighborhood.

16. Utility Will Serve Letters. No letters were apparently submitted. While the Conditions of Approval require the submittal of will serve letters, it is after the fact. As California is likely experiencing another drought, the City needs to consult with Cal Water regarding its ability to serve the project and its policies to providing water to fill the pool and spa during drought conditions.

ATTACHMENTS

1. VILLA TERRACE GARAGE ENTRY/EXIT

2. ON-STREET PARKING STUDY

3. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS

4. TRANSPORTATION STUDY ANALYSIS

5. ON-STREET GARBAGE OPERATION

6. ON-STREET LOADING OPERATIONS

7. SHADING AND ENERGY IMPACT STUDY

8. WIND STUDY

9. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

10. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT

11. FINDINGS
A. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (SPAR)
B. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (VTPM)
701 of 833
APPEAL OF PA 2025-031
16 12. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
A. BUILDING HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF SIX (6) STORIES
B. VARIANCES
C. OPEN USES
D. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION (SDPA) GRADING

13. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
B. #3 LIGHTING
C. #7 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
E. # SITE STREET SUVEILLANCE
702 of 833
715/723 N San Mateo Drive
Six Story Multi-Family Residential Project
PA-2025-031
City Council Public Hearing
July 20, 2026
Greg Powell, M-Group Consulting Planner
On the behalf of the
Community Development Department
703 of 833

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
• PROJECT BACKGROUND
• REGULATORY SETTING
• APPEAL
• STAFF RECOMMENDATION
704 of 833

PROJECT LOCATION
705 of 833

PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Chronology
• SB 330 Preliminary Application: November 14, 2024
• Neighborhood Informational Meeting: February 6, 2025
• Formal Planning Application: April 15, 2025
• City review of project for completeness and consistency: April 2025 to January 2026 • Deemed Complete: January 12, 2026
• Planning Commission Review and Approval: March 24, 2026 • Appeal Filed: April 2, 2026
706 of 833

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Description
• Approx. 258,000 Square Foot Multi-family Residential building • 181 dwellings w/ 19 very-low-income dwellings
• 6 stories / 75’-11”
• 180 covered parking stalls
• Residential amenities: Pool, fitness room & amenity deck on 2nd floor, common room & amenity deck/BBQ area on 6th floor
707 of 833
Looking Northwest @Villa Terrace & N. San Mateo Drive
708 of 833
Looking Southwest Along North San Mateo Drive
709 of 833
Courtyard View, Above Villa Terrace
710 of 833
Private Open Space
711 of 833

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Public Hearing held on March 24, 2026
• Public Comment: 3 speakers + Applicant Team
• Reviewed Revised Conditions of Approval
• Adopted Resolution to Approve: 4-0 Vote
The Planning Commission confirmed that the project met all applicable objective standards in the General Plan, Zoning Code, and other local policy documents that were in effect at the time the preliminary application was submitted under SB 330. 712 of 833
REGULATORY SETTING – GENERAL PLAN
General Plan Land Use: Residential
Medium II
1 of 10 Strive San Mateo General
Plan 2040 Study Areas
Proposed Maximum
Height – Stories 6 6
Residential
Density (DU/acre)
181 Dwellings
(148 units/acre)
121 Dwellings
(99 units/acre)
713 of 833
REGULATORY SETTING – STATE HOUSING LAWS
Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
• Limits a local agency’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or render housing development projects infeasible if objective standards are met
• To deny, must find project would have a “Specific Adverse Impact” Housing Crisis Act (Senate Bill 330)
• Project vested – freezes development standards and fee structure Assembly Bill 130
• New California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for housing development projects • Expedited review process
Assembly Bill 2097
• Prohibits parking minimums for qualifying projects within one-half mile from major public transit stop
714 of 833
REGULATORY SETTING – STATE DENSITY BONUS
State Density Bonus Law (Gov’t Code section 65915)
• Density Bonus - 50% Density Increase
• Up to 3 Concessions
• Unlimited Waivers
State Density Bonus Law Applied to the Proposed Project • 15% of base density (19 Units) for Very Low Income
• 50% Density Increase (60 Units)
• No Concessions requested
• Waivers from Development Standards:
• Increased floor area ratio (FAR)
• Reduced setbacks/yards, landscape buffers, & open space • 1 Objective Design Standard
715 of 833
REGULATORY SETTING – HAA
The Housing Accountability Act limits a local agency’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or render housing development projects infeasible when the project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards.

ØThe HAA applies to a project that receives waivers from objective standards under State Density Bonus Law.

If a housing development project complies with objective standards, then the local agency can only disapprove a project or require that it be developed at a lower density where it makes written findings that:

Ø(1) the project would have a “specific adverse impact” on public health or safety, and Ø(2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. 716 of 833

FRAMEWORK FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL
The HAA guides the Council's review and deliberation of this appeal, and each appeal point must be reviewed against the objective standards that apply to this Project.

Ø The Planning Commission confirmed the Project met all applicable objective standards in the General Plan, Zoning Code, and other local policy documents.

For any appeal point that is not supported by an objective standard, the Council must consider if a specific adverse impact would occur and if no feasible alternative exists to avoid the adverse impact.

Ø No evidence in the record to support a finding of specific adverse impact.

If an appeal point is not related to an objective standard, and no specific adverse impact would occur, the Council must dismiss the appeal point.
717 of 833
APPEAL

1. “Notice and project description were incomplete,” and “Project Entitlements were not disclosed and/or not included”
ØThe Public Notice for the Planning Commission Public Hearing was completed in compliance with State Law and SMMC Section 27.08.050.

2. “the 73 page Transportation Study Attachment #7 was not made available until midday Mon. Mar. 23”
ØThis is correct. When the City learned of this omission, the Agenda Report was corrected to list the LTA as an attachment, the Planning Commission Agenda materials were updated, and the LTA was provided to the appellant, in advance of the March 24 Planning Commission meeting.

3. “Staff Report provided limited data and analysis of neighborhood concerns ...” ØProject review by the DRB and the Planning Commission was guided by the City's adopted objective standards, and the Planning Commission approved the Project after finding it complied with these standards.
718 of 833
APPEAL

4. “CEQA requires that the City add a condition requiring a Phase I Env. Assessment, but none appears”
ØThe appellant is correct that review under AB 130 requires project approval to include a condition of approval to require a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. A condition was not needed because Phase I Environmental Site Assessments were provided with the application.

5. “Conditions should be amended to provide opportunity for City staff and residents to meet and to review and provide input...”
ØThe conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission were based on a thorough review by the DRB and reflect the objective standards adopted by the City, and the Conditions are consistent with those applied to other similar projects. Like similar projects, the Construction of the Project will be subject to a Construction Management Plan prepared in accordance with the City's Construction Management Plan requirements to manage all aspects of construction and ensure the timely completion of the Project while minimizing adverse impacts on neighboring properties and residents. 719 of 833
APPEAL

6. “Garage entry/exit needs to be relocated to N. San Mateo Drive to eliminate off-site glare and limit traffic traveling on neighborhood streets”
ØGarage access to North San Mateo Drive is prohibited by SMMC section 27.64.025.

7. “per SMMC in E2 Dist. recreation areas and garbage operations need to be fully enclosed to limit noise, glare and odors.”
ØThe Project complies with the SMMC. The SMMC does not require that recreation areas be enclosed, and project trash, recycling, and green waste will be stored within the building except when accessed by Recology for routine pick-up. SMMC Section 27.48.050 requires that permitted uses be conducted within completely enclosed buildings. “Permitted Use” refers to the land uses allowed by the Land Use District, and for the Project, the permitted use is residential units. 720 of 833

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR), a Site Development Planning Application (SDPA), and a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (VTM) for the construction of a new six-story multifamily residential building with 181 dwelling units and associated site improvements at 715/723 North San Mateo Drive, and find that the Project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66, based on the Findings for Approval and subject to the Conditions of Approval.
721 of 833
715 N SAN MATEO DR, SAN MATEO, CA | CITY COUNCIL MEETING | JULY 2026 1 715 N SAN MATEO DR
SAN MATEO, CA 94401

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 20TH, 2026
722 of 833

PROMETHEUS - SAN MATEO
715 N SAN MATEO DR, SAN MATEO, CA | CITY COUNCIL MEETING | JULY 2026 2

METROPOLITAN
338 S FREMONT ST

BRICKLINE
20 N ELLSWORTH AVE
668 E 3RD AVENUE
668 E 3RD AVE

BESPOKE
401-445 S B ST

B STREET SOUTH
425 S ELLSWORTH AVE
1ST AND B
57 S B ST
723 of 833
2040 GENERAL PLAN






!

#$%
&'

()
*+
,+./0

1 2'*3++./4

(
78"9-78-:;<=<>?@B@?=CDED 56

PROJECT SITE
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N SAN MATEO DR, SAN MATEO, CA | CITY COUNCIL MEETING | JULY 2026 3 • Residential uses per 2040 General Plan
• Residential Medium II
724 of 833

SITE CONTEXT

EL CAMINO REAL

N SAN MATEO DR
HWY 101
3RD AVE
E 4TH AVE

E POPLAR AVE

PENINSULA AVE
715 N SAN MATEO DR, SAN MATEO, CA | CITY COUNCIL MEETING | JULY 2026 4 • Walking distance to commercial
business districts in Downtown
San Mateo and Burlingame
• Adjacent to bicycle path network
• Direct access to major
transportation routes
Project Site
Caltrain
Caltrain Station
Commercial Business Districts
Prometheus Properties
1/2 Mile Radius Around Caltrain Station
725 of 833

ARCHITECTURAL PROPOSAL
715 N SAN MATEO DR, SAN MATEO, CA | CITY COUNCIL MEETING | JULY 2026 5

VILLA TERRACE

N SAN MATEO DR

STATE ST
726 of 833

ARCHITECTURAL PROPOSAL
715 N SAN MATEO DR, SAN MATEO, CA | CITY COUNCIL MEETING | JULY 2026 6 727 of 833

ARCHITECTURAL PROPOSAL
715 N SAN MATEO DR, SAN MATEO, CA | CITY COUNCIL MEETING | JULY 2026 8 Design Alignment with City Guidelines:

4.1.2 Articulation Details
• 2 of 6 facade articulation details are required for midrise buildings [4.1.2]:
• The following 2 details are incorporated into the
design:

A. Architectural projections such as roof eaves,
overhangs, cornices, pergolas, or awnings
B. Balconies per unit
C. Box or bay windows per unit
D. Window recesses and edges, including mouldings
and reveals
E. Projecting or recessed rooms or units for a
minimum of 30% of the units for a mid and highrise development F. Horizontal mouldings
728 of 833

ARCHITECTURAL PROPOSAL
715 N SAN MATEO DR, SAN MATEO, CA | CITY COUNCIL MEETING | JULY 2026 9 Design Alignment with City Guidelines:

4.1.3 Building Materials & Color
• To ensure buildings are not monochromatic the
following strategies are required to be used [4.1.3]:
• All 4 requirements are incorporated into the design:

A. A combination of at least 3 different colors and/
or materials but no more than 6 are to be used on
each building elevation
B. Each color or material shall constitute at least
10% of the building facade
C. A change in color/material shall be characterized
by a minimum 6 inch offset from the adjacent
building plane, or architectural element such as
moldings or bandings shall be used to create the
offset
D. Change of materials shall not end at an inside
corner
729 of 833

ARCHITECTURAL PROPOSAL
715 N SAN MATEO DR, SAN MATEO, CA | CITY COUNCIL MEETING | JULY 2026 10 Design Alignment with City Guidelines:

4.1.6 Massing Breaks - Mid-Rise Buildings
• 4 of 9 changes in detailing are required to create
distinct building segments and add variation to the
building plane [4.1.6]:
• The following 4 elements are incorporated into the
design:
i. Change of materials and or colors
ii. Differing window size
iii. Change in window treatments
iv. Inclusion, or change, of cornices
v. Inclusion, or change, of columns or pilasters
vi. Inclusion, or exclusion, of balconies
vii. Inclusion, or change, of horizontal banding
viii. Wall plane offset a minimum of 18 inches
ix. Change in roof form or heights aligned with the
building segments
730 of 833

ARCHITECTURAL PROPOSAL
715 N SAN MATEO DR, SAN MATEO, CA | CITY COUNCIL MEETING | JULY 2026 11 Design Alignment with City Guidelines:

4.1.6 Massing Breaks - Mid-Rise Buildings
• At the intersection of two primary streets or a primary and a secondary street, building corners shall be
articulated by incorporating 1 of the following [4.1.6]:
• At the intersection of N San Mateo Dr and Villa Terrace and the intersection of N San Mateo Dr and State St
the following element is incorporated into the design:

1. A corner cut at the base of the building

2. A tower element which extends beyond the building
ridge

3. Special treatment of either different exterior
materials, paint colors, recesses, or projections
relative to the adjacent units, or combination of
these features

4. An architectural element such as a cupola, quoin
treatment, rooftop sculpture, or spire
731 of 833

THANK YOU
715 N SAN MATEO DR, SAN MATEO, CA | CITY COUNCIL MEETING | JULY 2026 12 732 of 833
715 N SAN MATEO DR, SAN MATEO, CA | CITY COUNCIL MEETING | JULY 2026 733 of 833

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
ELEV 1
202 SF
FIRE

COMMAND
536 SF

MAIL/PACKAGE
1046 SF
LOBBY
921 SF

COWORKING
816 SF

ND/LEASING
25001 SF
ELEV 2 PARKING
1574 SF

BIKE PARKING
945 SF

TRASH ROOM
175 SF
MUDDY
PAWS
250 SF

POOL EQUIPMENT
1086 SF

MAINTENANCE
656 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C4
668 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
838 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UC
942 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
954 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
773 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
753 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
735 SFURBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
741 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1427 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2G
667 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA614 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1237 SF
2 BEDROOMTYPE: 2D
66 SF
IDF
STAIR 2
STAIR 1
533 SFSTUDIOTYPE: SB

ELECTRIC

CORRIDOR
MPOE
1325 SF

ELECTRICELECTRIC
193 SF

RESTROOMS

PROJECT
NORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401

DESIGN REVIEW
11/03/2025
20241881
BN
12-31-27
C4.0

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
734 of 833

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
ELEV 1
202 SF
FIRE

COMMAND
536 SF

MAIL/PACKAGE
1046 SF
LOBBY
921 SF

COWORKING
816 SF

ND/LEASING
25001 SF
ELEV 2 PARKING
1574 SF

BIKE PARKING
945 SF

TRASH ROOM
175 SF
MUDDY
PAWS
250 SF

POOL EQUIPMENT
1086 SF

MAINTENANCE
656 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C4
668 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
838 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UC
942 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
954 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
773 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
753 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
735 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
741 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1427 SF
2 BEDROOMTYPE: 2G
667 SFURBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA614 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1237 SF
2 BEDROOMTYPE: 2D
66 SF
IDF
STAIR 2
STAIR 1
533 SFSTUDIOTYPE: SB

ELECTRIC

CORRIDOR
MPOE
1325 SF

ELECTRICELECTRIC
193 SF

RESTROOMS

PROJECT
NORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401

DESIGN REVIEW
03/23/2026
20241881
BN
12-31-27
PC

PARKING COUNT
123
4 5 6 7 8
9 10
11 1234
5 6
7 8
9 10

TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPOSED
STREET PARKING SPACES = 11

TOTAL NUMBER OF EXISTING
STREET PARKING SPACES = 10
1234
5 6
7 8
9 10

TOTAL NUMBER OF EXISTING
STREET PARKING SPACES = 10
735 of 833

LOW GRADE
0' - 0"
BASEMENT -8' - 8"
1ST FLOOR
1' - 6 1/2"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 9 1/2"
3RD FLOOR
31' - 6 1/2"
4TH FLOOR
41' - 9 1/2"
5TH FLOOR
52' - 0 1/2"
6TH FLOOR
62' - 3 1/2"
ROOF
73' - 3 1/2"

TOP OF PARAPET
77' - 3 1/2"

VILLA TERRACE

STATE ST
71' - 9" 10' - 0"

PENTHOUSE
83' - 3 1/2"
16' - 3" 13' - 9" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 11' - 0" 4' - 0"

HIGH POINT
75' - 11 1/2"
75' - 11 1/2" - BUILDING HEIGHT
1 2
434
7 LOW GRADE
0' - 0"
BASEMENT -8' - 8"
1ST FLOOR
1' - 6 1/2"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 9 1/2"
3RD FLOOR
31' - 6 1/2"
4TH FLOOR
41' - 9 1/2"
5TH FLOOR
52' - 0 1/2"
6TH FLOOR
62' - 3 1/2"
ROOF
73' - 3 1/2"

TOP OF PARAPET
77' - 3 1/2"

VILLA TERRACE

STATE ST
71' - 9"
4' - 0"

PENTHOUSE
83' - 3 1/2"
10' - 0"
11' - 0" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 13' - 9" 16' - 3"

HIGH POINT
75' - 11 1/2"
75' - 11 1/2" - BUILDING HEIGHT
34144
5 8' - 0"
5 6
8' - 0"
7 8
8 DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
3/32" = 1'-0"
A 3.00
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

BUILDING ELEVATIONS
3/32" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"

WEST ELEVATION

ELEVATION NOTES
1 42" FALL PROTECTION GUARDRAIL AT ROOF, TYP.
2 CAST METAL BUILDING SIGNAGE, HT 18", DEPTH 2"
3 42" GUARDRAIL AT UNIT, TYP.
4 STAIR PENTHOUSE
5 8' TALL PRIVACY FENCE ALONG REAR PROPERTY
LINE, STEP FENCE WITH GRADE TO MAINTAIN 8'
HEIGHT
6 RAISED PLANTER @ REAR PL, TYP
7 EXTERIOR LIGHTING, TYP. SEE E 2.00 FOR

EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLANS, SCHEDULE & SPECS
8 3-DIMENSIONAL WALL RELIEF PILASTERS
736 of 833

LOW GRADE
0' - 0"
BASEMENT -8' - 8"
1ST FLOOR
1' - 6 1/2"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 9 1/2"
3RD FLOOR
31' - 6 1/2"
4TH FLOOR
41' - 9 1/2"
5TH FLOOR
52' - 0 1/2"
6TH FLOOR
62' - 3 1/2"
ROOF
73' - 3 1/2"

TOP OF PARAPET
77' - 3 1/2"

VILLA TERRACE

STATE ST
71' - 9"
4' - 0"

PENTHOUSE
83' - 3 1/2"
10' - 0"
11' - 0" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 13' - 9" 16' - 3"

HIGH POINT
75' - 11 1/2"
75' - 11 1/2" - BUILDING HEIGHT
34144
5 8' - 0"
5 6
8' - 0"
7 8
8 DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
3/32" = 1'-0"
A 3.00
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

BUILDING ELEVATIONS
3/32" = 1'-0"

WEST ELEVATION

ELEVATION NOTES
1 42" FALL PROTECTION GUARDRAIL AT ROOF, TYP.
2 CAST METAL BUILDING SIGNAGE, HT 18", DEPTH 2"
3 42" GUARDRAIL AT UNIT, TYP.
4 STAIR PENTHOUSE
5 8' TALL PRIVACY FENCE ALONG REAR PROPERTY
LINE, STEP FENCE WITH GRADE TO MAINTAIN 8'
HEIGHT
6 RAISED PLANTER @ REAR PL, TYP
7 EXTERIOR LIGHTING, TYP. SEE E 2.00 FOR

EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLANS, SCHEDULE & SPECS
8 3-DIMENSIONAL WALL RELIEF PILASTERS
737 of 833
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
3/32" = 1'-0"
A 3.00
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

BUILDING ELEVATIONS
738 of 833

RAMP UP
827 SF
BOILER
47446 SF

PARKING
STAIR 2
ELEV 1
ELEV 2
STAIR 1

FOR PARKING LAYOUT
REFER TO SHEET PK 2.0B
TO PL
2' - 6" 332' - 0" - OVERALL BUILDING WIDTH @ BASEMENT
TO PL
4' - 6"
2' - 9"

TO PL TO PL
162' - 4"
22' - 1" 179' - 10"
TO PL
2' - 6" 329' - 4"
TO PL
2' - 6"
TO PL
2' - 0"
40' - 8" 291' - 5"

BFPS AND PUMPS

ELEVATOR LOBBY
TO PL
150' - 0"
28'-1"
19'-6" 18'-7"
22'-10"
28'-5"
25'-2"
22'-1" 127'-5" 177'-10"
2' - 0"
TO PL

SECURITY LIGHTING AND

SURVEILLANCE CAMERS TO BE

INSTALLED THROUGOUT

PARKING GARAGE
18" X 30", TYP
TREE 18 - 6x

ESTIMATED DBH
TREE 20 - 8x
ø 40" ESTIMATED DBH
ø 16"
TREE 18 - 6x
ø 40" ESTIMATED DBH
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
4' - 0"
3' - 1"
7' - 0"
118' - 7" 41' - 10"
3' - 1" 128' - 6" 14' - 0"
16' - 0"
TO PL
127' - 5"

PROJECT
NORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
3/32" = 1'-0"
A 2.0B
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
3/32" = 1'-0"

BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN (DESIGN REVIEW PLANS)
739 of 833

RAMP DN
V
V

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
ELEV 1
202 SF
FIRE

COMMAND
533 SF

MAIL/PACKAGE
1105 SF
LOBBY
921 SF

COWORKING
782 SF

ND/LEASING
25002 SF
ELEV 2

PARKING
1574 SF

BIKE PARKING
946 SF

TRASH ROOM
175 SF
MUDDY
PAWS
250 SF

POOL EQUIPMENT
1086 SF

MAINTENANCE
656 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C4
668 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
838 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UC
942 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
954 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
773 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
753 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
735 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
741 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1427 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2G
667 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
614 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1237 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2D
65 SF
IDF
STAIR 2
STAIR 1

N SAN MATEO

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE
533 SF
STUDIO
TYPE: SB

DN DN DN
DN
DN

RESIDENTIAL ENTRY

AUTO ENTRY AND EXIT
334' - 0" - OVERALL BUILDING WIDTH @ N. 1ST FLOOR
0' - 3" TO PL 162' - 10" - OVERALL BUILDING DEPTH @ 1ST FLOOR 2' - 0" TO PL

ELECTRIC
89' - 3" 19' - 11" 82' - 3" 87' - 10"
158' - 0" 4' - 6"
21' - 5" 56' - 7" 9' - 4" 10' - 11" 9' - 4" 41' - 2" 178' - 0" 4' - 0" 3' - 2" TO PL 330' - 11" 0' - 3" TO PL
16' - 0"
TO PL
118' - 7" 12' - 0" TO PL

CORRIDOR
DN

DN DN DN
DN
196 BIKES

TRANSFORMER
TO PL
2' - 0"
MPOE
TO PL
5' - 0"
DERO BIKE FILE (36)
DERO DUPLEX (82)DERO DECKER (70) DERO SWERVE RACK (8)
1' - 6 1/2"
1' - 6 1/2"
TREE 18 - 6x

ESTIMATED DBH
TREE 20 - 8x

ESTIMATED DBH
DN
1303 SF

ELECTRIC

ELECTRIC

SWITCH GEAR

SWITCH GEAR
15'-6" 10'-0" 30'-0"
1 1
21'-1"
23'-0"
38'-1"
23'-0"
45'-10"
220'-5"
94'-5"
109'-3"
8'-10"
9'-6" 47'-6"

KNOX BOX

LOCATION
(PV

OVERRIDE)
7'-0"
48'-1"
68'-6"
19'-0" 13'-0"
11'-10"
13'-0" 7'-9"
18'-5"
36'-9"
2 ELEC METER BANKS

ON EXT WALLS
9' - 4"
0' - 3" 1' - 6 1/2" 2' - 11" 6' - 0" TO PL STOOP, TYP.

TO PL
7"
3' - 3"
TO PL
TO PL
8' - 1"
TO PL
4' - 11"
TO PL
7"
TO PL
4' - 3"
TO PL
2' - 2"
TO PL
3' - 2"
TO PL
2' - 4"
193 SF

RESTROOMS
T
O
P
L
2' - 0"

TOOL LOCKER
4' - 0"
2' - 0"
3/4" / 1'-0" 1/8" / 1'-0" 3/8" / 1'-0"

SECURITY LIGHTING AND SECURITY GRILLE

SURVEILLANCE CAMERS TO BE

INSTALLED THROUGOUT

PARKING GARAGE

FOR PARKING LAYOUT
REFER TO SHEET PK 2.01
ø 40"
ø 16"
4' - 0" 3' - 2"
7' - 0"
1' - 6"
1'
1' - 6"
- 6"
R 21' - 8"
R 11' - 8"
DN
32' - 11 1/2"
25' - 2 1/4"
12' - 9"
9' - 7 1/2"
50' - 1"

EXTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTE

PROPERTY LINE
45-DEG VISION TRIANGLE

PROJECT
NORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
As indicated
A 2.01
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2
1ST FLOOR PLAN
3/32" = 1'-0"
1ST FLOOR PLAN (DESIGN REVIEW PLANS)
RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPE BREAKDOWN - 1ST FLOOR

UNIT TYPE AREA COUNT
STUDIO 533 SF 1
URBAN 1 BED 5789 SF 8
1 BEDROOM 2551 SF 3
2 BEDROOM 2664 SF 2
RESIDENTIAL UNIT TOTALS 11537 SF 14

PLAN NOTES
1 CAST METAL BUILDING SIGNAGE, HT 18", DEPTH 2"
2 FIRE CONTROL ROOM SIGNAGE
740 of 833
1574 SF

BIKE PARKING
196 BIKES TOTAL
17' - 6"
CLR
5' - 0"
8' - 10"

DERO DUPLEX
6' - 3"

DERO DECKER
6' - 3"

BIKE FILE
4' - 3" 4' - 7"
CLR

DERO SWERVE
6' - 3"
36 BIKES
8 BIKES
82 BIKES 70 BIKES
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
1/4" = 1'-0"
BK 2.00
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

BIKE PARKING INFORMATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 BIKE ROOM PLAN

BIKE PARKING REQUIREMENTS

UNIT TYPE COUNT LONG TERM PARKING COUNT SHORT TERM PARKING COUNT STUDIO 9 9 0.45
URBAN 1 BED 37 37 1.85
1 BEDROOM 79 79 3.95
2 BEDROOM 52 65 5.2
3 BEDROOM 4 6 0.6
TOTALS 181 196 12.05
* BIKE PARKING CALCULATED PER SAN MATEO MUNICIPAL CODE SEC. 27.64.262(f)(2)(A)

BICYCLE PARKING SPECIFICATIONS
741 of 833
24-106 715 N SAN MATEO DR (FORD) PK 2.01 1ST LEVEL PARKING PROMETHEUS PROJECT NAME: CLIENT NAME: DATE ISSUED: © WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2025 PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: SHEET NAME: 02-26-25 E:

Date:

P:

Date:

A:

Date:

JC:

Date:

PLOTTED 02-28-25 15:13 tkim p:\projects\2024\24106 san mateo ford site\2-wdi\4-prod\1-working\2-cad\24106a21alt2.dwg

RAMP DN
BIKEPARKING 1ST LEVEL PARKING 1/16" = 1'-0" EVCS-L2 LP-L2-R L2-R LP-L2-R LP-L2-R EVCS-L2 LP-L2-R UP PCPBPA P3 P2 P1 ELEV 1 LOBBY FIRE COMMAND MAIL/PACKAGE 16'-0" 0 32'-0" 64'-0" SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" OPEN 22'-9"
DRIVE AISLE 9'-0" MIN. 9'-0" 8'-0" MIN. 6'-6" 24'-0" DRIVE AISLE 18'-0" STALL 18'-0" STALL 18'-0" STALL 24'-0" DRIVE AISLE 18'-0" STALL 24'-0" DRIVE AISLE 18'-0" STALL MAINTENANCE N N. S A N M A T E O

S T A T E S T R E E T

V I L L A T E R R A C E
9'-3"
9'-0" MIN.
8'-6" 9'-3"
9'-0' MIN. 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0"
10'-0"
MIN.
12'-0"
9'-6"
9'-0" MIN.
8'-0"
10'-0"
MIN.
3'-0"
22'-0"
DRIVE AISLE 18'-0" STALL
9'-6"
9'-0" MIN.
3'-0" 18" TT TT
PLANNING - DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 1 DATE: 04/11/25 742 of 833 24-106 715 N SAN MATEO DR (FORD) PK 2.0B BASEMENT LEVEL PARKING PROMETHEUS PROJECT NAME: CLIENT NAME: DATE ISSUED: © WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2025 PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: SHEET NAME: 02-26-25 E:

Date:

P:

Date:

A:

Date:

JC:

Date:

PLOTTED 02-28-25 15:13 tkim p:\projects\2024\24106 san mateo ford site\2-wdi\4-prod\1-working\2-cad\24106a20alt2.dwg 28'-0" RAMP UP 16'-0" 0 32'-0" 64'-0" SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 24'-0" 10'-0" MIN 10'-0"
MIN.
10'-0"
MIN.
10'-0" 9'-0"
MIN.
8'-6" 9'-0"
22'-9"
DRIVE AISLE 17'-0" STALL
9'-6"
9'-0" MIN.
9'-6"
9'-0" MIN.
8'-0" 22'-0" DRIVE AISLE10'-0"
MIN.
2'-6"
TO PL 17'-0" STALL 18'-0" STALL
2'-2"
TO PL
142'-0" 9'-0" MIN. 9'-0" MIN. 8'-0" 18'-0" STALL 18'-0" STALL 24'-0" DRIVE AISLE 18'-0" STALL 18'-0" STALL 24'-0" DRIVE AISLE 9'-0"
MIN.
8'-6" 9'-0"
MIN. 18'-0" STALL T TT
9'-0"
MIN. T
8'-6"
24'-0"
DRIVE AISLE8'-6" 18'-0" STALL 24'-0" DRIVE AISLE 18'-0" STALL BASEMENT LEVEL PARKING 1/16" = 1'-0" N TT 22'-0"

DRIVE AISLE
8'-0"
4'-0"
9'-3"
9'-0" MIN.
9'-3"
9'-0" MIN.
8'-6"
9'-0"
MIN.
8'-0" 8'-0"
3'-0" 24'-0" DRIVE AISLE
9'-0"
MIN.
8'-6" 8'-6" 9'-3" 9'-0" MIN. 9'-3" 9'-0" MIN. T
9'-0"
3'-0"
8'-6"
3'-0"
8'-6"T
3'-0" PCPBPA P3 P2 P1 48977 SF PARKING ELEV 1 STAIR 2 STAIR 1 BOILER ELEV 2 10'-0"
MIN.
24'-0"
PLANNING - DESIGN REVIEWDATE: 4/11/25
PLANNING - DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 1 DATE: 04/11/25 743 of 833 DN TREES SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QTY CALIPER WUCOLS TREES AFROCARPUS GRACILIOR AFRICAN FERN PINE 6 24" BOX MODERATE ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE STANDARD 4 24" BOX LOW CERCIDIUM X 'DESERT MUSEUM' DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE 2 24" BOX LOW CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 1 24" BOX LOW CHAMAEROPS HUMILIS MEDITERRANEAN FAN PALM 1 24" BOX LOW CORDYLINE AUSTRALIS GRASS PALM 2 24" BOX LOW CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS 'MONSHEL' TINY TOWER® ITALIAN CYPRESS 1 24" BOX LOW DICKSONIA ANTARCTICA TASMANIAN TREE FERN 3 24" BOX LOW FICUS MICROCARPA INDIAN LAUREL FIG 1 24" BOX MODERATE MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'LITTLE GEM' LITTLE GEM DWARF SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA 1 24" BOX MODERATE MAGNOLIA VIRGINIANA SWEETBAY MAGNOLIA 1 24" BOX LOW OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' SWAN HILL FRUITLESS OLIVE 1 24" BOX LOW PLANT SCHEDULE : LEVEL 2 SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, & GROUNDCOVERS SYMBOL SPECIES QTY SIZE WUCOLS STORMWATER PLANTING 1,523 SF CORNUS SERICEA 'KELSEYI' / KELSEY'S DWARF RED TWIG DOGWOOD 5 GAL. HGH EQUISETUM HYEMALE / HORSETAIL 1 GAL. HIGH IRIS DOUGLASIANA / DOUGLAS IRIS 4" POT MODERATE JUNCUS PATENS 'ELK BLUE' / SPREADING RUSH 1 GAL. LOW LIRIOPE MUSCARI 'MAJESTIC' / MAJESTIC LILYTURF 4" POT MODERATE FULL SUN : SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, & GROUNDCOVERS 1,830 SF ACACIA COGNATA 'ACCOG01' / COUSIN ITT LITTLE RIVER WATTLE 5 GAL. LOW ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM / COMMON YARROW 1 GAL. LOW ANIGOZANTHOS X 'YELLOW GEM' / YELLOW GEM KANGAROO PAW 1 GAL. LOW ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA 'HOWARD MCMINN' / HOWARD MCMINN VINE HILL MANZANITA 1 GAL. LOW ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI / KINNIKINNICK 1 GAL. LOW BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION' / BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA 1 GAL. LOW CEANOTHUS GLORIOSUS 'ANCHOR BAY' / ANCHOR BAY POINT REYES CEANOTHUS 1 GAL. LOW CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS 'DIAMOND HEIGHTS' / DIAMOND HEIGHTS CARMEL CREEPER 1 GAL. LOW DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'DR5000' / LITTLE REV™ FLAX LILY 1 GAL. MODERATE DIETES X 'NOLA ALBA' / KATRINA® AFRICAN IRIS 1 GAL. LOW ELEGIA ELEPHANTINA / LARGE CAPE RUSH 1 GAL. LOW EUPHORBIA CHARACIAS WULFENII / EVERGREEN SPURGE 1 GAL. LOW FESTUCA GLAUCA 'ELIJAH BLUE' / ELIJAH BLUE FESCUE 1 GAL. LOW FESTUCA MAIREI / ATLAS FESCUE 1 GAL. LOW GREVILLEA LANIGERA / WOOLY GREVILLEA 1 GAL. LOW GREVILLEA X 'NOELLII' / NOEL GREVILLEA 1 GAL. LOW LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS / PURPLE TRAILING LANTANA 1 GAL. LOW LANTANA X 'NEW GOLD' / NEW GOLD LANTANA 1 GAL. LOW LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'LM300' / BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL. LOW OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA' / LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 1 GAL. LOW PEROVSKIA ATRIPLICIFOLIA 'LISSLITT' / LACEY BLUE RUSSIAN SAGE 1 GAL. LOW SALVIA CHAMAEDRYOIDES / GERMANDER SAGE 1 GAL. LOW SALVIA CLEVELANDII 'WINNIFRED GILMAN' / WINNIFRED GILMAN CLEVELAND SAGE 1 GAL. LOW SALVIA LEUCANTHA 'SANTA BARBARA' / SANTA BARBARA MEXICAN BUSH SAGE 1 GAL. LOW SANTOLINA CHAMAECYPARISSUS / LAVENDER COTTON 1 GAL. LOW STRELITZIA REGINAE / BIRD OF PARADISE 5 GAL. MODERATE WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'WES06' / LOW HORIZON™ COAST ROSEMARY 1 GAL. LOW SHADE : SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, & GROUNDCOVERS 2,820 SF ASPARAGUS DENSIFLORUS 'MYERS' / MYERS ASPARAGUS FERN 1 GAL. MODERATE ASPIDISTRA ELATIOR / CAST IRON PLANT 1 GAL. MODERATE BERBERIS EURYBRACTEATA 'SOFT CARESS' / SOFT CARESS MAHONIA 5 GAL. LOW CAREX DIVULSA / EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE 1 GAL. LOW CHONDROPETALUM ELEPHANTINUM / LARGE CAPE RUSH 1 GAL. MODERATE DAPHNE ODORA / WINTER DAPHNE 1 GAL. MODERATE DIANELLA CAERULEA 'DCNC0' / BECCA™ FLAX LILY 1 GAL. MODERATE DIANELLA TASMANICA 'VARIEGATA' / VARIEGATED FLAX LILY 1 GAL. MODERATE LIRIOPE MUSCARI 'MAJESTIC' / MAJESTIC LILYTURF 1 GAL. MODERATE PHILODENDRON X 'DANADU' / DANADU CUT-LEAF PHILODENDRON 1 GAL. MODERATE PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM 'SILVER SHEEN' / SILVER SHEEN TAWHIWHI 1 GAL. MODERATE PYRROSIA X 'MONBRTS' / JURASSIC™ BRONTOSAURUS TONGUE FERN 1 GAL. MODERATE SARCOCOCCA HOOKERIANA HUMILIS / TRAILING SWEETBOX 1 GAL. LOW SARCOCOCCA RUSCIFOLIA / FRAGRANT SWEETBOX 5 GAL. LOW VIBURNUM AWABUKI 'CHINDO' / CHINDO SWEET VIBURNUM 1 GAL. MODERATE WOODWARDIA FIMBRIATA / GIANT CHAIN FERN 1 GAL. MODERATE SUCCULENTS 61 SF AGAVE ATTENUATA / FOXTAIL AGAVE 5 GAL. LOW AGAVE BRACTEOSA 'CALAMAR' / CALAMAR SPIDER AGAVE 1 GAL. LOW AGAVE VILMORINIANA / OCTOPUS AGAVE 5 GAL. LOW ALOE X 'LEO 3711' / SUPER RED® ALOE 1 GAL. LOW BULBINE FRUTESCENS 'ORANGE' / ORANGE BULBINE 1 GAL. LOW DASYLIRION WHEELERI / GREY DESERT SPOON 5 GAL. LOW HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA 'PERPA' / BRAKELIGHTS® RED YUCCA 1 GAL. LOW SENECIO TALINOIDES MANDRALISCAE / BLUE CHALK STICKS 1 GAL. LOW YUCCA GLORIOSA TRISTIS 'WALBRISTAR' / BRIGHT STAR SOFT LEAF YUCCA 1 GAL. LOW YUCCA ROSTRATA / BEAKED YUCCA 5 GAL. LOW X MANGAVE X 'NAVAJO PRINCESS' / NAVAJO PRINCESS MANGAVE 1 GAL. LOW OTHER 70 SF VEGETABLE PLANTERS SPECIES TBD PER OWNER N/A N/A 1. SEE SHEETS L-151A AND L-151B FOR PLANTING NOTES. NOTES SYMBOL SPECIES QTY SIZE WUCOLS PROJECT NORTHNORTH DATE SCALE DRAWN: WP/NV w w w . a r c h s f . c o m t: 415. 318.8634 1898 mission street san francisco, ca 94103 11/03/2025 715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401 DESIGN REVIEWCHECKED: JB NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 350 SE Mill Street Suite 02 Portland, OR 97214 0SCALE 1"=10' 5 10 20 30 50FT 08-31-26 11-04-25L-152 PLANTING PLAN LEVEL 2 744 of 833 VEGETABLE PLANTERS, SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREA, TYP. TREE SCHEDULE SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QTY CALIPER WUCOLS TREES ARB MRN ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE STANDARD 3 24" BOX LOW CIT OWA CITRUS RETICULATA 'OWARI' OWARI SATSUMA MANDARIN ORANGE 1 24" BOX MODERATE CIT OXM CITRUS X MEYERI DWARF DWARF MEYER LEMON 2 24" BOX MODERATE PLANT SCHEDULE : LEVEL 6 SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, & GROUNDCOVERS SYMBOL SPECIES QTY SIZE WUCOLS FULL SUN : SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, & GROUNDCOVERS 288 SF ACACIA COGNATA 'ACCOG01' / COUSIN ITT LITTLE RIVER WATTLE 5 GAL. LOW ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM / COMMON YARROW 1 GAL. LOW ANIGOZANTHOS X 'YELLOW GEM' / YELLOW GEM KANGAROO PAW 1 GAL. LOW ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA 'HOWARD MCMINN' / HOWARD MCMINN VINE HILL MANZANITA 1 GAL. LOW ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI / KINNIKINNICK 1 GAL. LOW BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION' / BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA 1 GAL. LOW CEANOTHUS GLORIOSUS 'ANCHOR BAY' / ANCHOR BAY POINT REYES CEANOTHUS 1 GAL. LOW CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS 'DIAMOND HEIGHTS' / DIAMOND HEIGHTS CARMEL CREEPER 1 GAL. LOW DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'DR5000' / LITTLE REV™ FLAX LILY 1 GAL. MODERATE DIETES X 'NOLA ALBA' / KATRINA® AFRICAN IRIS 1 GAL. LOW ELEGIA ELEPHANTINA / LARGE CAPE RUSH 1 GAL. LOW EUPHORBIA CHARACIAS WULFENII / EVERGREEN SPURGE 1 GAL. LOW FESTUCA GLAUCA 'ELIJAH BLUE' / ELIJAH BLUE FESCUE 1 GAL. LOW FESTUCA MAIREI / ATLAS FESCUE 1 GAL. LOW GREVILLEA LANIGERA / WOOLY GREVILLEA 1 GAL. LOW GREVILLEA X 'NOELLII' / NOEL GREVILLEA 1 GAL. LOW LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS / PURPLE TRAILING LANTANA 1 GAL. LOW LANTANA X 'NEW GOLD' / NEW GOLD LANTANA 1 GAL. LOW LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'LM300' / BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL. LOW OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA' / LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 1 GAL. LOW PEROVSKIA ATRIPLICIFOLIA 'LISSLITT' / LACEY BLUE RUSSIAN SAGE 1 GAL. LOW SALVIA CHAMAEDRYOIDES / GERMANDER SAGE 1 GAL. LOW SALVIA CLEVELANDII 'WINNIFRED GILMAN' / WINNIFRED GILMAN CLEVELAND SAGE 1 GAL. LOW SALVIA LEUCANTHA 'SANTA BARBARA' / SANTA BARBARA MEXICAN BUSH SAGE 1 GAL. LOW SANTOLINA CHAMAECYPARISSUS / LAVENDER COTTON 1 GAL. LOW STRELITZIA REGINAE / BIRD OF PARADISE 5 GAL. MODERATE WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'WES06' / LOW HORIZON™ COAST ROSEMARY 1 GAL. LOW SHADE : SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, & GROUNDCOVERS 350 SF ASPARAGUS DENSIFLORUS 'MYERS' / MYERS ASPARAGUS FERN 1 GAL. MODERATE ASPIDISTRA ELATIOR / CAST IRON PLANT 1 GAL. MODERATE BERBERIS EURYBRACTEATA 'SOFT CARESS' / SOFT CARESS MAHONIA 5 GAL. LOW CAREX DIVULSA / EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE 1 GAL. LOW CHONDROPETALUM ELEPHANTINUM / LARGE CAPE RUSH 1 GAL. MODERATE DAPHNE ODORA / WINTER DAPHNE 1 GAL. MODERATE DIANELLA CAERULEA 'DCNC0' / BECCA™ FLAX LILY 1 GAL. MODERATE DIANELLA TASMANICA 'VARIEGATA' / VARIEGATED FLAX LILY 1 GAL. MODERATE LIRIOPE MUSCARI 'MAJESTIC' / MAJESTIC LILYTURF 1 GAL. MODERATE PHILODENDRON X 'DANADU' / DANADU CUT-LEAF PHILODENDRON 1 GAL. MODERATE PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM 'SILVER SHEEN' / SILVER SHEEN TAWHIWHI 1 GAL. MODERATE PYRROSIA X 'MONBRTS' / JURASSIC™ BRONTOSAURUS TONGUE FERN 1 GAL. MODERATE SARCOCOCCA HOOKERIANA HUMILIS / TRAILING SWEETBOX 1 GAL. LOW SARCOCOCCA RUSCIFOLIA / FRAGRANT SWEETBOX 5 GAL. LOW VIBURNUM AWABUKI 'CHINDO' / CHINDO SWEET VIBURNUM 1 GAL. MODERATE WOODWARDIA FIMBRIATA / GIANT CHAIN FERN 1 GAL. MODERATE SUCCULENTS 19 SF AGAVE ATTENUATA / FOXTAIL AGAVE 5 GAL. LOW AGAVE BRACTEOSA 'CALAMAR' / CALAMAR SPIDER AGAVE 1 GAL. LOW AGAVE VILMORINIANA / OCTOPUS AGAVE 5 GAL. LOW ALOE X 'LEO 3711' / SUPER RED® ALOE 1 GAL. LOW BULBINE FRUTESCENS 'ORANGE' / ORANGE BULBINE 1 GAL. LOW DASYLIRION WHEELERI / GREY DESERT SPOON 5 GAL. LOW HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA 'PERPA' / BRAKELIGHTS® RED YUCCA 1 GAL. LOW SENECIO TALINOIDES MANDRALISCAE / BLUE CHALK STICKS 1 GAL. LOW YUCCA GLORIOSA TRISTIS 'WALBRISTAR' / BRIGHT STAR SOFT LEAF YUCCA 1 GAL. LOW YUCCA ROSTRATA / BEAKED YUCCA 5 GAL. LOW X MANGAVE X 'NAVAJO PRINCESS' / NAVAJO PRINCESS MANGAVE 1 GAL. LOW OTHER VEGETABLE PLANTERS SPECIES TBD PER OWNER 120 SF N/A N/A SYMBOL SPECIES QTY SIZE WUCOLS 1. SEE SHEETS L-151A AND L-151B FOR PLANTING NOTES. NOTES PROJECT NORTHNORTH DATE SCALE DRAWN: WP/NV w w w . a r c h s f . c o m t: 415. 318.8634 1898 mission street san francisco, ca 94103 11/03/2025 715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401 DESIGN REVIEWCHECKED: JB NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 350 SE Mill Street Suite 02 Portland, OR 97214 0SCALE 1"=10' 5 10 20 30 50FT 08-31-26 11-04-25L-156 PLANTING PLAN LEVEL 6 745 of 833

N SAN MATEO

STREET TREES
Silver Oak (Quercus hypoleucoides)
Expected Height: 35’-60’
Expected Width: 20’-40’

TREE ALTERNATES
London Planetree (Platanus acerifolia)
Expected Height: 60’-70’
Expected Width: 60’-70’
Chinese Pistache (Pistacia chinensis ‘Keith Davey’)
Expected Height: 30’-50’
Expected Width: 30’-45’
746 of 833

N SAN MATEO

STREET TREES

STREETSCAPE STANDARD TREE
Pink Trumpet Tree (Handroanthus heptaphyllus)
Expected Height: 25’-35’
Expected Width: 25’-40’
747 of 833

RAMP DN V V V V CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR
ELEV 1
202 SF
FIRE

COMMAND
536 SF

MAIL/PACKAGE
1046 SF
LOBBY
921 SF

COWORKING
816 SF

ND/LEASING
25002 SF
ELEV 2 PARKING
1574 SF

BIKE PARKING
946 SF

TRASH ROOM
175 SF
MUDDY
PAWS
250 SF

POOL EQUIPMENT
1086 SF

MAINTENANCE
656 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C4
668 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
838 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UC
942 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
954 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
773 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
753 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
735 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
741 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1427 SF
2 BEDROOMTYPE: 2G
667 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA614 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1237 SF
2 BEDROOMTYPE: 2D
66 SF
IDF
STAIR 2
STAIR 1

N SAN MATEO

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE
533 SFSTUDIO
TYPE: SB

DN DN DN
DN
DN

RESIDENTIAL ENTRY

AUTO ENTRY AND EXIT
334' - 0" - OVERALL BUILDING WIDTH @ N. 1ST FLOOR
0' - 3" TO PL 162' - 10" - OVERALL BUILDING DEPTH @ 1ST FLOOR 2' - 0" TO PL ELECTRIC 89' - 3" 19' - 11" 82' - 3"
158' - 0" 4' - 6"
148' - 10" 178' - 0" 4' - 0"
3' - 2" TO PL 330' - 11" 0' - 3" TO PL
30' - 8" 5' - 9" 23' - 2" 72' - 11"
16' - 0"
TO PL
118' - 7" 12' - 0" TO PL

CORRIDOR
DN
DN DN DN DN 196 BIKES TRANSFORMER
TO PL
2' - 0"
MPOE
TO PL
5' - 0"
DERO BIKE FILE (36)
DERO DUPLEX (82)
DERO DECKER (70) DERO SWERVE
RACK (8)
1' - 6 1/2"
1' - 6 1/2"
TREE 18 - 6x

ESTIMATED DBH
TREE 20 - 10x

ESTIMATED DBH
DN
1303 SF

ELECTRICELECTRIC

SWITCH GEARSWITCH GEAR
15'-6" 10'-0" 30'-0"
1 1
21'-1"
23'-0"
38'-1"
23'-0"
45'-10"
220'-5"
94'-5"
109'-3"
8'-10" 9'-6" 47'-6"

KNOX BOXLOCATION(PV

OVERRIDE)
34'-5" 7'-0"
48'-4"
16'-9"
22'-10"
68'-6"
19'-0" 13'-0"
11'-10"
13'-0" 7'-9"
18'-5"
37'-1"
2 ELEC METER BANKS

ON EXT WALLS
21' - 5"
13' - 11"
9' - 4"
0' - 3" 1' - 6 1/2" 2' - 11"
6' - 0" TO PL STOOP, TYP.TO PL 7"
3' - 3" TO PL
8' - 1" TO PL
4' - 11" TO PL
TO PL
7"
TO PL
4' - 3"
2' - 2" TO PL
TO PL
3' - 2"
TO PL
2' - 4"
193 SF

RESTROOMS
2' - 0"
TO PL

TOOL LOCKER
4' - 0" 2' - 0"
3/4" / 1'-0" 1/8" / 1'-0" 3/8" / 1'-0"

SECURITY LIGHTING AND SECURITY GRILLESURVEILLANCE CAMERS TO BE

INSTALLED THROUGOUT

PARKING GARAGE FOR PARKING LAYOUT
REFER TO SHEET PK 2.01
ø 40"
ø 16"
4' - 0" 3' - 2"
7' - 0"
1' - 6" 1' - 6"
1' - 6"
R 21' - 8"
R 11' - 8"
HOT/COLDHOSE BIB, SEE NOTE 11
F.D
3CY LOOSE THRU
WALL

RECYCLE
3CY LOOSE
WASTE
3CY LOOSE

THRU - WALL
WASTE
6'-8"
3'-6"
6'-6"
3'-11"
AIR COMPRESSOR, WALL MOUNTEDSEE NOTE 9
SERVICE OUTLET,SEE NOTE 9
4'-11"
3'-2"3'-6"
14'-0" ROLL-UP DOOR
29'-4"
CHUTE MASTERCONTROL, SEE NOTE 8
120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET. (TYP)
3'-4" WIDE
NFPA

COMPLIANT
EGRESS
DOOR
RW
UNDEDICATED 120V 15ASERVICE OUTLET. (TYP)
120V 15A SERVICEOUTLET. (TYP), SEE NOTE, 10
ODOR CONTROL,SEE NOTE, 10
3CY LOOSE THRU
WALL

RECYCLE
3CY LOOSE THRU
WALL

RECYCLE
3CY LOOSE THRU
WALL

RECYCLE
3CY LOOSE

THRU - WALL
WASTE
2CY LOOSE

COMPOST
7'-1"

ADA FRONT APPROACH
(2) SELF CLOSING, 18 x 18 SH AUTOMATICOPENING DOOR, PER CBC

COMPOST
MT20 22" x 45.5" ELECTRICPALLET TRUCK
3'-0" ACCESS
DOOR
8'-3"
12'-2" 10'-3"
24'-4"

ADA FRONT APPROACH
3CY LOOSE

THRU - WALL
WASTE
25'-0"
7'-4"
SHEET NOTES:

TRASH ROUTE / STAGING PLAN. GROUND LEVEL.

1. STAFF TO MOVE BINS TO TRASH STAGING AREA WITH MT20 22" x 45.5" ELECTRIC PALLET TRUCK. GENERAL NOTES.1. ANY DESIGNS OR SOLUTIONS SHOWN IN DRAWING, EITHER DIRECT OR IMPLIED, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS FOR CONSTRUCTION. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE SUBMITTALPACKAGE FROM ARCHITECT.

2. ANY PARTIAL INFORMATION, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK SHOWN IN DRAWINGS, WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE SCOPE OF WORK, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES.

3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF ANY INCONSISTENCIES AND/OR DISCREPANCIES.

PATH OF TRAVEL LEGEND.

STAFF PATH OF TRAVEL FROM RESIDENTIAL TRASH ROOM TO
TRASH STAGING AREA.

PROJECTNORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103
PK, DU

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

11.07.2025
3/32" = 1'-0"
TR0.1
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403

TRASH ROUTE/STAGING
PLAN 1 LEVEL1
1/16" = 1'-0"
TRASH ROUTE /SERVICE PLAN - LEVEL 1

TRASH COLLECTION ROOM

FL TRUCK SERVICE

HAULER TO TO PULL/ADJUST BINS FROM STAGING TO
TRUCK FOR SERVICE.
748 of 833
2'-1"
MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATIONPADS (4) TOTAL AT EA FLOOR

SUPPORT FRAME
(2) 30"Ø GALV. STEEL CHUTES
A36 L112" x 112" x 14 x SQUARE

FLOOR SUPPORT FRAMES
(2)15x18 B.H. INTAKE
DOORS, SEE NOTE 17
Ø5'-0" ADA
4'-11" 2'-0" 2'-0"
1'-10" 5'-9"
8'-11"
3'-0"
946 SF

TRASH ROOM
21'-1"
23'-0"
38'-1"
23'-0"
0' - 3"
HOT/COLDHOSE BIB, SEE NOTE 11
F.D
3CY LOOSE THRU
WALL

RECYCLE
3CY LOOSE
WASTE
3CY LOOSE

THRU - WALL
WASTE
6'-8"
3'-6"
6'-6"
3'-11"

AIR COMPRESSOR, WALL MOUNTED
SEE NOTE 9
SERVICE OUTLET,SEE NOTE 9
4'-11"
3'-2"3'-6"
14'-0" ROLL-UP DOOR
29'-4"
CHUTE MASTERCONTROL, SEE NOTE 8
120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET. (TYP)
3'-4" WIDE
NFPA

COMPLIANT
EGRESS
DOOR
R
W
UNDEDICATED 120V 15A
SERVICE OUTLET. (TYP)
120V 15A SERVICE
OUTLET. (TYP), SEE NOTE, 10
ODOR CONTROL,SEE NOTE, 10
3CY LOOSE THRU
WALL

RECYCLE
3CY LOOSE THRU
WALL

RECYCLE
3CY LOOSE THRU
WALL

RECYCLE
3CY LOOSE

THRU - WALL
WASTE
2CY LOOSE

COMPOST
7'-1"

ADA FRONT APPROACH
(2) SELF CLOSING, 18 x 18 SH AUTOMATICOPENING DOOR, PER CBC

COMPOST
MT20 22" x 45.5" ELECTRICPALLET TRUCK
3'-0" ACCESS
DOOR
8'-3"
12'-2" 10'-3"
24'-4"

ADA FRONT APPROACH
3CY LOOSE

THRU - WALL
WASTE
6'-0"
3'-11
2'-10"14" 3'-6"
2'-10"
2'-914"
3'-1" 1'-5"
3'-1012" 6'-818"
4'-6"
3'-1"
3'-4"
3'-10"
4'-6" STS-3FL-FD-E

CHUTE FED HAND FED
SHEET NOTES:

RESIDENTIAL TRASH ROOM. LEVEL X.

1. TRASH COLLECTION ROOM IS 2HR FIRE-RATED - RESTRICTED ACCESS.

2. FLOOR SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WATERPROOF DECK COATING. FLOOR TO HAVE MINIMAL SLOPE (1° MAX) AND FLOOR DRAIN. FLOOR LEVEL UNDER COMPACTORS.

3. WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH WASHABLE WATERPROOF SURFACE SUCH AS FRP OR HIGH-GLOSS ENAMEL PAINT 8'-0" AFF.

4. WALL PROTECTION: OPTION 1: 12"Hx6"W CONCRETE CURB AT BASE OF ALL NON- REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS.

OPTION 2: 18" THICK STEEL DIAMOND TREAD BACKING 6'-0" AFF ALONG ALL NON-REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS.

ARCHITECT TO SELECT SUITABLE ASSEMBLY.

5. ROOM SHALL BE MECHANICALLY VENTILATED WITH (1) CFM/SF PER 2022 CBC.6. INSTALL 8'-0" WIDE ROLL-UP DOOR FOR TRANSFERRING CONTAINERS. INSTALL 3'-0" NFPA COMPLIANT DOOR FOR FIRE EGRESS.

7. (2) 30"Ø 16-GAUGE GALVANIZED / GALVANNEALED OR ALUMINIZED STEEL CHUTE WITH 3CY FL LOOSE THRU-WALL CONTAINER FOR WASTE AND RECYCLING. CHUTES TERMINATE 6'-0" AFF.

8. MCP: CHUTE MASTER CONTROL PANEL (1 PER CHUTE) SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF. MUST ALLOW LOCK DOWN OF CHUTE INTAKES FOR EXCHANGING CONTAINERS AND WASHING CHUTES. 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET REQUIRED.

9. AC: AIR COMPRESSOR (OIL LESS) 4610AC WITH AUTOMATIC TANK DRAIN VALVE. 2 HP PEAK, TWIN TANK CAPACITY 4.6 GALLONS, VOLTAGE @ 60 HZ 110 VOLTS, CURRENT 8.5 AMPS TO POWER THE CHUTE INTAKE DOORS. (1) TOTAL.

10. OC: ODOR CONTROL UNIT SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF. 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET REQUIRED.11. HB: HOT AND COLD HOSE BIBB SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF.12. PROVIDE MT20 22" x 45.5" ELECTRIC PALLET TRUCK FOR TRANSFERRING CONTAINERS. 4500LB CAPACITY WITH 67" TURNING RADIUS. 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET REQUIRED.

13. PROVIDE (1) UNDEDICATED 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET REQUIRED FOR STAFF MAINTENANCE PURPOSE.14. TYPE-A, B-LABEL CONSTRUCTION, HORIZONTALLY ROLLING DOOR, HELD OPEN BY 165°F FUSIBLE LINK, SHOWN IN CLOSED POSITION.

19. THRU-WALL INTAKE VESTIBULE FOR GROUND LEVEL RESIDENTIAL TRASH. 2HR FIRE-RATED WITH 2HR FIRE-RATED DOOR. **NOTE THAT WHERE CHUTE INTAKE ROOMS ARE PROTECTED BY AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS, THE ROOM SHALL BE ENCLOSED IN A MIN OF 1HR FIRE RESISTANCE-RATED CONSTRUCTION WITH 45-MINUTE FIRE-RATED ACCESS DOORS**. 5'-0" MIN DIAMETER WHEELCHAIR TURNING SPACE REQUIRED PER ADA. PROVIDE (2) 18x18 SIDE HINGED, SELF CLOSING, AUTOMATIC OPENING THRU-WALL DOORS. SEE DETAIL 1/TR2.0. PROVIDE WALL-MOUNTED AIR-COMPRESSOR 60" AFF (OIL LESS) 4610AC WITH AUTOMATIC TANK DRAIN VALVE. 2 HP PEAK, TWIN TANK CAPACITY

4.6 GALLONS, VOLTAGE @ 60 HZ 110 VOLTS, CURRENT 8.5 AMPS TO POWER THE CHUTE INTAKE DOORS. (1) TOTAL.

CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES. SIM AT LEVELS 2-5.

20. CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES SHALL BE 2HR FIRE-RATED WITH 90-MINUTE FIRE-RATED ACCESS DOOR FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCESS. **NOTE THAT WHERE CHUTE INTAKE ROOMS ARE PROTECTED BY AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS, THE ROOM SHALL BE ENCLOSED IN A MIN OF 1HR FIRE RESISTANCE-RATED CONSTRUCTION WITH 45-MINUTE FIRE-RATED ACCESS DOORS**. 5'-0" MIN DIAMETER WHEELCHAIR TURNING SPACE REQUIRED PER ADAREQUIREMENTS. POWER TO INTAKE DOORS SUPPLIED BY MCP. PROVIDE (X) 15x18 BOTTOM HINGED, LOW-VOLTAGE,ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED, AUTOMATIC OPENING DOOR AT EACH FLOOR. SEE DETAIL 2/TR2.0. 30" x 48" FRONT / SIDE APPROACH REQUIRED PER ADA STANDARDS.

21. MANAGEMENT TO PROVIDE 23-GALLON 'RUBBERMAID SLIM JIM' CONTAINER OR EQUIVALENT FOR COMPOST DISPOSAL. STAFF TO EMPTY IN CONTAINERS DAILY AT TRASH ROOM.

22. 2HR FIRE-RATED FACE WALL SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. FOR SOUND PROOFING PURPOSES, ATM RECOMMENDS DOUBLE STUD-WALLS OR EQUIVALENT ADJACENT TO OCCUPIED SPACES. ATMRECOMMENDS INTERIOR OF SHAFT TO BE TAPED TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKING INTO OCCUPIED SPACES.

ARCHITECT TO SELECT SUITABLE ASSEMBLY.

23. PROVIDE ROUND FLOOR OPENINGS AT CONCRETE FLOORS AND OCTAGONAL FLOOR OPENINGS AT WOOD-FRAME CONSTRUCTION. SEE PLAN FOR DIAMETER OF OPENINGS. INSTALL FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME AT EACH FLOOR PENETRATION TO SECURE CHUTE. SEE DETAIL 9/TR2.0 FOR ANCHORING.

GENERAL NOTES.

1. ANY DESIGNS OR SOLUTIONS SHOWN IN DRAWING, EITHER DIRECT OR IMPLIED, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS FOR CONSTRUCTION. THESE DRAWINGS AREINTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE FROM ARCHITECT.

2. ANY PARTIAL INFORMATION, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK SHOWN IN DRAWINGS, WHICH

ARE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE SCOPE OF WORK, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES.

3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF ANY INCONSISTENCIES AND/OR DISCREPANCIES.

PROJECTED COLLECTION SCHEDULE
WASTE

COMPOST
SERVICE: CONTAINER VOL / TYPE: FREQUENCY:
(3) 3CY FL LOOSE CONTAINER 3x/wk(1)2CY FL CONTAINERS 2x/wk RECYCLING (3) 3CY FL LOOSE CONTAINERS 3x/wk

PROJECTNORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103
PK, DU

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

11.07.2025
3/32" = 1'-0"
TR1.0
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
1/2" = 1'-0" 2403
TRASH COLLECTION AREA - LEVEL 1
1/2" = 1'-0"
CHUTE VESTIBULE LEVEL 2-6
1/2" = 1'-0"

SECTIONS

TRASH COLLECTIONAREA & CHUTE

VESTIBULE
749 of 833
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
As indicated
G 0.02
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2
(N) SITE PLAN OVERSATELLITE IMAGE
1/64" = 1'-0"
SITE PLAN OF 715 N SAN MATEO DR. OVER SATELLITE IMAGE

N SAN MATEO DR

VILLA TERRACE

STATE ST

HIGHLAND AVE
NORTH
750 of 833

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

SAN MATEO DRIVE

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

PROJECTNORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
G 0.03
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

SHADOW STUDIES - OVERALL
1 WINTER SOLSTICE - 9AM 2 WINTER SOLSTICE - 11AM 3 WINTER SOLSTICE - 1PM 4 WINTER SOLSTICE - 3PM 5 WINTER SOLSTICE - 5PM6 SPRING/FALL EQUINOX - 9AM 7 SPRING/FALL EQUINOX - 11AM 8 SPRING/FALL EQUINOX - 1PM 9 SPRING/FALL EQUINOX - 3PM 10 SPRING/FALL EQUINOX - 5PM 11 SUMMER SOLSTICE - 9AM 12 SUMMER SOLSTICE - 11AM 13 SUMMER SOLSTICE - 1PM 14 SUMMER SOLSTICE - 3PM 15 SUMMER SOLSTICE - 5PM 751 of 833
1 7 3 8
10 8
2 5
7 2 6 3
2 3 1 6
5 10 8 2 6 8 1
1 STUCCO 2 THIN BRICK CLADDING 3 4 WOOD APPEARANCE CLADDING6 STUCCO 7 THIN BRICK CLADDING GALVANIZED & PAINTED STEEL

RAILINGS
8 BIRD-SAFE GLASS

RAILING/WINDSCREEN
9 5 VINYL RESIDENTIAL WINDOW &

DOOR SYSTEMS
10 COMMERCIAL GARAGE DOORS

COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT SYSTEMS
3 7
5 8
1 6
10 8
4 6 2 8
3 10 1 6 2
9 9
4 2 1
8 7 5
9 3 6
6 7 6
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
As indicated
G 0.06
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

MATERIAL PALETTE
3/64" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION - MATERIAL PALETTE
3/64" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION - COURTYARD - MATERIAL PALETTE
3/64" = 1'-0"

SOUTH ELEVATION - MATERIAL PALETTE
3/64" = 1'-0"

NORTH ELEVATION - MATERIAL PALETTE

ALL MATERIALS AND FINISHES ARE SUBJECT TO SUBSTITUTION WITH SIMILAR DUE TO COST AND AVAILABILITY AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. 752 of 833
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
G 0.07
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

MATERIAL PALETTE
WOOD APPEARANCE CLADDINGMILLBOARD - SHADOW LINE+ - GOLDEN OAK 3

THIN BRICK CLADDING
H.C. MUDDOX - TULE FOG, WIRE CUT 2

THIN BRICK CLADDING
H.C. MUDDOX - EBONY, WIRE CUT 7
STUCCOTO MATCH: SHERWIN WILLIAMS - SHOJI WHITE, SW 7042 1 STUCCO
TO MATCH: SHERWIN WILLIAMS - GAUNTLET GRAY, SW 7019 6
PAINTED STEEL RAILINGS TO MATCH: SHERWIN WILLIAMS - TRICORN BLACK, SW 6258 5 8
10 ALL MATERIALS AND FINISHES ARE SUBJECT TO SUBSTITUTION WITH SIMILAR DUE TO COST AND AVAILABILITY AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.

RESIDENTIAL WINDOW/DOOR SYSTEMSVPI QUALITY WINDOWS - BLACKCOMMERCIAL STOREFRONT SYSTEMSVPI QUALITY WINDOWS - BLACK 753 of 833

CORNICE

METAL AWNING

CORNICE

OVERHANG

RECESSED ROOM
5 UNITS

RECESSED ROOM
5 UNITS

RECESSED ROOM
5 UNITS

RECESSED ROOM
5 UNITS

RECESSED ROOM
5 UNITS

RECESSED ROOMS
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOM
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOM
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOM
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOM
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOMS
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOMS
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOM
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOM
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOM
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOM
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOM
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOM
5 UNITS

RECESSED ROOM
5 UNITS
2' - 0" TYP. CORNICE

OVERHANG
N SAN MATEO (EAST) FACADE80 TOTAL UNITS 48 UNITS WITH RECESSED ROOM/ROOMS 60% OF UNITS WITH RECESSED ROOM/ROOMS

RECESSED ROOM
1 UNIT

CORNICE

OVERHANG

RECESSED ROOM
5 UNITS

RECESSED ROOMS
3 UNITS

RECESSED ROOMS
1 UNIT
STATE ST (NORTH) FACADE18 TOTAL UNITS 9 UNITS WITH RECESSED ROOM/ROOM 50% OF UNITS WITH RECESSED ROOM/ROOMS

CORNICE

AWNING OVERHANG
VILLA TERRACE(SOUTH) FACADE13 TOTAL UNITS 5 UNITS WITH RECESSED ROOM/ROOMS 38.5% OF UNITS WITH RECESSED ROOM/ROOMS

RECESSED ROOMS
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOMS
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOM
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOM
1 UNIT

RECESSED ROOM
1 UNIT

4.1.2 ARTICULATION DETAILSCITY OF SAN MATEO | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS SUMMARY - % OF UNITS WITH RECESSED ROOMSN SAN MATEO (EAST) FACADE60% / 48 UNITSVILLA TERRACE (SOUTH) FACADE38.5% / 5 UNITSSTATE ST (NORTH) FACADE50% / 9 UNITSLEGEND A. ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTSIONS NOTED IN PURPLE

RECESSED ROOMUNIT DEMISING WALL
E. RECESSED ROOMS NOTED IN ELEVATION AND TYP. FLOOR PLANS:
5' - 2" RECESS TYP.

RECESSED BEDROOM

RECESSED BEDROOM

RECESSED BEDROOM

RECESSED BEDROOM RECESSED

BEDROOM

RECESSED BEDROOM RECESSED

BEDROOM
2' - 0"
4' - 8"

RECESSED BEDROOM RECESSED KITCHEN/LIVING/DINING
RECESSED 4' - 8" BEDROOM
3' - 11"
6' - 0" RECESS TYP.

RECESSED LIVING ROOM

RECESSED LIVING ROOM

RECESSED LIVING ROOM

RECESSED LIVING ROOM

RECESSED LIVING ROOM

RECESSED BEDROOM

RECESSED LIVING ROOM

RECESSED BEDROOM

RECESSED LIVING ROOM RECESSED

LIVING ROOM
1' - 9"

RECESSED

KITCHEN/LIVING/
DINING

RECESSED

KITCHEN/LIVING/
DINING

METAL AWNING ABOVE
7' - 10"

OVERHANG ABOVE

OVERHANG ABOVE
4' - 10"

4.1.3 BUILDING MATERIALS & COLORCITY OF SAN MATEO | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS LEGEND

CREAM STUCCOGREY STUCCOCREAM THIN BRICK CLADDINGGREY THIN BRICK CLADDINGWOOD APPEARANCE CLADDING

REVEAL AT MATERIAL
CHANGE TYP.

BANDING AT MATERIAL CHANGE

PLANE CHANGE AT

MATERIAL CHANGE
TYP.

CREAM STUCCO
42% OF EAST FACADE

GREY STUCCO
17% OF EAST FACADE

WOOD-LOOK SIDING
10% OF EAST FACADE

CREAM BRICK
14% OF EAST FACADE

GREY BRICK
17% OF EAST FACADE

PLANE CHANGE AT

MATERIAL CHANGE,
TYP.
3' - 6"
TYP.

BLACK PAINTED STEEL
RAILINGS, TYP.

SLATS TO BE AT LEAST
50% VISUALLY OPEN
BLACK PAINTED STEEL RAILINGS, TYP.

SLATS TO BE AT LEAST 50% VISUALLY OPEN
3' - 6"
TYP.

REVEAL AT MATERIAL CHANGE TYP.

BANDING AT

MATERIAL CHANGE

PLANE CHANGE AT MATERIAL CHANGE

CREAM STUCCO
44% OF NORTH FACADE

GREY STUCCO
CREAM BRICK 21% OF NORTH FACADE
21% OF NORTH FACADE

GREY BRICK
14% OF NORTH FACADE

PLANE CHANGE AT MATERIAL CHANGE

REVEAL AT MATERIAL
CHANGE TYP.

BANDING AT MATERIAL CHANGE

PLANE CHANGE AT

MATERIAL CHANGE
TYP.

CREAM STUCCO
42% OF SOUTH FACADE

GREY STUCCO
24% OF SOUTH FACADE

WOOD-LOOK SIDING
10% OF SOUTH FACADE

CREAM BRICK
24% OF SOUTH FACADE

4.1.6 MASSING BREAKS -MID-RISE BUILDINGSCITY OF SAN MATEO | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS LEGEND3. SPECIAL TREATMENTS AT BUILDING CORNER NOTED IN PURPLE

N SAN MATEO DR

VILLA TERRACE

MATERIAL CHANGE

MATERIAL
CHANGE
RECESS

BANDING DETAIL

BANDING
DETAIL

RECESSED
CORNER

BALCONIES

STATE ST N SAN MATEO DR

MATERIAL
CHANGE
RECESS

MATERIAL CHANGE

BANDING DETAIL

RECESSED CORNER BALCONIES
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
As indicated
G 0.08
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

ODS DIAGRAMS
1" = 20'-0"

N SAN MATEO (EAST) ELEVATION - RECESSED ROOMS
1" = 20'-0"

STATE ST (NORTH) ELEVATION - RECESSED ROOMS
1" = 20'-0"

VILLA TERRACE (SOUTH) ELEVATION - RECESSED ROOMS
1" = 20'-0"

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN - EAST ELEVATION
1" = 20'-0"
1ST FLOOR PLAN - EAST ELEVATION
1" = 30'-0"

N SAN MATEO (EAST) ELEVATION - MATERIAL & COLOR
1" = 30'-0"

STATE ST (NORTH) ELEVATION - MATERIAL & COLOR
1" = 30'-0"

VILLA TERRACE (SOUTH) ELEVATION - MATERIAL AND COLOR

VILLA TERRACE & N SAN MATEO DR - NE AXONSTATE ST & N SAN MATEO DR - NW AXON 754 of 833

4.1.6 MASSING BREAKS -
MID-RISE BUILDINGSCITY OF SAN MATEO | OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS SUMMARY N SAN MATEO (EAST) FACADE10 MAIN SEGMENTS OVER 337' - 5"33'- 9" AVERAGE MAIN SEGMENT LENGTHVILLA TERRACE (SOUTH) FACADE6 MAIN SEGMENTS OVER 122' - 2"20'- 4" AVERAGE MAIN SEGMENT LENGTHSTATE ST (NORTH) FACADE5 MAIN SEGMENTS OVER 136' - 8"26'- 9" AVERAGE MAIN SEGMENT LENGTHLEGEND MAIN BUILDING SEGMENTBUILDING SUBSEGMENT*DUE TO THE LENGTH OF EAST FACADE (337' - 5") SUBSEGMENTS ARE INTRODUCED TO FURTHER ARTICULATE MAIN BUILDING SEGMENTS

SEGMENT C
57' - 0"
VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT A TO BMATERIAL CHANGEEXCLUSION OF BANDING4'-0" WALL OFFSET 9'-6" HEIGHT CHANGE

SEGMENT D
50' - 1"

SEGMENT E
82' - 3"

OVERALL BUILDING WIDTH
337' - 5"

SEGMENT G
46' - 9"

SEGMENT F
20' - 0"
VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT C TO DMATERIAL CHANGEEXCLUSION OF BANDING1'-2" WALL OFFSET 9'-6" HEIGHT CHANGE 2' - 0"
VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT D TO EMATERIAL CHANGECHANGE TO CORNICE3'-2" WALL OFFSET 11'-0" HEIGHT CHANGE 3' - 6"
VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT E TO FMATERIAL CHANGEEXCLUSION OF CORNICE5'-1" WALL OFFSET 3'-6" HEIGHT CHANGE 3' - 6"
2' - 0"
VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT F TO GMATERIAL CHANGECHANGE TO CORNICE5'-1" WALL OFFSET 2'-0" HEIGHT CHANGE VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT G TO HMATERIAL CHANGEEXCLUSION OF CORNICE3'-11" WALL OFFSET 0'-6" HEIGHT CHANGE 6" 13' - 0"
9' - 6"
11' - 0"
2' - 0"
9' - 6"

SEGMENT A
35' - 10"

SEGMENT B
3' - 1"

SEGMENT H
7' - 5"

SEGMENT I
25' - 6"

SEGMENT J
9' - 8"

SUBSEGMENT A
9' - 0"

SUBSEGMENT B
9' - 0"

SUBSEGMENT C
7' - 10"

SUBSEGMENT D
9' - 0"

SUBSEGMENT E
9' - 0"

SUBSEGMENT F
9' - 0"

SUBSEGMENT G
35' - 10" 3' - 1" 10' - 5" 19' - 2" 9' - 5" 17' - 7" 24' - 9" 13' - 11" 14' - 1" 14' - 0" 13' - 3" 20' - 1" 13' - 2" 9' - 5" 24' - 0" 7' - 5" 25' - 6" 9' - 8" VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT B TO CMATERIAL CHANGECHANGE TO CORNICE2'-0" WALL OFFSET 2'-0" HEIGHT CHANGE VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT H TO IMATERIAL CHANGECHANGE TO SIMPLE BAND1'-9" WALL OFFSET 13'-0" HEIGHT CHANGE VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT I TO JMATERIAL CHANGEINCLUSION OF SIMPLE BAND1'-2" WALL OFFSET 3'-6" HEIGHT CHANGE 3' - 6"

PEDESTRIAN

ENTRANCE
1' - 2" 3' - 2" 1' - 9"
LINE OF WALL AT 6TH FLOOR
4' - 0"
LINE OF WALL AT 6TH FLOOR
5' - 8"
LINE OF WALL AT 6TH FLOOR
5' - 2" 1' - 0" 5' - 1" 5' - 1" 6' - 3"
10' - 5"
4' - 5" 5' - 2" 5' - 2" 5' - 2" 5' - 1"

WALL PLANE OFFSET,

MAIN SEGMENTS

WALL PLANE OFFSET,

SUBSEGMENTS
2' - 0" 3' - 11" 1' - 2"

SEGMENT C
35' - 0"

BUILDING SEGMENT D
30' - 9"

BUILDING SEGMENT E
34' - 3"

OVERALL BUILDING WIDTH
136' - 8"
VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT A TO BMATERIAL CHANGEEXCLUSION OF BANDING 2'-1" WALL OFFSET 9'-2" HEIGHT CHANGE 9' - 2"
VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT C TO DMATERIAL CHANGEEXCLUSION OF BANDING2'-10" WALL OFFSET 10'-6" HEIGHT CHANGE 10' - 6"
VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT D TO EMATERIAL CHANGECHANGE TO SIMPLE BANDING2'-10" WALL OFFSET 1'-0" HEIGHT CHANGE 1' - 0"

SEGMENT A
31' - 4"

SEGMENT B
5' - 5"

SUBSEGMENT A
31' - 4" 5' - 5" 1' - 5" 9' - 0" 24' - 7" 30' - 9" 34' - 3" VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT B TO CMATERIAL CHANGEINCLUSION OF BANDING 2'-1" WALL OFFSET 0'-6" HEIGHT CHANGE 6"

PEDESTRIAN

ENTRANCE
LINE OF WALL AT 6TH FLOOR
2' - 1" 2' - 10" 2' - 10" 5' - 7"
LINE OF WALL AT 6TH FLOOR
5' - 0"
16' - 8"
5' - 0" 2' - 1"

SEGMENT B
10' - 0"

SEGMENT C
30' - 0"

SEGMENT D
6' - 3"

SEGMENT E
35' - 8"

SUBSEGMENT A
40' - 4" 32' - 9" 10' - 0" 30' - 0" 6' - 3" 4' - 8" 16' - 1" 14' - 11"

BUILDING WIDTH
40' - 4"

BUILDING WIDTH
81' - 10"
VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT A TO BMATERIAL CHANGEINCLUSION OF SIMPLE BAND2'-1" WALL OFFSET 11'-0" HEIGHT CHANGE

SEGMENT A
40' - 4"
11' - 0"
VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT B TO CMATERIAL CHANGEINCLUSION OF SIMPLE BAND71'-10" WALL OFFSET 2'-0" HEIGHT CHANGE 2' - 0"
VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT C TO DMATERIAL CHANGEEXCLUSION OF SIMPLE BAND5'-0" WALL OFFSET 1'-6" HEIGHT CHANGE 1' - 6"
VARIATIONS:

SEGMENT D TO EMATERIAL CHANGEINCLUSION OF SIMPLE BAND8'-5" WALL OFFSET 7'-6" HEIGHT CHANGE 7' - 6"

PEDESTRIAN

ENTRANCE
5' - 0" 8' - 5" 1' - 0"
10' - 7"
71' - 10" 73' - 11"
LINE OF WALL AT 6TH FLOOR
8' - 5"
2' - 1"
326' - 10"
3-DIMENSIONAL PILASTERS FOR WALL PLANE VARIATION
21' - 5" 127' - 5" 178' - 0"
NOTE: REAR ELEVATION IS NOT A STREET FRONTAGE FACADE

TRAILING FLORA FOR VERTICAL WALL PLANE MASSING VARIATION 3-DIMENSIONAL

PILASTERS FOR WALL

PLANE VARIATION

TRAILING FLORA FOR

VERTICAL WALL PLANE

MASSING VARIATION
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
As indicated
G 0.09
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

ODS DIAGRAMS
1" = 20'-0"

N SAN MATEO (EAST) ELEVATION - FLAT PLANE VARIATION
1" = 20'-0"

STATE ST (NORTH) ELEVATION - FLAT PLANE VARIATION
1" = 20'-0"

VILLA TERRACE (SOUTH) ELEVATION - FLAT PLANE VARIATION
1" = 20'-0"

WEST (REAR) ELEVATION
755 of 833

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
ELEV 1
202 SF
FIRE

COMMAND
536 SF

MAIL/PACKAGE
1046 SF
LOBBY
921 SF

COWORKING
816 SF

ND/LEASING
25001 SF
ELEV 2 PARKING
1574 SF

BIKE PARKING
945 SF

TRASH ROOM
175 SF
MUDDY
PAWS
250 SF

POOL EQUIPMENT
1086 SF

MAINTENANCE
656 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C4
668 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
838 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UC
942 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
954 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
773 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
753 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
735 SFURBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
741 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1427 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2G
667 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA614 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1237 SF
2 BEDROOMTYPE: 2D
66 SF
IDF
STAIR 2
STAIR 1
533 SFSTUDIOTYPE: SB

ELECTRIC

CORRIDOR
MPOE
1325 SF

ELECTRICELECTRIC
193 SF

RESTROOMS

PROJECT
NORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401

DESIGN REVIEW
11/03/2025
20241881
BN
12-31-27
C4.0

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
756 of 833

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
ELEV 1
202 SF
FIRE

COMMAND
536 SF

MAIL/PACKAGE
1046 SF
LOBBY
921 SF

COWORKING
816 SF

ND/LEASING
25001 SF
ELEV 2 PARKING
1574 SF

BIKE PARKING
945 SF

TRASH ROOM
175 SF
MUDDY
PAWS
250 SF

POOL EQUIPMENT
1086 SF

MAINTENANCE
656 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C4
668 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
838 SFURBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UC
942 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
954 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
773 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
753 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
735 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
741 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1427 SF
2 BEDROOMTYPE: 2G
667 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
614 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1237 SF
2 BEDROOMTYPE: 2D
66 SF
IDF
STAIR 2
STAIR 1
533 SFSTUDIOTYPE: SB

ELECTRIC

CORRIDOR
MPOE
1325 SF

ELECTRICELECTRIC
193 SF

RESTROOMS

PROJECT
NORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401

DESIGN REVIEW
11/03/2025
20241881
BN
12-31-27
C6.0

PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
757 of 833
PARK SPACE SUMMARY SYM FACILITY TYPE AREA PROVIDED (SF) MAX ALLOWABLE AREA (SF) FINAL CALCULATED AREA NOTES OUTDOOR SEATING AREA 1,287 1267* 1267 See G0.04 and G0.05 for sun/shade studies. OUTDOOR EATING AREA 782 724* 724 See G0.04 and G0.05 for sun/shade studies. SWIMMING POOL AREA 3187 NONE 3187 POOL AREA=1288 SF RECREATIONAL BUILDING/ROOM 3547 NONE 3547 See architectural drawings. GARDEN PLOTS 877 2715* 877 See G0.04 and G0.05 for sun/shade studies. OUTDOOR TABLE TENNIS 187 3 TABLES 187 TOTAL 9789 *MAXIMUM AREAS BASED ON 181 UNITS MINIMUM PARK SPACE NEEDED: 8,233 sf PARK SPACE PROVIDED: 9,789 sf SWIMMING POOL AREA 1. POOL IS TOTALLY FENCED. 2. POOL DECK IS INCLUDED AT NO MORE THAN 2 X THE WATER SURFACE AREA. 3. ACTUAL POOL WATER DIMENSION IS NOT LESS THAN 15’ IN SMALLEST HORIZONTAL DIMENSION. POOL DECK INCLUDES THE SPA AREA. RECREATION BUILDING 1. SIZE INCLUDES HALLWAY, STORAGE, LOCKER AND RESTROOM FACILITIES THAT SERVE NO OTHER USE THAN RECREATION PURPOSES THAT TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE ROOM AT NO MORE THAN .5 X ACTUAL ACTIVITY SPACE. 2. ACTIVITY SPACE IS NOT LESS THAN 20’ IN SMALLEST DIMENSION AND AT LEAST 25% OR 250 SQUARE FEET OF THIS SPACE WHICHEVER IS GREATER IS PROVIDED WITH APPROVED EXERCISE EQUIPMENT. 3. SEE ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLANS FOR OVERALL RECREATION BUILDING SPACE LAYOUT AND ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES. OUTDOOR EATING AREA 1. AREA CONSISTS OF EATING TABLES INCLUDING SEATS, GRILLS, POTABLE WATER (SINKS) , TRASH/RECYCLING FEATURES BUILD INTO CABINETRY, AND CIRCULATION AREA. 2. OF AT LEAST 1 SQUARE FOOT PLUS 1 SF PER 10 EATING TABLE SEATS, TRASH AND RECYCLING CONTAINERS AND POTABLE WATER FOR EACH AREA. 3. GRILLING DOES NOT REQUIRE A COAL BIN. 4. ALL FEATURES ARE FIXED IN PLACE. 5. ALL TABLES ARE WITHIN 50’ OF GRILLING AREA & NOT SEPARATED BY GATES. 6. AT LEAST 50% OF THE EATING TABLES ARE DESIGNED TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR SUN PROTECTION (BUILDINGS AND SHADE TRELLIS). SEE SHEET G0.05 FOR SHADE STUDY. OUTDOOR SEATING AREA 1. SEATING AREA INCLUDES SEAT WALLS, FIXED CHAIRS AND FIXED LOUNGERS. NO PICNIC TABLES ARE PROVIDED. 2. AT LEAST 50% OF THE EATING TABLES ARE DESIGNED TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR SUN PROTECTION (BUILDINGS, TREES, AND SHADE TRELLIS). SEE SHEETS G0.04 AND G0.05 FOR SHADE STUDIES. GARDEN PLOTS 1. ALL PLANT BEDS ARE A 12” MINIMUM HEIGHT RAISED AND RETAINED PLANTING BEDS WITH IMPORT TOPSOIL SCREENED FREE OF ROCKS. SIZE IS 24" X 5'. ALL SIZES ARE EQUAL. 2. WORK BENCH IS 5’ LONG X 2.5’ WIDE. 1 PER AREA. 3. GROUND FLOOR TOOL LOCKER WILL BE A SPACE DEDICATED INSIDE THE BUILDING. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. ROOF TOOL LOCKER IS FREESTANDING: 6’ TALL X 1’ DEEP X 3’ WIDE. 4. MULCH BIN/AREA IS 4’ X 5’. 5. ONE TRASH CONTAINER IS PROVIDED PER AREA. 6. HOSE BIB(S) WILL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH EACH BED GROUPING HAVING A DEDICATED HOSE BIB. 7. THE GARDEN PLOTS RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 3 HOURS OF FULL SUN DURING THE HOURS OF 9 AM TO 5PM AT THE MARCH EQUINOX AND SEPTEMBER EQUINOX. SEE SHEETS G0.04 AND G0.05 FOR SUN STUDIES. TABLE TENNIS 1. TABLE TENNIS HAS REGULATION SIZE TABLE MEASURING 5’ WIDE AND 9’ LONG AND REQUIRED UNIMPEDED PLAYABLE SPACE OF 11’ X 17’ FEET LONG. DN POOL FENCE SEATING AREA AMENITY/GYM 2,044 sf POOL DECK 1,899 sf POOL 1,288 sf SPA OUTDOOR SEATING 1,287 sf GARDEN PLOTS 437 sf SEATING AREA TABLE TENNIS 187 sf LOUNGE SEATING PROJECT NORTHNORTH DATE SCALE DRAWN: WP/NV w w w . a r c h s f . c o m t: 415. 318.8634 1898 mission street san francisco, ca 94103 11/03/2025 715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401 DESIGN REVIEWCHECKED: JB NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 350 SE Mill Street Suite 02 Portland, OR 97214 0SCALE 1"=10' 5 10 20 30 50FT 08-31-26 11-04-25L-112 PARK CREDIT EXHIBIT LEVEL 2 SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" 1 LEVEL 02 TERRACE L-112 758 of 833 4'-6" 5'-0" THROUGH- ZONE PLANTING/ FURNITURE ZONE 5' PLANTING BUILDING FACE PROPERTY LINE BIKE LANE 4'-6" 5'-0" PLANTING/ FURNITURE ZONE 5' PLANTING BUILDING FACE PROPERTY LINE BIKE LANE STOOP THROUGH- ZONE 10'+ STORM WATER SWALE 5' SIDEWALK BUILDING FACE PROPERTY LINE PLANTING 4'-0" 5'-0" 8' PARALLEL PARKING BUILDING FACE/ENTRANCE PROPERTY LINE BIKE LANE 8'-0" FURNISHING ENTRY- ZONE ZONE THROUGH- ZONE CITY STANDARD TREE GRATE 4'-6" 5'-0" THROUGH- ZONE PLANTING ZONE 10' LOADING BUILDING FACE PROPERTY LINE 2'-6" FRONTAGE ZONE DATE SCALE DRAWN: WP/NV w w w . a r c h s f . c o m t: 415. 318.8634 1898 mission street san francisco, ca 94103 11/03/2025 715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401 DESIGN REVIEWCHECKED: JB NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 350 SE Mill Street Suite 02 Portland, OR 97214 08-31-26 11-04-25L-301 SITE SECTIONS 1 1/4"=1'-0" 01 SECTION 1 section 1/4"=1'-0" 03 SECTION 3 section 1/4"=1'-0" 02 SECTION 2 section 1/4"=1'-0" 04 SECTION 4 section 1/4"=1'-0" 05 SECTION 5 section 759 of 833

36.93 37.18 37.50 37.57 37.64 37.83 37.93 37.98

36.69 36.74 38.25

38.61 38.91

39.41 38.74

STATE ST

N SAN MATEO

VILLA TERRACE

N SAN MATEO

N SAN MATEO DR

STATE STVILLA TERRACE
2' - 0" TO PL 148' - 1"
FLAT ROOF OVER 6TH FLOOR
COURTYARD AT 2ND FLOOR
EXTERIOR POOL AT 2ND FLOOR
STAIR
FLAT ROOF OVER 6TH FLOOR
EXTERIOR WALKWAY AT 6TH FLOOR

EXTERIOR PLATFORM AND
WALKWAY AT 6TH FLOOR
ROOF OVER 6TH FLOOR

TERRACE AT
6TH FLOOR

EXTERIOR STAIR
TO PL
2' - 0"
5' - 8" 31' - 6"
TO PL
2' - 6"
35' - 5" 44' - 7" 108' - 3" 44' - 8"
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL

STAIR TO
ROOF

STAIR TO
ROOF

ELEVATOR

PENTHOUSE

ELEVATOR

PENTHOUSE
RESIDENTIAL ENTRY AT 1ST FLOOR

AUTO ENTRY AND EXIT AT STREET LEVEL

ON STREET LOADING/TRASH
TERRACE AT 6TH FLOOR
TERRACES AT 2ND FLOOR
TERRACE AT 2ND FLOOR
EXTERIOR TERRACES AT 6TH FLOOR
BRIDGE AT 6TH FLOOR
TO PL
5' - 7"
29' - 7" 7' - 6" 46' - 7" 20' - 0" 82' - 3" 50' - 1" 57' - 0" 30' - 6" 8' - 5" 31' - 8" 35' - 0" 30' - 9" 32' - 9" 9' - 6"
65' - 7" 73' - 7" 34' - 11" 44' - 8"
2' - 0"
TO PL
16' - 8"
8' - 6"
TO PL

NEIGHBOR BUILDING NEIGHBOR BUILDING NEIGHBOR BUILDING
162' - 10" - OVERALL BUILDING DEPTH
73' - 3 1/2"
73' - 3 1/2"
73' - 3 1/2"
74' - 9 1/2"
75' - 11 1/2"
17' - 9 1/2"
62' - 3 1/2"
62' - 3 1/2"
62' - 3 1/2"
62' - 3 1/2"
62' - 3 1/2"
62' - 3 1/2"
337' - 5" - OVERALL BUILDING WIDTH
TO PL
1' - 7"
4' - 0" 67' - 10" 49' - 8" 33' - 5" 8' - 0"
235' - 4"
TO PL
99' - 0"
38' - 5" 77' - 5" 218' - 3" 41' - 0" 44' - 8"

SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DETAILS
SPA AT
2ND FLOOR
(N) CURB CUT

AND DRIVEWAY
TO PL
24' - 11"
10' - 0"
TO PL

REQUIRED SETBACKS PER SAN

MATEO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE

27.48.090 AND 27.48.100

PROPERTY LINE

PROJECT
NORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
1/16" = 1'-0"
A 2.00
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

SITE PLAN
1/16" = 1'-0"

SITE PLAN
760 of 833

RAMP UP
827 SF
BOILER
47446 SF

PARKING
STAIR 2
ELEV 1
ELEV 2
STAIR 1

FOR PARKING LAYOUT
REFER TO SHEET PK 2.0B
TO PL
2' - 6" 332' - 0" - OVERALL BUILDING WIDTH @ BASEMENT
TO PL
4' - 6"
2' - 9"

TO PL TO PL
162' - 4"
22' - 1" 179' - 10"
TO PL
2' - 6" 329' - 4"
TO PL
2' - 6"
TO PL
2' - 0"
40' - 8" 291' - 5"

BFPS AND PUMPS

ELEVATOR LOBBY
TO PL
150' - 0"
28'-1"
19'-6" 18'-7"
22'-10"
28'-5"
25'-2"
22'-1" 127'-5" 177'-10"
2' - 0"
TO PL

SECURITY LIGHTING AND

SURVEILLANCE CAMERS TO BE

INSTALLED THROUGOUT

PARKING GARAGE
18" X 30", TYP
TREE 18 - 6x

ESTIMATED DBH
TREE 20 - 8x
ø 40" ESTIMATED DBH
ø 16"
TREE 18 - 6x
ø 40" ESTIMATED DBH
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
4' - 0"
3' - 1"
7' - 0"
118' - 7" 41' - 10"
3' - 1" 128' - 6" 14' - 0"
16' - 0"
TO PL
127' - 5"

PROJECT
NORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
3/32" = 1'-0"
A 2.0B
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
3/32" = 1'-0"

BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN (DESIGN REVIEW PLANS)
761 of 833

RAMP DN
V
V

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
ELEV 1
202 SF
FIRE

COMMAND
533 SF

MAIL/PACKAGE
1105 SF
LOBBY
921 SF

COWORKING
782 SF

ND/LEASING
25002 SF
ELEV 2

PARKING
1574 SF

BIKE PARKING
946 SF

TRASH ROOM
175 SF
MUDDY
PAWS
250 SF

POOL EQUIPMENT
1086 SF

MAINTENANCE
656 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C4
668 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
838 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UC
942 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
954 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
773 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
753 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
735 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
741 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1427 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2G
667 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
614 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
1237 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2D
65 SF
IDF
STAIR 2
STAIR 1

N SAN MATEO

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE
533 SF
STUDIO
TYPE: SB

DN DN DN
DN
DN

RESIDENTIAL ENTRY

AUTO ENTRY AND EXIT
334' - 0" - OVERALL BUILDING WIDTH @ N. 1ST FLOOR
0' - 3" TO PL 162' - 10" - OVERALL BUILDING DEPTH @ 1ST FLOOR 2' - 0" TO PL

ELECTRIC
89' - 3" 19' - 11" 82' - 3" 87' - 10"
158' - 0" 4' - 6"
21' - 5" 56' - 7" 9' - 4" 10' - 11" 9' - 4" 41' - 2" 178' - 0" 4' - 0" 3' - 2" TO PL 330' - 11" 0' - 3" TO PL
16' - 0"
TO PL
118' - 7" 12' - 0" TO PL

CORRIDOR
DN

DN DN DN
DN
196 BIKES

TRANSFORMER
TO PL
2' - 0"
MPOE
TO PL
5' - 0"
DERO BIKE FILE (36)
DERO DUPLEX (82)DERO DECKER (70) DERO SWERVE RACK (8)
1' - 6 1/2"
1' - 6 1/2"
TREE 18 - 6x

ESTIMATED DBH
TREE 20 - 8x

ESTIMATED DBH
DN
1303 SF

ELECTRIC

ELECTRIC

SWITCH GEAR

SWITCH GEAR
15'-6" 10'-0" 30'-0"
1 1
21'-1"
23'-0"
38'-1"
23'-0"
45'-10"
220'-5"
94'-5"
109'-3"
8'-10"
9'-6" 47'-6"

KNOX BOX

LOCATION
(PV

OVERRIDE)
7'-0"
48'-1"
68'-6"
19'-0" 13'-0"
11'-10"
13'-0" 7'-9"
18'-5"
36'-9"
2 ELEC METER BANKS

ON EXT WALLS
9' - 4"
0' - 3" 1' - 6 1/2" 2' - 11" 6' - 0" TO PL STOOP, TYP.

TO PL
7"
3' - 3"
TO PL
TO PL
8' - 1"
TO PL
4' - 11"
TO PL
7"
TO PL
4' - 3"
TO PL
2' - 2"
TO PL
3' - 2"
TO PL
2' - 4"
193 SF

RESTROOMS
T
O
P
L
2' - 0"

TOOL LOCKER
4' - 0"
2' - 0"
3/4" / 1'-0" 1/8" / 1'-0" 3/8" / 1'-0"

SECURITY LIGHTING AND SECURITY GRILLE

SURVEILLANCE CAMERS TO BE

INSTALLED THROUGOUT

PARKING GARAGE

FOR PARKING LAYOUT
REFER TO SHEET PK 2.01
ø 40"
ø 16"
4' - 0" 3' - 2"
7' - 0"
1' - 6"
1'
1' - 6"
- 6"
R 21' - 8"
R 11' - 8"
DN
32' - 11 1/2"
25' - 2 1/4"
12' - 9"
9' - 7 1/2"
50' - 1"

EXTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTE

PROPERTY LINE
45-DEG VISION TRIANGLE

PROJECT
NORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
As indicated
A 2.01
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2
1ST FLOOR PLAN
3/32" = 1'-0"
1ST FLOOR PLAN (DESIGN REVIEW PLANS)
RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPE BREAKDOWN - 1ST FLOOR

UNIT TYPE AREA COUNT
STUDIO 533 SF 1
URBAN 1 BED 5789 SF 8
1 BEDROOM 2551 SF 3
2 BEDROOM 2664 SF 2
RESIDENTIAL UNIT TOTALS 11537 SF 14

PLAN NOTES
1 CAST METAL BUILDING SIGNAGE, HT 18", DEPTH 2"
2 FIRE CONTROL ROOM SIGNAGE
762 of 833
DN

COURTYARD
POOL
SPA

WALKWAY ABOVE

WALKWAY ABOVE

LINE OF BLDG ABOVE
1034 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2A2
606 SF
STUDIO
TYPE: S 588 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C1
743 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
857 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
858 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
857 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
708 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C2 692 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB 634 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
731 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
1108 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2A1
742 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
1983 SF

AMENITY/GYM
1184 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2C3
767 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
740 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
757 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
756 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
755 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
877 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
672 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
672 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB

CORRIDOR
ELEV 1
26 SF
IDF
1500 SF
3 BEDROOM
TYPE: 3A
977 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2C1
965 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2C1
703 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1B1
1148 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2B2
1092 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2C4
1066 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2B3
690 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
STAIR 2
672 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
101 SF

TRASH RM W/ CHUTE
55 SF
IDF ELEV 2
STAIR 3

N SAN MATEO

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

OPEN TO BELOW
STAIR 1
337' - 5" - OVERALL BUILDING WIDTH @ 2ND FLOOR 1' - 7" TO PL 0' - 2" TO PL 154' - 10" - OVERALL BUILDING DEPTH @ 2ND FLOOR 10' - 0" TO PL 9' - 8" 25' - 6" 7' - 6" 46' - 7" 20' - 0" 82' - 3" 50' - 1" 57' - 0" 3' - 1" 35' - 10" 31' - 4" 5' - 5" 35' - 0" 30' - 9" 34' - 3"
82' - 3" 10' - 5" 63' - 1" 34' - 11" 9' - 11" 36' - 8" 4' - 8" 18' - 3" 93' - 0" TO PL 36' - 2" 35' - 8"
30' - 0" 9' - 10" 37' - 6" 48' - 0" 98' - 6"
9' - 0"
260' - 2" 74' - 2" TO PL
10' - 0" TO PL 136' - 8"
71' - 10"
37' - 11"
38' - 5"
23' - 2" 10' - 3" 39' - 8" 10' - 0"
TO PL
5' - 9"
10' - 2"
GYM
WC

CANOPY CANOPY

LINE OF

BUILDING
BELOW
8'-11"
9'-8"
64'-10"
29'-1"
7'-0"
24' - 7"
6' - 11"
7'-4" 7'-4"
16' - 3"
10' - 0"
11' - 6"
10' - 0"
11' - 2"
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
11' - 2"
41' - 0"
35' - 9"
44' - 8"
39' - 8"
41' - 0"
41' - 4"
36' - 1"
44' - 8"
39' - 8"

BUILDING SEPARATION LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROJECT
NORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
As indicated
A 2.02
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2
2ND FLOOR PLAN
3/32" = 1'-0"
2ND FLOOR PLAN (DESIGN REVIEW PLANS)
RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPE BREAKDOWN - 2ND FLOOR

UNIT TYPE AREA COUNT
STUDIO 606 SF 1
URBAN 1 BED 4034 SF 6
1 BEDROOM 11438 SF 15
2 BEDROOM 8575 SF 8
3 BEDROOM 1500 SF 1
RESIDENTIAL UNIT TOTALS 26153 SF 31
763 of 833
1491 SF
3 BEDROOM
TYPE: 3A
977 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2C1
965 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2C1
699 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1B1
1152 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2B2
1092 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2C4
1066 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2B3
1034 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2A2
1179 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2C3
607 SF
STUDIO
TYPE: S
582 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C1
766 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
743 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
858 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
740 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
758 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
756 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
857 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
858 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
785 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C2
669 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
632 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
733 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
1099 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2A1
755 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
876 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
673 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
673 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
675 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
1062 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2C2
982 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2A3
1101 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2B1
643 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UA
673 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
742 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2

CORRIDOR
29 SF
IDF
ELEV 1
99 SF

TRASH RM W/ CHUTE
55 SF
IDF ELEV 2

COURTYARD BELOW

N SAN MATEO

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
STAIR 3

EXTERIOR WALKWAY

EXTERIOR WALKWAY
9' - 8" 25' - 6" 7' - 6" 46' - 7" 20' - 0" 82' - 3" 50' - 1" 57' - 0" 3' - 1" 35' - 10" 30' - 0" 9' - 10" 37' - 6" 48' - 0" 98' - 6" 14' - 4" 9' - 10" 47' - 8" 212' - 10" 9' - 0"
41' - 0"
337' - 5" - OVERALL BUILDING WIDTH @ 3RD FLOOR 1' - 7" TO PL 0' - 2" TO PL 154' - 10" - OVERALL BUILDING DEPTH @ 3RD FLOOR 10' - 0" TO PL 31' - 4" 5' - 5" 35' - 0" 30' - 9" 34' - 3"
82' - 3" 10' - 5" 63' - 1" 34' - 11" 9' - 11" 36' - 8" 4' - 8" 18' - 3" 93' - 1" TO PL 29' - 11" 6' - 3" 35' - 8"
260' - 2" 74' - 2" TO PL
10' - 0" TO PL 136' - 8"
TO PL
5' - 9"
23' - 2" 10' - 3" 39' - 8" 10' - 0"
8'-11"
9'-8"
16' - 3"
44' - 8"
39' - 8"
44' - 8"
20' - 6" 20' - 6"
22' - 10" 18' - 0"
17' - 10" 18' - 0"
24' - 10" 19' - 10"
19' - 10" 19' - 10"

BUILDING SEPARATION LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROJECT
NORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
As indicated
A 2.03
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2
3RD FLOOR PLAN
3/32" = 1'-0"
3RD FLOOR PLAN (DESIGN REVIEW PLANS)
RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPE BREAKDOWN - 3RD FLOOR

UNIT TYPE AREA COUNT
STUDIO 607 SF 1
URBAN 1 BED 4638 SF 7
1 BEDROOM 11509 SF 15
2 BEDROOM 11709 SF 11
3 BEDROOM 1491 SF 1
RESIDENTIAL UNIT TOTALS 29954 SF 35
764 of 833

COURTYARD BELOW

EXTERIOR WALKWAY

EXTERIOR WALKWAY
750 SF

SKY LOUNGE
85 SF
ADA BA
1164 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2C3
766 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
740 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
757 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
755 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
755 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
755 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A1
1061 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2C2
982 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2A3
669 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
632 SF
URBAN 1 BED
TYPE: UB
733 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
814 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C3
571 SF
STUDIO
TYPE: S
761 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A3
570 SF
STUDIO
TYPE: S
597 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C1
743 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
857 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
858 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
860 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
642 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1C2
742 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1A2
982 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2C1
961 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2C1
688 SF
1 BEDROOM
TYPE: 1B1
1045 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2E
588 SF
STUDIO
TYPE: S
581 SF
STUDIO
TYPE: S
986 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2F
31 SF
IDF
ELEV 1
ELEV 2
63 SF
IDF
1240 SF
2 BEDROOM
TYPE: 2H

N SAN MATEO

STATE ST

VILLA TERRACE

CORRIDOR
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
STAIR 3
334' - 0" - OVERALL BUILDING WIDTH @ 6TH FLOOR 5' - 0" TO PL 0' - 2" TO PL 154' - 10" - OVERALL BUILDING DEPTH @ 6TH FLOOR 10' - 0" TO PL 46' - 7" 20' - 0" 82' - 3" 50' - 1" 57' - 0" 30' - 6" 10' - 0" TO PL 25' - 6" 6' - 2" 35' - 0" 30' - 9" 11' - 7" 21' - 2"
93' - 1" TO PL 9' - 8" 20' - 4" 37' - 11"
38' - 5" 30' - 0" 9' - 10" 37' - 6" 146' - 6" 14' - 4" 9' - 10" 37' - 10" 9' - 9" 41' - 0" 44' - 8" 2' - 6" TO PL 225' - 0"
TO PL
106' - 10"
5' - 0" TO PL 29' - 8" 47' - 7" 10' - 5" 63' - 1" 34' - 11" 36' - 10" 35' - 5" 189' - 8"
5' - 0" TO PL 131' - 7" 10' - 0" TO PL
111 SF

TRASH RM W/ CHUTE
5' - 7" TO PL 37' - 1"
23' - 5"
TO PL
20' - 0" 44' - 8" 5' - 0"
TO PL
5' - 9"
8'-7"
8'-0"
36'-2"
18'-8"
9'-8"
18' - 8"
11' - 6"
10' - 0"
11' - 2"
30' - 7"
44' - 7"
38' - 6"
29' - 11"
34' - 11"
35' - 0"

BUILDING SEPARATION LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROJECT
NORTH
NORTH
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
As indicated
A 2.06
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2
6TH FLOOR PLAN
3/32" = 1'-0"
6TH FLOOR PLAN (DESIGN REVIEW PLANS)
RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPE BREAKDOWN - 6TH FLOOR

UNIT TYPE AREA COUNT
STUDIO 2310 SF 4
URBAN 1 BED 1301 SF 2
1 BEDROOM 12008 SF 16
2 BEDROOM 9237 SF 9
RESIDENTIAL UNIT TOTALS 24855 SF 31
765 of 833

LOW GRADE
0' - 0"
BASEMENT -8' - 8"
1ST FLOOR
1' - 6 1/2"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 9 1/2"
3RD FLOOR
31' - 6 1/2"
4TH FLOOR
41' - 9 1/2"
5TH FLOOR
52' - 0 1/2"
6TH FLOOR
62' - 3 1/2"
ROOF
73' - 3 1/2"

TOP OF PARAPET
77' - 3 1/2"

VILLA TERRACE

STATE ST
71' - 9" 10' - 0"

PENTHOUSE
83' - 3 1/2"
16' - 3" 13' - 9" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 11' - 0" 4' - 0"

HIGH POINT
75' - 11 1/2"
75' - 11 1/2" - BUILDING HEIGHT
1 2
434
7 LOW GRADE
0' - 0"
BASEMENT -8' - 8"
1ST FLOOR
1' - 6 1/2"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 9 1/2"
3RD FLOOR
31' - 6 1/2"
4TH FLOOR
41' - 9 1/2"
5TH FLOOR
52' - 0 1/2"
6TH FLOOR
62' - 3 1/2"
ROOF
73' - 3 1/2"

TOP OF PARAPET
77' - 3 1/2"

VILLA TERRACE

STATE ST
71' - 9"
4' - 0"

PENTHOUSE
83' - 3 1/2"
10' - 0"
11' - 0" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 13' - 9" 16' - 3"

HIGH POINT
75' - 11 1/2"
75' - 11 1/2" - BUILDING HEIGHT
34144
5 8' - 0"
5 6
8' - 0"
7 8
8 DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
3/32" = 1'-0"
A 3.00
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

BUILDING ELEVATIONS
3/32" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"

WEST ELEVATION

ELEVATION NOTES
1 42" FALL PROTECTION GUARDRAIL AT ROOF, TYP.
2 CAST METAL BUILDING SIGNAGE, HT 18", DEPTH 2"
3 42" GUARDRAIL AT UNIT, TYP.
4 STAIR PENTHOUSE
5 8' TALL PRIVACY FENCE ALONG REAR PROPERTY
LINE, STEP FENCE WITH GRADE TO MAINTAIN 8'
HEIGHT
6 RAISED PLANTER @ REAR PL, TYP
7 EXTERIOR LIGHTING, TYP. SEE E 2.00 FOR

EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLANS, SCHEDULE & SPECS
8 3-DIMENSIONAL WALL RELIEF PILASTERS
766 of 833

LOW GRADE
0' - 0"
BASEMENT -8' - 8"
1ST FLOOR
1' - 6 1/2"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 9 1/2"
3RD FLOOR
31' - 6 1/2"
4TH FLOOR
41' - 9 1/2"
5TH FLOOR
52' - 0 1/2"
6TH FLOOR
62' - 3 1/2"
ROOF
73' - 3 1/2"

TOP OF PARAPET
77' - 3 1/2"
N. SAN MATEO DR 10' - 0" 71' - 9"

PENTHOUSE
83' - 3 1/2"
4' - 0" 11' - 0" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 13' - 9" 16' - 3"

HIGH POINT
75' - 11 1/2"
75' - 11 1/2" - BUILDING HEIGHT
1 2
434
7 LOW GRADE
0' - 0"
BASEMENT -8' - 8"
1ST FLOOR
1' - 6 1/2"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 9 1/2"
3RD FLOOR
31' - 6 1/2"
4TH FLOOR
41' - 9 1/2"
5TH FLOOR
52' - 0 1/2"
6TH FLOOR
62' - 3 1/2"
ROOF
73' - 3 1/2"

TOP OF PARAPET
77' - 3 1/2"
N. SAN MATEO DR
10' - 0" 71' - 9"

PENTHOUSE
83' - 3 1/2"
4' - 0" 11' - 0" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 13' - 9" 16' - 3"

HIGH POINT
75' - 11 1/2"
75' - 11 1/2" - BUILDING HEIGHT
4314
7 LOW GRADE
0' - 0"
BASEMENT -8' - 8"
1ST FLOOR
1' - 6 1/2"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 9 1/2"
3RD FLOOR
31' - 6 1/2"
4TH FLOOR
41' - 9 1/2"
5TH FLOOR
52' - 0 1/2"
6TH FLOOR
62' - 3 1/2"
ROOF
73' - 3 1/2"

TOP OF PARAPET
77' - 3 1/2"
10' - 0" 71' - 9"

PENTHOUSE
83' - 3 1/2"
4' - 0" 11' - 0" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 13' - 9" 16' - 3"

HIGH POINT
75' - 11 1/2"
75' - 11 1/2" - BUILDING HEIGHT
1 3
7 SILL BAND
0' - 1 1/2"
0' - 4"

TYPICAL SILL BAND DETAIL

AT STUCCO WALL

EXTERIOR INTERIOR

WINDOW FRAME

WALL ASSEMBLY
0' - 3" MIN
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
As indicated
A 3.01
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

BUILDING ELEVATIONS
3/32" = 1'-0"

SOUTH ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"

NORTH ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"
2ND FLOOR COURTYARD - SOUTH ELEVATION

ELEVATION NOTES
1 42" FALL PROTECTION GUARDRAIL AT ROOF, TYP.
2 CAST METAL BUILDING SIGNAGE, HT 18", DEPTH 2"
3 42" GUARDRAIL AT UNIT, TYP.
4 STAIR PENTHOUSE
5 8' TALL PRIVACY FENCE ALONG REAR PROPERTY
LINE, STEP FENCE WITH GRADE TO MAINTAIN 8'
HEIGHT
6 RAISED PLANTER @ REAR PL, TYP
7 EXTERIOR LIGHTING, TYP. SEE E 2.00 FOR

EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLANS, SCHEDULE & SPECS
8 3-DIMENSIONAL WALL RELIEF PILASTERS
767 of 833

LOW GRADE
0' - 0"
BASEMENT -8' - 8"
1ST FLOOR
1' - 6 1/2"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 9 1/2"
3RD FLOOR
31' - 6 1/2"
4TH FLOOR
41' - 9 1/2"
5TH FLOOR
52' - 0 1/2"
6TH FLOOR
62' - 3 1/2"
ROOF
73' - 3 1/2"

TOP OF PARAPET
77' - 3 1/2"
10' - 0" 73' - 4"

VILLA TERRACE

STATE ST

PENTHOUSE
83' - 3 1/2"
4' - 0" 11' - 0" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 13' - 9" 16' - 3"

HIGH POINT
75' - 11 1/2"
75' - 11 1/2" - BUILDING HEIGHT
13 4
7 4

LOW GRADE
0' - 0"
BASEMENT -8' - 8"
1ST FLOOR
1' - 6 1/2"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 9 1/2"
3RD FLOOR
31' - 6 1/2"
4TH FLOOR
41' - 9 1/2"
5TH FLOOR
52' - 0 1/2"
6TH FLOOR
62' - 3 1/2"
ROOF
73' - 3 1/2"

TOP OF PARAPET
77' - 3 1/2"

VILLA TERRACE
STATE ST 73' - 4" 10' - 0"

PENTHOUSE
83' - 3 1/2"
16' - 3" 13' - 9" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 11' - 0" 4' - 0"

HIGH POINT
75' - 11 1/2"
75' - 11 1/2" - BUILDING HEIGHT
714
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
3/32" = 1'-0"
A 3.02
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

BUILDING ELEVATIONS
3/32" = 1'-0"
2ND FLOOR COURTYARD - WEST ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"
2ND FLOOR COURTYARD - EAST ELEVATION

ELEVATION NOTES
1 42" FALL PROTECTION GUARDRAIL AT ROOF, TYP.
2 CAST METAL BUILDING SIGNAGE, HT 18", DEPTH 2"
3 42" GUARDRAIL AT UNIT, TYP.
4 STAIR PENTHOUSE
5 8' TALL PRIVACY FENCE ALONG REAR PROPERTY
LINE, STEP FENCE WITH GRADE TO MAINTAIN 8'
HEIGHT
6 RAISED PLANTER @ REAR PL, TYP
7 EXTERIOR LIGHTING, TYP. SEE E 2.00 FOR

EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLANS, SCHEDULE & SPECS
8 3-DIMENSIONAL WALL RELIEF PILASTERS
768 of 833
BASEMENT -8' - 8"
1ST FLOOR
1' - 6 1/2"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 9 1/2"
3RD FLOOR
31' - 6 1/2"
4TH FLOOR
41' - 9 1/2"
5TH FLOOR
52' - 0 1/2"
6TH FLOOR
62' - 3 1/2"
ROOF
73' - 3 1/2"

TOP OF PARAPET
77' - 3 1/2"

VILLA TERRACE

STATE ST
10' - 0" 71' - 9"
UNITS

UTILITY PARKING

AMENITY

PARKING
15' - 7" 12' - 6" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 6"
CORR.

PENTHOUSE
83' - 3 1/2"
4' - 0" 11' - 0" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 13' - 9"
UTILITY CORR.

CORR.
212 1' - 6" 0' - 8"
10' - 3" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 13' - 9" 16' - 3"
BASEMENT -8' - 8"
1ST FLOOR
1' - 6 1/2"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 9 1/2"
3RD FLOOR
31' - 6 1/2"
4TH FLOOR
41' - 9 1/2"
5TH FLOOR
52' - 0 1/2"
6TH FLOOR
62' - 3 1/2"
ROOF
73' - 3 1/2"

TOP OF PARAPET
77' - 3 1/2"

VILLA TERRACE

STATE ST
10' - 0" 71' - 9"
POOL
UNITS

UTILITY PARKING

AMENITY

PARKING

PENTHOUSE
83' - 3 1/2"
4' - 0" 11' - 0" 20' - 6" 10' - 3" 13' - 9" 16' - 3" 10' - 3" 11' - 6" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 12' - 6" 15' - 7"
2122
1' - 6"
10' - 3" 10' - 3" 10' - 3" 13' - 9" 16' - 3"
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
3/32" = 1'-0"
A 3.50
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS
3/32" = 1'-0"

LONGITUDINAL SECTION THROUGH NORTHERN VOLUME
3/32" = 1'-0"

LONGITUDINAL SECTION THROUGH SOUTH VOLUME

SECTION NOTES
1 42" FALL PROTECTION GUARDRAIL AT ROOF, TYP.
2 STAIR PENTHOUSE
769 of 833

N SAN MATEO DR VILLA TERRACE

STATE ST

N SAN MATEO DR

VILLA TERRACE
DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
w w w . a r c h s f . c o m
t: 415. 318.8634
1898 mission street
san francisco, ca 94103

NW, FK, MR, LP

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
11/07/2025
A 9.00
715 N SAN MATEO DR
715 N San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, CA 94401
2403
DESIGN REVIEW - REV 2

AXONOMETRIC VIEWS

NW AXON NE AXONSW AXON SE AXON
770 of 833

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 22 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: 10-1311 File ID: 26-11487 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: July 20, 2026
SUBJECT:

November 3, 2026 Election – Consideration of Placing a ¼-Cent Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax Measure on the Ballot – Ordinance Introduction
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution ordering and calling for an election to be consolidated with the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, and submitting to the voters a measure to increase the Transactions and Use (sales) tax by an additional ¼-cent, appropriating $158,000 for related election costs, and authorizing two members of the City Council to submit arguments; and introduce an ordinance establishing San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 3.51 (Supplemental Transactions and Use Tax). (Approval requires at least four votes of the five-member City Council.) BACKGROUND:

The City of San Mateo is committed to maintaining a high quality of life and essential municipal services that support the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Recent community surveys found that residents are highly satisfied with San Mateo’s quality of life and support continued investment in essential City services and infrastructure.

Despite ongoing efforts to manage expenditures, improve cost recovery, pursue grant funding, support economic development, and identify other revenue enhancement opportunities, the City continues to face long-term financial challenges as the cost of providing essential services has outpaced revenue growth. In addition, the City has more than $350 million in unfunded capital improvement and infrastructure needs, including streets, sidewalks, parks, public facilities, stormwater infrastructure, and other critical public assets.

Fiscal Outlook
At the April 20, 2026, City Council meeting, staff provided a preview of the Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget which estimated a $16 million deficit for the General Fund, the City’s primary operating fund providing essential services such as public safety, transportation, library and parks and recreation services. At that same meeting, City staff provided an update to the General Fund 10-year forecast and presented four different scenarios highlighting various threats to the City’s top revenue sources. Even under the most optimistic revenue assumptions, the forecast projected ongoing structural General Fund deficits of approximately $5-7 million annually, assuming some personnel savings and fewer General Fund contributions to capital.

At the June 1, 2026, City Council meeting, staff presented the recommended budget for Fiscal Year 2026-27, which included projected expenditures exceeding projected revenues by $17 million. The proposed budget also identified strategies to improve the City’s long-term fiscal outlook, including expenditure controls, cost recovery, economic development, grant funding, and evaluation of potential revenue enhancement options. Staff also identified that 771 of 833

CITY OF SAN MATEO
maintaining the City’s fiscal stability would likely require a combination of expenditure management and additional revenues. One of the revenue enhancement options identified during the budget process was a local Transactions and Use (sales) tax measure.

On June 15, 2026, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget. The adopted budget included the planned use of the Budget Stabilization Reserve to maintain core services and continue investing in critical infrastructure. While the City’s reserves provide flexibility to address near-term fiscal challenges, they are not intended to serve as a long-term solution and provide the City time to thoughtfully evaluate and implement strategies to strengthen its financial position.

Ballot Measure Development Process
City staff began evaluating potential ballot measure options with the Revenue Measure Ad Hoc Committee on August 6, 2025, followed by a City Council study session on August 18, 2025. At the study session, the City Council agreed to further evaluate a ¼-cent Transactions and Use (sales) Tax measure to address the City’s structural deficit and a General Obligation Bond to address infrastructure needs. To better understand community sentiment regarding both potential measures, the City conducted a statistically valid survey in November 2025.

The November 2025 survey was administered to a stratified and clustered random sample of 1,012 registered voters in the City of San Mateo who are likely to participate in the November 2026 election. Of those surveyed, 506 respondents answered questions regarding the proposed sales tax measure, and the other 506 respondents answered questions regarding the General Obligation Bond. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). The survey provided statistically reliable results, with a margin of error due to sampling of +/- 4.3% at the 95% confidence level.

At the January 7, 2026, Revenue Measure Ad Hoc Committee meeting, and the January 12, 2026, City Council meeting, City staff and True North Research presented the results of the Baseline Revenue Measure Survey, which found 56% support for a potential ¼-cent Transactions and Use (sales) Tax measure and 54% support for a potential General Obligation Bond.

While both measures received majority support, the General Obligation Bond did not meet the two-thirds voter approval threshold required for passage. Based on the survey results, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended, and the City Council supported, continuing community education and outreach regarding the potential sales tax measure while pausing further education and outreach related to the General Obligation Bond.

Following several months of community education and outreach, True North Research conducted a follow-up survey between May 11 and May 15, 2026, to assess voter sentiment regarding the potential sales tax measure. The survey was administered to 689 registered voters in the City of San Mateo who are likely to participate in the November 2026 election. True North Research employed the same methodology from the first survey and had a margin of error due to sampling of +/- 3.7% at the 95% confidence level.

On June 15, 2026, staff and True North Research presented the survey results to City Council. The Initial Ballot Test results found 58% of likely November 2026 voters surveyed in support, with 25% indicating they would definitely support the measure. Approximately 33% of respondents opposed the measure, and 9% were unsure or unwilling to state their position. The Council also received a presentation from the City’s elections consultant, Team CivX, regarding the ballot measure process and next steps. After discussion, the Council expressed support for placing the proposed measure on the November 2026 ballot. At the same June 15, 2026 meeting, the Council adopted Resolution No. 60 ordering and calling for an election to be consolidated with the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026.

Community Engagement and Outreach
772 of 833

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Between February and July 2026, staff conducted a comprehensive community education and outreach effort regarding the City’s priorities, fiscal outlook and long-term funding needs, and consideration of a potential sales tax measure.

Staff contacted more than 50 stakeholder and community groups, including neighborhood groups, homeowners associations, business groups, SAMCEDA, SAMCAR, San Mateo Area Chamber of Commerce, DSMA, non-profits, developers, individual community leaders and more, to offer informational presentations. Staff conducted more than 30 presentations and question-and-answer sessions, providing factual information and opportunities for community members to ask questions and share feedback.

City Council members, the City Manager, and Police Chief hosted five City Council District specific community meetings throughout the City in the month of June and finished with a Chamber facilitated business specific community meeting in July to provide public safety updates, City updates and a fiscal outlook presentation with a question and answer session.

In addition to community meetings, the City sent out three informational mailers to over 31,000 San Mateo households, in April, June, and early July. The first mailer included a comment card inviting residents to share their thoughts.

Throughout the outreach effort, the City also maintained a dedicated webpage with background information and frequently asked questions and shared educational content through social media leading up to the July 20, 2026 City Council meeting.

Overall, thousands of residents, businesses, and community stakeholders were contacted and engaged with City staff during the outreach process. Over four hundred attended meetings. Feedback reflected a range of perspectives, including support for the potential measure, minimal opposition to the measure, and comments on other City priorities such as land use, future development, housing, infrastructure, and transportation.

Transactions and Use Tax (sales tax) Information
A Transactions and Use Tax, commonly referred to as a local sales tax, is an additional tax added to the existing sales tax rate that applies to most retail goods delivered within a jurisdiction. It does not apply to groceries or prescription medications.

The total sales tax rate in San Mateo is 9.625%, which is made up of California’s 7.25% statewide base sales tax and voter approved countywide and local district taxes. The current rate includes the following voter-approved measures:
• In November 2015, San Mateo voters approved Measure S, a sales tax, which extended Measure L, a ¼-cent sales tax.
• In November 2016, San Mateo County voters approved Measure K, extending the County’s ½-cent sales tax • In November 2020, San Mateo voters also approved Measure RR, a separate ¼-cent regional sales tax dedicated to Caltrain operations.

State law establishes a maximum allowable Transactions and Use Tax rate that cities may impose. The proposed ¼-cent increase represents the maximum additional local sales tax the City is authorized to place before voters under current state law.

A ¼-cent sales tax increase would result in approximately $7 million in estimated revenue annually. For the consumer, this increase equates to an additional 25 cents on every $100 spent on taxable purchases. Independent annual audits and public reporting would be required to ensure funds are used as intended, and an independent resident oversight committee would review transparency and accountability. Under the proposed ordinance, this would be the same as the Measure S Oversight Committee established by San Mateo Municipal Code section 3.50.160. 773 of 833

CITY OF SAN MATEO
In order to pass, this measure requires a simple majority (50% plus 1) voter approval, and the proceeds can be used to fund any City-specific general municipal services, such as:
• keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained • fixing potholes
• providing fire protection, paramedics, crime prevention, and 9-1-1 emergency response • improving traffic safety and traffic management
As shown in the graphic below, San Mateo is at the 9.625% sales tax rate, with many other cities in the County at the higher 9.875% rate.

Council Action:

Per the City Council’s direction at its June 15, 2026, meeting, staff recommends adoption of the proposed Resolution (Attachment 1) placing the ¼-cent Transactions and Use (sales) tax measure on the November 2026 ballot with the following ballot question:

To provide funding for San Mateo city services, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, fixing potholes, providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 9-1-1 emergency response, and improvements to traffic safety/traffic management, shall the City of San Mateo’s ordinance establishing a one-quarter cent sales tax be adopted, providing 7 million dollars annually for general government use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled? In accordance with state law, the foregoing ballot question is not more than 75 words, as the phrases “San Mateo” and “City of San Mateo” each count as one word.

Under state law, submitting the measure to the voters must be approved by a two-thirds’ vote of the City Council. Rev. & Tax §7285.9, Govt. §53724(a). With a five-member Council, this means that four votes are required to place the proposed 774 of 833

CITY OF SAN MATEO
measure on the ballot. If approved by a majority of San Mateo voters, the accompanying Ordinance (Attachment 1, Exhibit A) would amend the San Mateo Municipal Code by adding Chapter 3.51 (Supplemental Transactions and Use Tax), establishing an additional ¼-cent Transactions and Use (sales) tax.

Adoption of the proposed Resolution would submit the ballot measure to the San Mateo County Elections Office for placement on the November 2026 ballot. The Resolution also directs the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure as required by state law, authorizes the City Council to designate two Council Members to prepare and file the ballot argument in favor of the measure, and authorizes the City Clerk to take all actions necessary to conduct the election in accordance with applicable law. Staff would conclude the community outreach effort for the proposed measure. Neutral and factual Information about the measure and the election would continue to be available on the City’s website, and staff would respond to public inquiries as appropriate, consistent with applicable law.

The City Clerk must submit the certified Resolution to the San Mateo County Elections Office no later than August 7, 2026.

Because there are no additional regular City Council meetings scheduled before that deadline, the City Council must take action at this meeting if it wishes to place the measure on the November 2026 ballot.

BUDGET IMPACT:

If the City Council adopts the Resolution placing the Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot and the measure is subsequently approved by the voters, the proposed ¼-cent additional tax is estimated to generate approximately $7 million in annual General Fund revenue, which would be retained locally for City of San Mateo general municipal services.

The City Clerk’s Office Fiscal Year 2026-27 operating budget already includes funding for the standard costs associated with the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election, including the election of City Council members, translation, and noticing requirements.

The County of San Mateo Elections Division has estimated the additional cost of placing a citywide measure on the ballot at approximately $158,000, based on the number of registered voters. The proposed Resolution includes a supplemental budget appropriation of $158,000 from the General Fund unassigned fund balance to the City Clerk’s Office Fiscal Year 2026-27 operating budget to cover these additional election costs.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This agenda report supports the Organizational Health and Good Governance initiative.

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Proposed Ballot Measure Resolution
Exhibit A – Proposed Ballot Measure Ordinance

STAFF CONTACT
Zachary Reda, Senior Management Analyst
[email protected]
(650) 435-0823
775 of 833

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. __(2026)

SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A MEASURE TO INCREASE THE GENERAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE (SALES) TAX RATE BY AN ADDITIONAL ONE-QUARTER PERCENT (0.25%) UNTIL ENDED BY VOTERS,

THEREBY INCREASING THE TOTAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX RATE TO ONE HALF PERCENT (0.50%), TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE

ADMINISTRATION, TO BE VOTED ON AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2026
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo is committed to maintaining the high quality of life and essential municipal services that support the health, safety, and welfare of this community; and WHEREAS, the City recently commissioned two independent community surveys to better understand community priorities, which found that residents are highly satisfied with the overall quality of life in San Mateo and support continued investment in essential City services and infrastructure; and WHEREAS, despite maintaining balanced budgets and implementing a Financial Sustainability Plan that includes expenditure reductions, improved cost recovery, pursuit of grant opportunities, economic development strategies, and revenue enhancements, the City continues to face a long-term structural budget deficit because the cost of providing essential services is increasing at a higher rate than revenues; and
WHEREAS, the City faces significant long-term fiscal challenges as the cost of providing essential City services continues to outpace revenue growth, compounded by the loss of state and federal funding and increasing costs to maintain and replace aging infrastructure and public facilities; and WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo has over $350 million in unfunded capital improvements and infrastructure needs, affecting the City's ability to maintain and improve city streets, sidewalks, parks, public facilities, stormwater infrastructure, and other critical public assets; and WHEREAS, additional locally controlled revenue will provide the City with a stable funding source to help maintain essential City services and address critical infrastructure needs while ensuring that funds generated in San Mateo remain under local control and cannot be redirected by the State; and
WHEREAS, San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 3.50 currently imposes a Transactions and Use Tax of one quarter percent (0.25%) that expires on March 31, 2048; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 7251.1, the combined rate of all transaction and use taxes imposed by the City and county is capped at 2%, there is remaining capacity within the local transactions and use tax cap of one quarter percent (0.25%), and the City is authorized to impose the tax contingent on voter approval; and
WHEREAS, the San Mateo City Council has determined to submit to the voters a measure to approve new SMMC Chapter 3.51 that would increase the Transactions and Use Tax rate by an additional one quarter percent (0.25%) until ended by voters, thereby increasing the total Transactions and Use Tax rate to one half percent (0.50%); and
WHEREAS, if the proposed additional Transaction and Use Tax is approved by the voters, is estimated to generate approximately $7 million annually in locally controlled funding for general 776 of 833
governmental purposes; and
WHEREAS, revenues generated by the measure could be used to support City services and infrastructure, including maintaining neighborhood streets, sidewalks, parks, recreation facilities, and public spaces; repairing potholes; supporting police, fire, paramedic, crime prevention, and emergency response services; improving traffic safety; and other general governmental purposes consistent with community priorities.

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

1. Pursuant to California Constitution Article XIII C, Section 2(b), Government Code Sections 53723 and 53724, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285.9, and Elections Code Section 9222, the City Council hereby calls for an election at which it shall submit to the qualified voters of the city a measure, that if approved by the majority of voters voting in the election, would adopt and impose a transactions and use (sales) tax of 0.25%. The election shall be held in the city on November 3, 2026.

2. The City Council hereby approves the Ordinance authorizing the levying of the transactions and use tax for general purposes as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and its submittal to the qualified voters of the city during the November 3, 2026 election in accordance with Government Code Sections 53723, 53724(b) and Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285.9. The Ordinance specifies that (i) the rate of the sales tax shall be one quarter percent (0.25%) of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in the city or otherwise within the base of the transactions and use tax, (ii) the rate of the sales tax shall be one quarter percent (0.25%) of the sales price of such tangible personal property, and (iii) that upon the Operative Date of the Ordinance, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration shall collect the tax from retailers that are subject to the tax and remit the funds to the City.

3. The City Council approves the proposed ordinance set forth in Exhibit A, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO ADOPTING CHAPTER 3.51 OF THE SAN MATEO MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE GENERAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE (SALES) TAX RATE BY AN ADDITIONAL ONE-QUARTER PERCENT (0.25%) UNTIL

ENDED BY VOTERS, THEREBY INCREASING THE TOTAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX RATE TO ONE HALF PERCENT (0.50%), TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION” attached hereto and incorporated in this Resolution by thisreference, forsubmission to the voters ofthe City, and orders that the Ballots for the election shall be in the form provided by law, and that the ballot question shall appear on the ballot in the following form and shall be submitted to the voters of the City:

To provide funding for San Mateo city services, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, fixing potholes, providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 9-1-1 emergency response, and improvements to traffic safety/traffic management, shall the City of San Mateo’s ordinance establishing a one-quarter cent sales tax be adopted, providing 7 million dollars annually for general government use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled?
YES
NO

4. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the transactions and use (sales) taxes imposed pursuant to the Ordinance is for general municipal purposes and accordingly the taxes shall be approved upon a majority vote of the qualified voters of the City of San Mateo voting in the 777 of 833
election on the Ordinance.

5. In accordance with Elections Code 10403, the City Council hereby calls for an election regarding the above measure and directs that such election be consolidated with all city, county, and statewide elections occurring on November 3, 2026. The election shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by Elections Code section 10418. In all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

6. The City Clerk is directed to forward the proposed measure to the City Attorney for preparation of an impartial analysis in accordance with Section 9280 of the Elections Code.

7. Arguments for and against the proposition may be submitted to the qualified voters of the City in accordance with sections 9282 through 9287 ofthe California Elections Code. The deadline date for submitting ballot arguments for or against the proposition shall be set by the City Clerk.

Proposed arguments shall not exceed 300 words and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Clerk.

The deadline for submitting rebuttal arguments shall be set by the City Clerk. Proposed rebuttal arguments shall not exceed 250 words and shall be submitted to the office of the City Clerk. The provisions of Section 9285(a) of the California Elections Code shall apply to the submittal of rebuttal arguments.

8. The City Council authorizes two members of that body, ____________ and __________, to file written arguments in favor of the proposition, and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the proposition may be submitted to the City Clerk. Any argument filed for or against said proposition not exceeding 300 words shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if filed on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument.

9. In accordance with Section 12111 of the Elections Code, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the election on the measure to be published. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the County elections official, and is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to place the measure on the ballot and to cause the ordinance or measure to be printed.

10. The City and other City officers are directed to do all things necessary to meet the requirements of law for the November 3, 2026, municipal election.

11. The City Manager and City Attorney are jointly authorized to make non-substantive changes to the Ordinance in order to implement changes requested by the State of California, including the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

12. A supplemental budget appropriation of $158,000 from the unassigned fund balance in the General Fund to the City Clerk’s fiscal year 2026-27 operating budget is approved for standard election costs associated with the foregoing measure.
778 of 833

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF SAN MATEO
ORDINANCE NO. 2026 -__

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO
ADOPTING CHAPTER 3.51 OF THE SAN MATEO MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE GENERAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE (SALES) TAX RATE BY AN ADDITIONAL ONE-QUARTER PERCENT (0.25%) UNTIL ENDED BY VOTERS, THEREBY INCREASING THE TOTAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX RATE TO ONE HALF PERCENT (0.50%), TO BE

ADMINISTERED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. In addition to the one quarter percent transactions and use tax imposed under Chapter

3.50 of this Code, the People of City of San Mateo hereby adopt Chapter 3.51 to impose a 0.25 percent transactions and use tax until ended by voters to read as follows:

Chapter 3.51
Supplemental Transactions and Use Tax

3.51.010. TITLE. This Chapter shall be known as the Supplemental San Mateo General Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance. The City of San Mateo hereinafter shall be called “City.” This Chapter shall be applicable in the incorporated territory of the City.

3.51.020. OPERATIVE DATE. “Operative Date” means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of this Chapter, the date of such adoption being the date the City Council declares that a majority of the City’s voters have approved this Chapter.

3.51.030. PURPOSE. This Chapter is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:

A. To impose a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 7285.9 of Part 1.7 of Division 2 which authorizes the City to adopt this tax ordinance which shall be operative if a majority of the electors voting on the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called for that purpose.

B. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates provisions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

C. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and provides a measure therefore that can be administered and collected by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in administering and collecting the California State Sales and Use Taxes.

D. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that can be administered in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the 779 of 833
Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this ordinance.

3.51.040. CONTRACT WITH STATE. Prior to the operative date, the City shall contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax ordinance; provided, that if the City shall not have contracted with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration prior to the operative date, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract.

3.51.050. TRANSACTIONS TAX RATE. For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory of the City at the rate of 0.25% of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of this Chapter.

3.51.060. PLACE OF SALE. For the purposes of this Chapter, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

3.51.070. USE TAX RATE. An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the City of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of this Chapter for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of 0.25% of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.

3.51.080. ADOPTION OF PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this ordinance as though fully set forth herein.

3.51.090. LIMITATIONS ON ADOPTION OF STATE LAW AND COLLECTION OF USE TAXES. In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:

A. Wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of this City shall be substituted therefor. However, the substitution shall not be made when:

1. The word "State" is used as a part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California.

2. The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against this City or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this Ordinance.

3. In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the substitution would be to:
780 of 833
a. Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax by the State under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or; b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to tax by the state under the said provision of that code.

4. In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

B. The word “City” shall be substituted for the word “State” in the phrase “retailer engaged in business in this State” in Section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase in Section 6203.

1. “A retailer engaged in business in the District” shall also include any retailer that, in the preceding calendar year or the current calendar year, has total combined sales of tangible personal property in this state or for delivery in the State by the retailer and all persons related to the retailer that exceeds five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). For purposes of this section, a person is related to another person if both persons are related to each other pursuant to Section 267(b) of Title 26 of the United States Code and the regulations thereunder.

3.51.100. PERMIT NOT REQUIRED. If a seller’s permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor’s permit shall not be required by this Chapter.

3.51.110. EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS.

A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any stateadministered transactions or use tax.

B. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax the gross receipts from:

1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the county in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government.

2. Sales of property to be used outside the City which is shipped to a point outside the City, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the City shall be satisfied:
a. With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-City address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of residence; and 781 of 833
b. With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place of business out-of-City and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address.

3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this Chapter.

4. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this Chapter.

5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (B)(3) and (B)(4) of this section, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.

C. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this ordinance, the storage, use or other consumption in this City of tangible personal property:

1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance.

2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.

3. If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this Chapter.

4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this Chapter.

5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (C)(3) and (C)(4) of this section, storage, use, or other consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.

6. Except as provided in subparagraph (C)(7), a retailer engaged in business in the City shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the City or participates within the City in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the City or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the City under the authority of the retailer.

7. “A retailer engaged in business in the City” shall also include any retailer of any of the following:
vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of 782 of 833
the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the City.

D. Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax.

3.51.120. FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS.

The amount generated by this new general purpose revenue source and how it was used shall be included in the annual audit of the City's financial operations by an independent certified public accountant. In addition, there shall be a committee consisting of five members of the public to review and report on the receipt of revenue and expenditure of funds from the tax authorized by this chapter.

The committee shall review the annual auditor's report and shall make recommendations to the City Council on the use of the tax revenue. The committee's recommendations shall be completed by a date to allow for it to be considered as part of the annual budget process. The committee members shall serve four-year terms and shall be the same as the committee established by Section 3.50.160.

Section 2. AMENDMENTS. All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this Ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically become a part of this Ordinance, provided however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this Ordinance.

Section 3. ENJOINING COLLECTION FORBIDDEN. No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the State or the City, or against any officer of the State or the City, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this Ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected.

Section 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, phrase or clause of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The People of the City of San Mateo hereby declare that they would have passed this and each section, subsection, phrase or clause of this Ordinance irrespective of whether one or more sections, subsections, phrases or clauses are declared unlawful.

Section 5. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), submission of the tax to the voters is categorically exempt from CEQA because it involves the creation of a government funding mechanism which does not involve any commitment to any specific project.

Section 6. PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall be published in summary in a newspaper of general circulation, posted in the City Clerk's Office, and posted on the City's website, all in accord with Section

2.15 of the City Charter.

Section 7. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance was introduced on _____ , and adopted, subject to voter approval, on ______ . This Ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of a City transaction and use tax and shall take effect ten days after certification of election results by the City Council certifying that the Ordinance was approved by a majority of the voters voting at the general municipal 783 of 833
election to be held November 3, 2026. The Operative Date remains as stated in section 3.51.020 of the San Mateo Municipal Code as amended by this Ordinance.
784 of 833
Consideration of
Placing a ¼-Cent Sales
Tax Measure on the
November Ballot
Zack Reda, Sr Management Analyst, City Manager’s
Office
Rochelle Lewis, Sr Client Services Manager
TeamCivX
July 20, 2026
785 of 833
Agenda
• Fiscal Outlook
• Key Milestones
• ¼-Cent Sales Tax Information & Comparison
• Community Outreach
• Review of ballot measure development process
• Council Action
786 of 833
General Fund - Structural Deficit
3 (shown in millions)
787 of 833
Financial Sustainability Plan
Expenditure
Controls
• Freeze
positions
• Non-General
Fund Charges
• Operating
Budget Savings
Revenue
Enhancements
• Sales Tax
Measure
• Revenue
Agreements
Cost Recovery &
Cost Allocation
• Cost Recovery
• Citywide
Updated Cost
Allocation
Grant
Opportunities
• Grants
Coordination
& Acquisition
Economic
Development
• Adopted Work
Plan Activities
788 of 833
Key Milestones
Budget adopted with $12-14 million
deficit
General Fund 10-year forecast points to
structural deficit
Summer 2025
Council directed staff to explore revenue
measure
August 2025
First survey results presented showing
majority support
Council directed staff to continue
exploring potential sales tax measure
January 2026
Follow-up survey results presented
again showing majority support
Council expressed support for placing
measure on ballot
June 2026
Community Engagement and Outreach
February - July 2026
789 of 833
Tax Rates Across Local Cities

9.625% 9.875%
 Burlingame
 San Mateo
 Belmont
 Brisbane
 Colma
 Daly City
 East Palo Alto
 Half Moon Bay
 Pacifica
 Redwood City
 San Bruno
 S. San Francisco
6 9.375%
 Atherton
 Foster City
 Hillsborough
 Menlo Park
 Millbrae
 Portola Valley
 San Carlos
 Woodside
790 of 833
Proposed Updated Tax Rate

9.625% 9.875%
• What ¼ cent means in terms of dollars:
• 25 cents on $100, or $100.25
• Does not apply to groceries or prescription medications • ¼ cent increase = $7 million in estimated revenue annually • Funds would remain in San Mateo and can only be used for San Mateo services
• If approved by voters there would be:
• Independent annual audits and public reporting
• Independent resident oversight committee 7
791 of 833
Community Engagement Efforts to Date
8 • Two statistically reliable surveys Conducted via phone, text message and web
• Three informational mailers Sent to over 31,000
households
• Stakeholder and Community Groups More than 50
contacted, more than 30 presentations/Q&A sessions
• Dedicated bilingual informational webpage at
cityofsanmateo.org/ballotmeasure
• Overall, thousands of residents contacted and
engaged
792 of 833
Voter Survey
Election Timing
Tax Rate
Political Landscape
Non-Advocacy
Communication
Existing Communications
Internal and External
Audiences
Seek Feedback
Refine Proposal
Community Readiness
Ballot Resolution
75-word question
Ballot Argument & Signers
Official Council Vote
(>88 days before Nov. 3
Election)
2026 Sales Tax Measure
Planning
Council action July 20, 2026,
for Nov 2026 election
We are Here
793 of 833
Post-Council Action
ØContinue webpage
ØRespond to public inquiries with neutral information
* City resources cannot be used to advocate for the measure 794 of 833
Proposed Ballot Question
To provide funding for San Mateo city services, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, fixing potholes, providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 9-1-1 emergency response, and improvements to traffic safety/traffic management, shall the City of San Mateo’s ordinance establishing a one-quarter cent sales tax be adopted, providing 7 million dollars annually for general government use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled?
795 of 833
Staff Recommendation
12 1. Adopt a resolution:
a) ordering and calling for an election to be consolidated with the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026
b) submitting to the voters a measure to increase the Transactions and Use (sales) tax by an additional ¼-cent