Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Mateo City Council, August 17, 2026 (part 4 of 4)

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Project qualifies for a density bonus and associated waivers and for use of one Concession/Incentive as requested. Please let me know if I can assist you further in understanding the Project.

Very truly yours,

BERLINER COHEN, LLP

JOLIE HOUSTON
E-Mail: [email protected]
cc: Prasanna Rasiah
San Mateo City Attorney
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
455 of 786
616 South B Street Mixed-Use
Development
Draft Transportation Analysis
Prepared for:

Nazareth Vista LLC
April 23, 2026
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Hexagon Office: 100 Century Center Court, Suite 501
San Jose, CA 95112
Hexagon Job Number: 25OZ11
Phone: 408.971.6100
456 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... iii

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

2. Existing Transportation Conditions................................................................................................9

3. Opening Year Conditions ............................................................................................................18

4. Cumulative Conditions ................................................................................................................26

5. Other Transportation Issues........................................................................................................30

6. C/CAG Checklist.........................................................................................................................41 Appendices
Appendix A Traffic Counts
Appendix B Volume Sheets
Appendix C Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Appendix D San Mateo County C/CAG Checklist
List of Tables
Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary.............................................................................vi Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Control Delay...... 7 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay .............. 7 Table 3 Existing Transit Services ................................................................................................ 12 Table 4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service............................................................................ 15 Table 5 Project Trip Generation Estimates .................................................................................. 21 Table 6 Opening Year Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service .............................................. 24 Table 7 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................................... 29 Table 8 Intersection Queuing Analysis ........................................................................................ 31 Table 9 C/CAG TDM Measures................................................................................................... 42 List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections............................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan........................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Network ................................................................................................ 13 Figure 4 Existing Transit Services ................................................................................................ 14 Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations .......................................................................................... 16 Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 17 Figure 7 Opening Year Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................... 19 Figure 8 Project Trip Distribution .................................................................................................. 22 Figure 9 Net Project Trip Assignment .......................................................................................... 23 Figure 10 Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................... 25 Figure 11 Cumulative Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 27 Figure 12 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 28 Figure 13a Site Plan – Second Parking Level................................................................................... 35 Figure 13b Site Plan – Second Parking Level................................................................................... 36 Figure 14a Ramp Turning Template................................................................................................. 37 Figure 14b Ramp Turning Template................................................................................................. 38 457 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | iii
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis (TIA) conducted for the mixed-use development proposed at 616 South B Street in San Mateo, California. The site is located on South B Street between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue. Vehicular access to the site would be via one driveway on 6th Avenue and a second driveway on 7th Avenue.

The project proposes to construct 94 residential units and 7,286 square feet of retail within a single eight story building. Of the 94 residential units, 10 are proposed to be very-low income units. The site is currently occupied by a vacant former paint store and a specialty plastic supply store. The existing buildings would be removed. The project proposes to provide 93 residential parking spaces located on the second and third levels, accessible via the south garage entrance on 7th Avenue, and 21 parking spaces for retail uses and visitors on the first level, accessible via the north garage entrance on 6th Avenue. The project also proposes 6 motorcycle parking spaces for residents.

This purpose of this study is to identify the potential transportation impacts related to the proposed development and to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of San Mateo and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). C/CAG administers the County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP). This study includes a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) evaluation per CEQA and local transportation analysis (LTA).

VMT Analysis
CEQA requires that all new development projects be analyzed for vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The VMT for the project is analyzed according to the City of San Mateo adopted VMT guidelines.

The City’s guidelines provide VMT thresholds, baselines, and criteria to evaluate VMT impacts for new development projects. The guidelines also provide screening criteria to determine whether a project would have a less than significant effect on VMT and would be exempt from CEQA analysis.

The City’s VMT guidelines state that if a project is located in a High Quality Transit Area (HQTA), it is not expected to create a significant VMT impact and is screened out of detailed VMT analysis. To meet this criteria, the project must be within 0.5 miles of a high-quality transit stop or rail station, have a floor area ratio greater than 0.75, not replace affordable residential, not provide more parking than required (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking), and be consistent with the applicable Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy.
458 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | iv
The project is located within 0.5 mile of the San Mateo Caltrain Station and has an FAR of approximately 3.6. The project would not exceed the City’s parking requirements, would not replace any existing affordable housing units, and would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy. Therefore, the project meets the City’s HQTA screening criteria and does not require detailed VMT analysis.

Project Trip Estimates
The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition, was used to estimate the vehicle trips that would be generated by the project. After applying the appropriate ITE trip generation rates, applicable trip credits from the existing land use, and passby and multi-use reductions, the proposed project is estimated to generate 901 net daily vehicle trips, including 56 trips (26 inbound, 30 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 55 trips (31 inbound, 24 outbound) during the PM peak hour.

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

Other Transportation Issues
Queuing
A supplemental vehicle queuing analysis using Synchro was conducted at key intersections expected to experience substantial project traffic to evaluate future storage. At the intersection of B Street & 5th Avenue under cumulative conditions, the 95th percentile queues are projected to exceed the approximately 225-foot available storage by 200 and 250 feet during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively for the northbound approach, and by 75 feet during the PM peak hour for the southbound approach. With the addition of project trips under cumulative plus project conditions, the 95th percentile queue on the northbound approach during the PM peak hour would increase by approximately one vehicle length.

Site Access and Circulation
The proposed site plan shows generally adequate site access and on-site circulation. The project should consider the following recommendation resulting from the site plan review:

Recommendations
• Trees should have a high canopy of at least 6 feet within the sight triangle on either side of the project driveway to maintain sight distance.
• The project should include mirrors at the corners of ramps to improve visibility around corners.
• A gate should be installed at the residential garage entrance on 7th Avenue to limit the garage to resident access only.
• Tandem parking spaces should be allocated to the same residential unit. 459 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | v
Table ES-1
Intersection Levels of Service Summary
# Intersection Pk Hr Control1
Avg.

Delay2 LOS2
Avg.

Delay LOS
Incr. in
Avg.

Delay
Avg.

Delay2 LOS2
Avg.

Delay2 LOS2
Incr. in
Avg.

Delay
AM 10.2 B 10.3 B 10.5 B 0.2 19.7 C 20.7 C 1.0
PM 10.4 B 10.6 B 10.8 B 0.2 22.1 C 23.5 C 0.9
AM 7.5 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 0.0 10.1 B 10.2 B 0.1
PM 7.6 A 7.6 A 7.7 A 0.1 10.3 B 10.6 B 0.3
AM 9.8 A 9.9 A 10.2 B 0.3 17.5 C 18.8 C 1.3
PM 9.8 A 9.9 A 10.2 B 0.4 16.4 C 17.1 C 0.7
AM 9.9 A 10.2 B 10.5 B 0.3 18.6 B 19.0 B 0.4
PM 10.8 B 11.1 B 11.3 B 0.2 24.9 C 25.8 C 0.9
AM - - - - 8.7 A - - - 9.1 A -
PM - - - - 8.7 A - - - 9.0 A -
AM - - - - 8.6 A - - - 8.8 A -
PM - - - - 8.6 A - - - 8.7 A -
Existing Opening Year Opening Year + Project Cumulative Cumulative + Project 1 6th Avenue and B Street TWSC
2 6th Avenue and Laurel
Avenue
AWSC
5 6th Avenue and Project
Driveway
OWSC
6 7th Avenue and Project
Driveway
OWSC
3 7th Avenue and B Street TWSC
4 5th Avenue and B Street Signal
Intersections 5 & 6 are future intersections

1. TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control, AWSC = All-Way Stop Control, OWSC = One-Way Stop Control Notes

2. For TWSC & OWSC intersections, delay and LOS represents worst approach delay and LOS. 460 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 1

1. Introduction
This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis (TIA) conducted for the mixed-use development proposed at 616 South B Street in San Mateo, California (see Figure 1). The site is located on South B Street between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue.

Scope of Study
This purpose of this study is to identify the potential transportation impacts related to the proposed development and to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of San Mateo and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG).

The C/CAG administers the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. This study includes a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) evaluation per CEQA and local transportation analysis (LTA) per the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
The City of San Mateo’s Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Policy establishes procedures for determining project impacts on VMT based on project description, characteristics, and/or location. The City’s VMT methodology also includes screening criteria that are used to identify types, characteristics, and/or locations of projects that would not exceed the CEQA thresholds of significance. If a project or a component of a mixed-use project meets the screening criteria, it is then presumed that the project or the component would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact and a VMT analysis is not required.

For a project that does not meet the screening criteria, a project’s VMT impact is determined by comparing the project VMT to the appropriate thresholds of significance based on the type of development.
461 of 786
San
Mateo
1 5
6 3
2 4
7th Ave 7th Ave
Mission Dr
N Ellsworth Ave
N B St
Tilton Ave
W 4th Ave
6th Ave
8th Ave
N El Camino Real
W 5th Ave
SHumboldt St
Arroyo Ct
Main St
N San Mateo Dr
Baywood Ave
Dartmouth Rd
1st Ave
10th Ave
S San Mateo Dr
N Railroad Ave
Crystal Springs Rd
Baldwin Ave
W 3rd Ave
Laurel Ave
SGrant St
S Ellsworth Ave
7th Ave
S Railroad Ave
S Fremont St
S El Camino Real
2nd Ave
9th Ave
E 3rd Ave
SEldorado St
E 4th Ave
S B St
S Delaware St
E 5th Ave
SClaremont St
San Mateo
Central Park
= Site Location
= High‐Quality Transit Area
LEGEND
X = Study Intersection
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersections
462 of 786
Figure 2
Site Plan
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
6 T H A V E N U E
7 T H A V E N U E
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
UP 20%
TURN
AROUND
UP
UP 10%
DN 6.0%
DN 5.0%
DN 5.0%
DN 5.0%
UP

S O U T H B S T R E E T
(70' WIDE PUBLIC STREET)
4 19
10 10
20 1
15 TYP.
6 6
6 32
53 35
TYP.
15 TYP.
14 36
34 33
21 29
27 26
12 31
7 28
3 8
TYP.
1 45'-0"
45'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
45'-0"
45'-0"
23 TYP.
22 TYP.
25 TYP.
21 37
20 2020
17 17 17
17 17
'T7'
'T5' 'T4'
'T3' 'T9'
9'-0"
24 6
32 21'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
110.07'
110.03'
253.72'
253.71'
5'-0"
5'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
3'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
6'-0"
21 41 41
42 42 44 45
45 22'-0"
20'-0"
16'-10"
15'-7"
12'-5"
2'-3" 3'-6"
9'-5" 19'-0"
1'-6" 2'-0"
11 3'-9"
12'-10"
23 11
2 2
2 463 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 4
The San Mateo VMT Policy contains the following screening criteria for developments that are expected to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact under CEQA and are not required to prepare further VMT analysis:

1. Small Projects: Any development that would generate fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips.

2. Affordable Housing: Projects comprised of 100 percent affordable housing units.

3. Local-Serving Retail and Public Facilities: Retail commercial projects comprised of stores of up to 50,000 gross square feet and local-serving public facilities like police, fire stations, public utilities, and neighborhood parks.

4. Affordable Housing: Projects comprised of 100 percent affordable housing units.

5. High Quality Transit Area (HQTA): Projects that are located in a high‐quality transit area (HQTA) would not require a detailed VMT analysis. Currently, only Caltrain stations in the City are qualified as high‐quality transit. The presumption to exempt a project from a detailed VMT analysis does not apply if the project:
• has a floor area ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); • is inconsistent with the applicable Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), as determined by the City; or • replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate‐ or high‐income residential units.

6. Project Located in Low VMT Area: Residential and employment projects that are proposed in areas that generate VMT below adopted City thresholds.

7. Consistency with RTP/ SCS: Projects inconsistent with the MTC Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) do not qualify for screening out of a detailed VMT analysis.

The project is located within 1/2-mile of the San Mateo Caltrain Station, which is considered a HQTA in San Mateo. The project FAR would be 3.6, the parking provided by the project would not exceed the City’s vehicular parking requirement, the project would not replace any existing affordable housing units, and the project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the project would be able to apply the HQTA screening and be screened out of a VMT analysis.

Local Transportation Analysis (LTA)
In addition to a VMT analysis, the City requires all projects to measure intersection operations 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 six intersections, as listed below, in accordance with the City’s TA guidelines.
464 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 5
Study Intersections

1. 6
th Avenue & B Street (unsignalized)

2. 6
th Avenue & Laurel Avenue (unsignalized)

3. 7
th Avenue & B Street (unsignalized)

4. 5
th Avenue & B Street (signalized)

5. Project Driveway at 6th Avenue (unsignalized)

6. Project Driveway at 7th Avenue (unsignalized)
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 22, 2025 and November 18, 2025.

Traffic counts are included in Appendix A.
• Opening Year Conditions. Opening year conditions represent existing volumes plus projected volumes from approved developments that have not yet been constructed and occupied. Approved project information was obtained from the City of San Mateo website. • Opening Year Plus Project Conditions. Opening year plus project conditions were estimated by adding to the opening year traffic volumes the new traffic estimated to be generated by the project. Intersection effects associated with the development will be evaluated relative to opening conditions.
• Cumulative No Project Conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes represent traffic volumes and roadway conditions projected at the City’s General Plan Buildout. The City’s recently adopted General Plan did not produce intersection volume forecasts. Therefore, 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, effects on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, 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
• Signal timing and phasing
465 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 6
• List of approved developments
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.

Signalized Intersections
For signalized intersections, the level of service method evaluates intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection based on the methodology described in the 7th Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).

The City of San Mateo’s level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS mid-D (average delay of 45 seconds).

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.

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 is shown in Table 1.

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

Intersection Vehicle Queuing Analysis
The analysis of intersection operations was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis at intersections at all locations where a turn pocket is present or storage is otherwise limited. The adequacy of existing/planned storage is assessed by means of comparison with expected maximum vehicle queues.

An evaluation of vehicle queuing was conducted using the Synchro software. The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Synchro software is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the available storage capacity.

For signalized intersections, the 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles, or a queue length larger than the 95th percentile queue would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a 60-second cycle length). Thus, turn pocket storage designs based on the 95th percentile queue length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time for a signalized movement.
466 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 7
Table 1
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Control Delay Table 2
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay per Vehicle (sec.) B
Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay.

10.1 to 20.0
A
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay.

10.0 or less
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.1 to 55.0
C
Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though some vehicles may still pass through the intersection without stopping.

20.1 to 35.0
F
This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay. greater than 80.0
E
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.

55.1 to 80.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition (Washington, D.C.,2022) Level of Service Description Average Control Delay per Vehicle (sec.) Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition (Washington, D.C.,2022) E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays greater than 50.0
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less
467 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 8
Definition of Adverse Intersection Operational Effects
Although measures of congestion such as delay and level of service are no longer used to identify significant impacts under CEQA, 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.

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

1. The level of service at the intersection drops below its respective level of service standard (LOS mid-D or better) when project traffic is added, or

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

Unsignalized Intersections
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 approach for side-street stop-controlled intersections to degrade to LOS F, or

2. An intersection that operates below its level of service standard under no-project conditions experiences an increase in average 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 six chapters. Chapter 2 describes the existing roadway network, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and existing intersection levels of service. Chapter 3 presents the intersection levels of service under opening year conditions (existing conditions with the addition of traffic from approved developments), the method used to estimate project traffic, and the resulting intersection levels of service under opening year plus project conditions. Chapter 4 presents the intersection levels of service under cumulative conditions and the method used to estimate cumulative volumes, and the resulting levels of service under 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. Chapter 6 presents the C/CAG TDM checklist.
468 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 9

2. Existing 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 (SR ) 82). Local access to the site is provided via 5th Avenue, 6th Avenue, 7th Avenue, and South B Street. 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 Gilroy. Access to and from the site is provided via interchanges at 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue.

El Camino Real (SR 82) is a north-south arterial with six 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. In the project vicinity, the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Access to and from the site is provided via 5
th Avenue and 9th Avenue.

B Street is a north-south major collector per the City’s general plan. It has one lane in each direction and extends from 16th Avenue in the south to Tilton Avenue in the north. It has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street with some blocks having angled parking. 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 9
th Avenue to Baldwin Avenue. Between 1st and 3rd
Avenues, B Street is a pedestrian mall with non-emergency vehicle access prohibited. 5th Avenue is an east-west minor arterial per the City’s general plan. 5th Avenue has one lane in each direction and extends from Virginia Avenue in the west to Amphlett Boulevard in the east. It has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street for a majority of the street’s length with some blocks having angled parking. In the vicinity of the site between B Street and Delaware Street, on-street parking is prohibited with a Class II bike lane in its place. A Class III bike route with sharrows is provided between El Camino Real and B Street as well as east of Delaware Street. The project site can be accessed from 5th Avenue via B Street. 6th Avenue is an east-west local street per the City’s general plan. 6th Avenue has one lane in each direction and extends from Laurel Avenue in the west to Railroad Avenue in the east. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Continuous sidewalks are present on both sides of the street. 469 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 10
There are no bicycle facilities on 6th Avenue. 6th Avenue would provide direct access to and from the project via the retail/visitor garage driveway.
7th Avenue is an east-west local street per the City’s general plan. 7th Avenue has one lane in each direction and extends from Laurel Avenue in the west to Railroad Avenue in the east. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Continuous sidewalks are present on both sides of the street.

There are no bicycle facilities on 7th Avenue. 7th Avenue would provide direct access to and from the project via the residential garage driveway.

Laurel Avenue is a north-south local street per the City’s general plan. The street has one lane in each direction and extends from 5th Avenue in the north to Rosewood Drive near 10th Avenue in the south.

On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Continuous sidewalks are present on both sides of the street. The street features a Class II bike lane in each direction between 5th Avenue and 9th Avenue.

Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilites
Pedestrian Facilites
Pedestrian facilities within the study area include sidewalks, marked crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. Continuous sidewalks are present along all streets in the project vicinity.

Most crossings in the project vicinity include marked crosswalks on at least two legs. These sidewalks and crosswalks provide continuous pedestrian connections to nearby transit stops and the San Mateo Caltrain Station, located approximately 0.4 miles to the north, as well as to other nearby destinations such as Downtown San Mateo and San Mateo Central Park.

Bicycle Facilites
Bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site include bike lanes, and bike routes (See Figure 3). Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class III facilities) are existing streets that accommodate bicycles by allowing riders to use the full travel lane but are not separate from the existing travel lanes.

The Class II bike lanes in the project vicinity include:
• 5th Avenue between B Street and Delaware Street.
• Delaware Street between 5th Avenue and Station Park Circle/Charles Lane. • Laurel Avenue between 5th Avenue and 9th Avenue.
• 9th Avenue between B Street and Amphlett Boulevard
Class III bike routes in the project vicinity include:
• B Street between Baldwin Avenue and 9th Avenue.
• 5th Avenue between El Camino Real and B Street.
• 9th Avenue between B Street and Palm Avenue.
• Claremont Street between Monte Diablo Avenue and 9th Avenue. • San Mateo Drive between Catalpa Street and 5th Avenue.

B Street between 1st Avenue and 3rd Avenue is a pedestrian mall where vehicle access is restricted.

Within this section, pedestrians are permitted to use the full width of the street. Bicyclists using the Class III bike route on B Street are required to dismount and walk through the pedestrian mall. 470 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 11
According to the City of San Mateo 2020 Bicycle Master Plan, the Class III bike route along B Street is planned to be upgraded to a buffered bike lane (Class 2B) facility, and part of the Class III bike route along 5th Avenue between El Camino Real and B Street is planned to be upgraded to a Class II bike lane between El Camino Real and Laurel Avenue in the long-term.

Existing Transit Service
Existing bus service to the project vicinity is provided by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans). SamTrans provides bus service within San Mateo and throughout San Mateo County and has several commute period, weekend, and school-day only routes. The project site is primarily served by Routes 250, 59, ECR, 397, and CSM with routes 292, 53, and 53P nearby as well. The nearest bus stop is located 0.2 miles away from the project site at the intersection of Ellsworth Avenue & 4th Avenue serving route 250 and route 59. Many other bus routes are also available at the San Mateo Caltrain Station, which is approximately 0.4 miles from the project site.

Caltrain Commuter Rail
The San Mateo Caltrain Station is served by local-stop, limited-stop, and express trains. On weekdays northbound service operates from San Mateo Station starting at 5:32 AM and running until 12:19 AM, with southbound service operating from 5:23 AM to 12:33 AM. Local trains arrive and depart every 30 minutes all day in both directions on weekdays and weekends. Weekdays have additional Limited and Express trains, both of which stop at the San Mateo Caltrain Station and operate in both directions during peak commute hours. Each AM and PM weekday commute period features roughly four Limited trains and three Express trains in both directions, bringing service levels to major destinations up to every 15 minutes during the peak hours. The bus routes in the vicinity of the project site are shown in Figure 4. Table 3 summarizes the transit routes in the vicinity. 471 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 12
Table 3
Transit Service in the Vicinity
Transit
Route Description Operating Hours
Peak Hour
Headway
Closest
Bus Stop
Walk
Distance to
Project Site
250
San Mateo Caltrain to College of San
Mateo via 3rd St./4th St., Norfolk St.,
Hillsdale Blvd.
5:30 AM to 11:10 PM 15 Minutes Ellsworth Ave &
4th Avenue 0.2 Miles
59 Foster City (Hillsdale/Norfolk) to Aragon
High School via Norfolk St.
7:41 AM to 4:22 PM
(School-day only)
Once each peak
hour, school
direction olny
Ellsworth Ave &
4th Avenue 0.2 Miles
ECR Daly City BART Station to Palo Alto
Transit Center Via El Camino Real 4:41 AM to 1:13 AM 15 Minutes El Camino Real & 5th Avenue 0.4 Miles 397 Salesforce Transit Center (SF) to Palo
Alto Transit Center 2:01 AM to 5:45 AM 60 Minutes El Camino Real & 5th Avenue 0.4 Miles CSM College of San Mateo to San Mateo
Caltrain 5:56 AM to 7:05 PM 30 Minutes El Camino Real & 4th Avenue 0.4 Miles Caltrain
San Francisco to San Jose, with limited
peak-hour peak-direction service to
Gilroy
5:23 AM to 12:33 AM 15-30 Minutes1 San Mateo
Caltrain Station 0.4 Miles
53/53P Peninsula & Humboldt to Borel Middle
School via Delaware St. and CA-92
7:15 AM to 3:51 PM
(School-day only)
Twice each peak
hour, school
direction olny
Delaware St. & 3rd
Ave. 0.4 Miles
292 Downtown San Franscisco, SFO, and
Hillsdale Mall via Delaware St. 3:55 AM to 3:18 AM 20 Minutes Delaware St. & 3rd Ave. 0.4 Miles Notes:
2) Schedule and route information retrieved October, 2025 1) Local service serving all stops operates with 30-minute all-day headway. During peak hours, express trains reduce headways to approximately 15 minutes for select destinations.
472 of 786
San
Mateo
Mission Dr
N Ellswor
N B St
th Ave
Tilton Ave
W 4th Ave
6th Ave
8th Ave
N El Camino Real
W 5th Ave
Arroyo Ct
Main St
N San Mateo Dr
Baywood Ave
Dartmouth Rd
1st Ave
10th Ave
S San Mateo Dr
N Railroad Ave
Crystal Springs Rd
Baldwin Ave
W 3rd Ave
Laurel Ave
S Grant St
S Ellsworth Ave
7th Ave
S Railroad Ave
S Fremont St
S El Camino Real
2nd Ave
9th Ave
E 3rd Ave
S Eldorado St
E 4th Ave
S B St
S Delaware St
E 5th Ave
SClaremont St
San Mateo
Central Park
= Site Location
= Pedestrian Mall (Bikes Must Dismount)
LEGEND
= Existing Bike Lanes (Class II Bikeway)
= Existing Bike Routes (Class III Bikeway)
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
Figure 3
Existing Bicycle Network
473 of 786
59, 250
CSM
CSM
ECR,
397
ECR,
397
53,
53P,
292
250
250
250
59 59
59 59
59 59
53P
53P
53 53
292
292
CSM
CSM
CSM
CSM
CSM
397
ECR
397
ECR
San
Mateo
N Ellswor
N B St
th Ave
Tilton Ave
W 4th Ave
6th Ave
8th Ave
N El Camino Real
W 5th Ave
Arroyo Ct
Main St
N San Mateo Dr
Baywood Ave
1st Ave
10th Ave
S San Mateo Dr
N Railroad Ave
Crystal Springs Rd
Baldwin Ave
W 3rd Ave
Laurel Ave
S Grant St
S Ellsworth Ave
7th Ave
S Railroad Ave
S Fremont St
S El Camino Real
2nd Ave
9th Ave
E 3rd Ave
SEldorado St
E 4thAve
S B St
S Delaware St
E 5th Ave
SClaremont St
= Site Location
LEGEND
= SamTrans School-oriented Routes
= SamTrans Routes serving South County
= SamTrans Routes connecting to
BART and Caltrain Stations
= SamTrans Express Routes
= Nearby Bus Stops
XX
XXX
ECR
XXX
XX
San Mateo
Central Park
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
Figure 4
Existing Transit Services
474 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 15
Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained from observations in the field (see Figure 5). Existing peak-hour intersection volumes (see Figure 6) were obtained from turning movement counts collected on October 22, 2025 and November 18, 2025, when nearby schools were in session, during typical peak traffic hours between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 and 6:00 PM on a weekday. 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 4). The intersection levels of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C.

Table 4
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Observed Existing Traffic Conditions
Traffic conditions were observed in the field to identify any existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service analysis does not accurately reflect existing traffic conditions.

Field observations showed that during both peak hours, all study intersections were operating adequately.
# Intersection Pk Hr Control1
Avg.

Delay2LOS2
AM 10.2 B
PM 10.4 B
AM 7.5 A
PM 7.6 A
AM TWSC 9.8 A
PM 9.8 A
AM 9.9 A
PM 10.8 B
AM - -
PM - -
AM - -
PM - -
Existing
1 6th Avenue and B Street TWSC
2 6th Avenue and Laurel Avenue AWSC
3 7th Avenue and B Street
4 5th Avenue and B Street Signal
Notes

2. For TWSC & OWSC intersections, delay and LOS represents worst approach delay and LOS.

Intersections 5 & 6 are future intersections

1. TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control, AWSC = All-Way Stop Control, OWSC = One-Way Stop Control
5 6th Avenue and Project Driveway OWSC
6 7th Avenue and Project Driveway OWSC
475 of 786
1 5
6 3
2 4
7th Ave 7th Ave
Mission Dr
N Ellsworth Ave
N B St
W 4th Ave
6th Ave
8th Ave
W 5th Ave
1st Ave
Main St
S San Mateo Dr
N Railroad Ave
Laurel Ave
S Ellsworth Ave
S Railroad Ave
S El Camino Real
2nd Ave
9th Ave
E 3rd Ave
S Eldorado St
E 4th Ave
S B St
S Delaware St
E 5th Ave
SClaremont St
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
Figure 5
Existing Lane Configurations
S. BSt
6th
Ave
LaurelAve
7th
Ave
S. BSt
S. BSt
ProjDwy
6th
Ave
7th
Ave
6th
Ave
5th
Ave
Proj
Dwy
1 2
3 4 5
6 San Mateo
Central Park
STOP
STOP
X
= Traffic Signal
= Stop Sign
= Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
STOP

STOP STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
476 of 786
1 5
6 3
2 4
7th Ave 7th Ave
Mission Dr
N Ellsworth Ave
N B St
W 4th Ave
6th Ave
8th Ave
W 5th Ave
1st Ave
Main St
S San Mateo Dr
N Railroad Ave
Laurel Ave
S Ellsworth Ave
S Railroad Ave
S El Camino Real
2nd Ave
9th Ave
E 3rd Ave
S Eldorado St
E 4th Ave
S B St
S Delaware St
E 5th Ave
SClaremont St
San Mateo
Central Park
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
Figure 6
Existing Traffic Volumes
S. BSt
6th
Ave
S. BSt
7th
Ave
S. BSt
ProjDwy
6th
Ave
7th
Ave
6th
Ave
Proj
Dwy
5th
Ave
S. BSt
1 2
3 4 5
6 5(8)
127(138)
3(8)
7(2)88(108)13(6)
7(2)
1(3)
5(10)
7(16)
3(1)
4(6)
73(82)13(13)
86(108)12(11)
2(5)
15(8)
9(11)
124(131)
6(3)
5(5)86(107)5(5)
4(5)
1(2)
7(16)
10(7)
0(1)
7(11)
30(32)40(89)19(46)
7(18)20(51)1(5)
22(27)
172(157)
8(16)
5(19)
106(258)
21(61)
13(13)
25(24)
3(0)
17(21)
477 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 18

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.

Transportation Network under Project Conditions
The changes to the transportation network proposed by the project are limited to the project’s street frontage. The site currently has five driveways, the project proposes reducing this to two driveways by removing the three existing driveways along B Street. Further driveway changes include relocating the driveway on 7th Avenue several feet to the west and changing the dimensions of both the 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue driveway to be 20 feet wide. Along 6th Avenue, the sidewalk would be widened, and a curb extension would be installed at the northwest corner of the 7 th Avenue and B Street intersection.

Opening Year Traffic Volumes
Opening Year AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes (see Figure 7) were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the trips generated by nearby approved but not yet completed or occupied projects. The added traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments was based on the list of approved projects obtained from the City of San Mateo. Hexagon considered both the location and size of the approved developments in order to eliminate those that were too far away or too small to affect traffic conditions at the selected study intersections. The list of approved developments considered for the study is included in Appendix B. Peak-hour traffic volumes for all intersections and study scenarios are also tabulated in Appendix B.
478 of 786
1 5
6 3
2 4
7th Ave 7th Ave
Mission Dr
N Ellsworth Ave
N B St
W 4th Ave
6th Ave
8th Ave
W 5th Ave
1st Ave
Main St
S San Mateo Dr
N Railroad Ave
Laurel Ave
S Ellsworth Ave
S Railroad Ave
S El Camino Real
2nd Ave
9th Ave
E 3rd Ave
S Eldorado St
E 4th Ave
S B St
S Delaware St
E 5th Ave
SClaremont St
San Mateo
Central Park
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
Figure 7
Opening Year Traffic Volumes
S. BSt
6th
Ave
S. BSt
7th
Ave
S. BSt
ProjDwy
6th
Ave
7th
Ave
6th
Ave
Proj
Dwy
5th
Ave
S. BSt
1 2
3 4 5
6 5(8)
139(145)
3(8)
7(2)94(124)13(6)
7(2)
1(3)
5(10)
7(16)
3(1)
4(6)
97(82)13(13)
102(117)12(11)
2(5)
15(8)
9(11)
136(138)
6(3)
5(5)92(123)5(5)
4(5)
1(2)
7(16)
10(7)
0(1)
7(11)
37(36)40(89)19(46)
12(22)20(51)1(5)
22(27)
223(193)
8(16)
6(27)
142(320)
25(72)
13(13)
25(24)
3(0)
17(21)
479 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 20
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 manual entitled Trip Generation, 12th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE). 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 ITE rates for Multifamily Housing – Mid-Rise Close to Rail Transit (Land Use 221) for the residential component and Strip Retail Plaza (<40K) (Land Use 822) for the ground-floor retail component were utilized for this study. The following trip reductions were applied:

Trip Reductions from Internal Capture
Since this proposed project is mixed-use in nature, a portion of the trips generated by the proposed project would both begin and end within the development, referred to as internal capture. Internal capture trip estimates were made for each of the proposed project’s land uses based on the Transportation Research Board (TRB) National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684: Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments. NCHRP Report 684 includes an assessment of on-site land-use categories including residential and retail within the site land use mix when generating internal capture.

Existing Uses
Trips associated with the existing uses on the project site were credited against the new trip generation.

The trips generated by the existing buildings on the site were estimated based on driveway counts conducted on Thursday, September 11, 2025.

As shown in Table 5, the proposed project is estimated to generate 901 net daily vehicle trips, including 56 trips (26 inbound, 30 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 55 trips (31 inbound, 24 outbound) during the PM peak hour.
480 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 21
Table 5
Trip Generation Estimate
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the proposed mixed-use development was estimated based on traffic patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses (see Figure 8). The trip distribution patterns used vary by land use. Trips generated by the retail land uses are more local (i.e. more trips towards residential areas, downtown San Mateo, and El Camino Real). Trips generated by residential land uses are mix of regional and local. Figure 9 shows the trip assignment at the study intersections. A tabular summary of project traffic at each study intersection is contained in Appendix C.

Land Use Size Avg.Daily
Rate
Daily
Trips
Avg.

Rate In Out Total Avg. Rate In Out Total
Proposed Land Uses
Retail1 7.29 k.s.f. - 537 3.93 16 13 29 - 31 31 62
Internal Capture3 0 0 0 0 -8 -8 -16
Strip Retail Trips 537 16 13 29 23 23 46
Multi-Family Housing2 94 d.u. 4.75 447 - 12 18 30 - 18 9 27 Internal Capture3 0 0 0 0 -5 -2 -7
Residential Trips 447 12 18 30 13 7 20
Total Project Trips 984 28 31 59 36 30 66
Existing Land Uses
Existing Retail Building4 83 2 1 3 5 6 11
Net Project Trips 901 26 30 56 31 24 55
SOURCE: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition 2025
k.s.f.= thousand square feet; d.u. = dwelling units
1 ITE rates for Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (Land Use 822) General Urban/Suburban are used. 2 ITE rates for Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) Close to Rail Transit (Land Use 221) are used. 3 4
5 Internal Capture developed using National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684: Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation Developments: Daily 0% reduction, AM peak hour 0% reduction, PM peak hour 25% reduction.

Retail use daily trips estimated using ratio of ITE daily trips to ITE peak-hour trips.

Fitted Curve Equation used where denoted with "-"
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trips Trips
481 of 786
1 5
6 3
2 4
7th Ave 7th Ave
Mission Dr
N Ellsworth Ave
N B St
W 4th Ave
6th Ave
8th Ave
W 5th Ave
1st Ave
Main St
S San Mateo Dr
N Railroad Ave
Laurel Ave
S Ellsworth Ave
S Railroad Ave
S El Camino Real
2nd Ave
9th Ave
E 3rd Ave
S Eldorado St
E 4th Ave
S B St
S Delaware St
E 5th Ave
SClaremont St
50% (35%)
20% (25%)
20% (25%)
10% (15%)
San Mateo
Central Park
X
= Residential (Retail) Trip Distribution
= Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX%(XX%)
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
Figure 8
Project Trip Distribution
482 of 786
1 5
6 3
2 4
7th Ave 7th Ave
Mission Dr
N Ellsworth Ave
N B St
W 4th Ave
6th Ave
8th Ave
W 5th Ave
1st Ave
Main St
S San Mateo Dr
N Railroad Ave
Laurel Ave
S Ellsworth Ave
S Railroad Ave
S El Camino Real
2nd Ave
9th Ave
E 3rd Ave
S Eldorado St
E 4th Ave
S B St
S Delaware St
E 5th Ave
SClaremont St
San Mateo
Central Park
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Trips
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
Figure 9
Net Project Trip Assignment
S. BSt
6th
Ave
S. BSt
7th
Ave
S. BSt
ProjDwy
6th
Ave
7th
Ave
6th
Ave
Proj
Dwy
1 2
3 4 5
6 5th
Ave
S. BSt
2(3)9(3)
5(6)6(7)
4(6)
2(3)
4(1)4(5)
2(3)3(4)
3(4)
3(4)
1(1)2(3)
6(7)2(3)
9(3)
2(1)
13(9)
11(13)
6(8)6(9)
7(9)
7(9)7(3)
11(4)
7(8)
5(5)
483 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 24
Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to opening year traffic volumes to obtain opening year plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 10).

Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the intersection level of service analysis (see Table 6) show that all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under opening year and opening year plus project conditions. The intersection level of service calculation sheets for the project are included in Appendix C.

Table 6
Opening Year Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service # Intersection Pk Hr Control1
Avg.

Delay2LOS2
Avg.

Delay2LOS2
Incr. in
Avg.

Delay
AM 10.3 B 10.5 B 0.2
PM 10.6 B 10.8 B 0.2
AM 7.7 A 7.7 A 0.0
PM 7.6 A 7.7 A 0.1
AM TWSC 9.9 A 10.2 B 0.3
PM 9.9 A 10.2 B 0.4
AM 10.2 B 10.5 B 0.3
PM 11.1 B 11.3 B 0.2
AM - - 8.7 A -
PM - - 8.7 A -
AM - - 8.6 A -
PM - - 8.6 A -
Opening Year Opening Year + Project
1 6th Avenue and B Street TWSC
2 6th Avenue and Laurel Avenue AWSC
Intersections 5 & 6 are future intersections

1. TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control, AWSC = All-Way Stop Control, OWSC = One-Way Stop Control 3 7th Avenue and B Street
4 5th Avenue and B Street Signal
5 6th Avenue and Project Driveway OWSC
6 7th Avenue and Project Driveway OWSC
Notes

2. For TWSC & OWSC intersections, delay and LOS represents worst approach delay and LOS. 484 of 786
1 5
6 3
2 4
7th Ave 7th Ave
Mission Dr
N Ellsworth Ave
N B St
W 4th Ave
6th Ave
8th Ave
W 5th Ave
1st Ave
Main St
S San Mateo Dr
N Railroad Ave
Laurel Ave
S Ellsworth Ave
S Railroad Ave
S El Camino Real
2nd Ave
9th Ave
E 3rd Ave
S Eldorado St
E 4th Ave
S B St
S Delaware St
E 5th Ave
SClaremont St
San Mateo
Central Park
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
Figure 10
Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Volumes
S. BSt
6th
Ave
S. BSt
7th
Ave
S. BSt
ProjDwy
6th
Ave
7th
Ave
6th
Ave
Proj
Dwy
5th
Ave
S. BSt
1 2
3 4 5
6 7(11)
148(148)
3(8)
12(8)100(131)13(6)
7(2)
1(3)
5(10)
11(22)
3(1)
6(9)
101(83)
17(18)
104(120)15(15)
5(9)
18(12)
10(12)
138(141)
6(3)
11(12)94(126)5(5)
4(5)
1(2)
7(16)
19(10)
0(1)
9(12)
37(36)53(98)19(46)
12(22)31(64)1(5)
22(27)
223(193)
8(16)
6(27)
142(320)
25(72)
6(8)6(9)
7(9)
13(13)
25(24)
7(9)7(3)
11(4)
3(0)
7(8)
5(5)
17(21)
485 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 26

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.

Transportation Network under Project Conditions
The roadway network under cumulative conditions was assumed to be the same as 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 the City’s modelling on-call consultant Kittleson & Associates. As a conservative measure, cumulative condition volumes were assumed to not include the traffic associated with the addition of the project. Cumulative no project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 11.

For cumulative plus project traffic volumes, the trips generated by the project (see Chapter 4) were then added to the cumulative no project traffic volumes to yield cumulative plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 12). A tabular summary of the cumulative traffic volumes at each study intersection is contained in Appendix B.
486 of 786
1 5
6 3
2 4
7th Ave 7th Ave
Mission Dr
N Ellsworth Ave
N B St
W 4th Ave
6th Ave
8th Ave
W 5th Ave
1st Ave
Main St
S San Mateo Dr
N Railroad Ave
Laurel Ave
S Ellsworth Ave
S Railroad Ave
S El Camino Real
2nd Ave
9th Ave
E 3rd Ave
S Eldorado St
E 4th Ave
S B St
S Delaware St
E 5th Ave
SClaremont St
San Mateo
Central Park
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
Figure 11
Cumulative No Project Traffic Volumes
S. BSt
6th
Ave
S. BSt
7th
Ave
S. BSt
ProjDwy
6th
Ave
7th
Ave
6th
Ave
Proj
Dwy
5th
Ave
S. BSt
1 2
3 4 5
6 18(26)
445(437)
11(26)
25(7)308(342)46(19)
25(7)
4(10)
18(32)
25(51)
11(4)
14(19)
256(260)
46(42)
301(342)42(35)
7(16)
53(26)
32(35)
434(414)
21(10)
18(16)301(339)18(16)
14(16)
4(7)
25(51)
35(23)
0(4)
25(35)
105(88)
385(351)
43(90)
47(72)229(351)1(5)
78(87)
418(317)
8(16)
26(48)
323(457)
82(136)
46(42)
88(76)
11(0)
60(67)
487 of 786
1 5
6 3
2 4
7th Ave 7th Ave
Mission Dr
N Ellsworth Ave
N B St
W 4th Ave
6th Ave
8th Ave
W 5th Ave
1st Ave
Main St
S San Mateo Dr
N Railroad Ave
Laurel Ave
S Ellsworth Ave
S Railroad Ave
S El Camino Real
2nd Ave
9th Ave
E 3rd Ave
S Eldorado St
E 4th Ave
S B St
S Delaware St
E 5th Ave
SClaremont St
San Mateo
Central Park
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
Figure 12
Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes
S. BSt
6th
Ave
S. BSt
7th
Ave
S. BSt
ProjDwy
6th
Ave
7th
Ave
6th
Ave
Proj
Dwy
5th
Ave
S. BSt
1 2
3 4 5
6 20(29)
454(440)
11(26)
30(13)314(349)46(19)
25(7)
4(10)
18(32)
29(57)
11(4)
16(22)
260(261)
50(47)
303(345)45(39)
10(20)
56(30)
33(36)
436(417)
21(10)
24(23)303(342)18(16)
14(16)
4(7)
25(51)
44(26)
0(4)
27(36)
105(88)
398(360)
43(90)
47(72)240(364)1(5)
78(87)
418(317)
8(16)
26(48)
323(457)
82(136)
6(8)6(9)
7(9)
46(42)
88(76)
7(9)7(3)
11(4)
11(0)
7(8)
5(5)
60(67)
488 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 29
Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the cumulative intersection level of service analysis (see Table 7) shows that all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during both of the peak hours under cumulative no project and cumulative plus project conditions. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C.

Table 7
Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
# Intersection Pk Hr Control1
Avg.

Delay2LOS2
Avg.

Delay2LOS2
Incr. in
Avg.

Delay
AM 19.7 C 20.7 C 1.0
PM 22.1 C 23.5 C 0.9
AM 10.1 B 10.2 B 0.1
PM 10.3 B 10.6 B 0.3
AM TWSC 17.5 C 18.8 C 1.3
PM 16.4 C 17.1 C 0.7
AM 18.6 B 19.0 B 0.4
PM 24.9 C 25.8 C 0.9
AM - - 9.1 A -
PM - - 9.0 A -
AM - - 8.8 A -
PM - - 8.7 A -
Cumulative Cumulative + Project
1 6th Avenue and B Street TWSC
2 6th Avenue and Laurel Avenue AWSC
Intersections 5 & 6 are future intersections

2. For TWSC & OWSC intersections, delay and LOS represents worst approach delay and LOS. 489 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 30

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 Study Guidelines and professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by the traffic engineering community. Although operational issues are not considered CEQA impacts, they do describe traffic conditions that are relevant to describing the project environment.

Vehicle Queuing Analysis
The analysis of intersection levels of service was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis 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 cumulative plus project conditions.

Vehicle queues were estimated using Synchro software. The following movements were evaluated:
• B Street & 7th Avenue (eastbound approach)
• B Street & 5th Avenue (northbound approach, southbound approach) B Street and 5th Avenue
At the intersection of B Street & 5th Avenue the storage length was measured as the distance from the stop line to the nearest downstream intersection. The northbound approach measures approximately 225 feet while the southbound approach measures approximately 240 feet. For the purposes of the queuing analysis, the southbound storage length was rounded down to the nearest full vehicle length i.e. 225 feet.

The Synchro analysis indicates that at the intersection of B Street & 5th Avenue, the available storage length is sufficient to accommodate the 95th percentile queue under existing, opening year, and opening year plus project conditions. However, under cumulative conditions, the 95th percentile queue is expected to increase in some cases beyond the available storage. The northbound approach queue is expected to increase from 3 to 17 vehicles in the AM peak hour and increase from 4 to 19 vehicles in the PM peak hour. The southbound approach queue is expected to increase from 1 to 6 vehicles in the AM peak hour and increase from 3 to 12 vehicles in the PM peak hour. 490 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 31
Table 8
Queuing Analysis Summary
Movement
Peak Hour Period AM PM AM PM AM PM
Existing
Volume (vph) 17 19 89 167 28 74
Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1
95th %. Queue (veh/ln)11 1 2 4 1 2
95th %. Queue (ft/ln)125 25 50 100 25 50
Storage (ft/ln)275 75 225 225 225 225
Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
Opening Year
Volume (vph) 17 19 96 171 33 78
Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1
95th %. Queue (veh/ln)11 1 2 4 1 2
95th %. Queue (ft/ln)125 25 50 100 25 50
Storage (ft/ln)275 75 225 225 225 225
Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
Opening Year with Project
Volume (vph) 28 23 109 180 44 91
Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1
95th %. Queue (veh/ln)11 1 3 4 1 3
95th %. Queue (ft/ln)125 25 75 100 25 75
Storage (ft/ln)275 75 225 225 225 225
Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
Cumulative
Volume (vph) 60 62 533 529 277 428
Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1
95th %. Queue (veh/ln)11 1 17 19 6 12
95th %. Queue (ft/ln)125 25 425 475 150 300
Storage (ft/ln)275 75 225 225 225 225
Adequate (Y/N) Y Y N N Y N
Cumulative with Project
Volume (vph) 71 66 546 538 288 441
Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1
95th %. Queue (veh/ln)11 1 17 20 6 12
95th %. Queue (ft/ln)125 25 425 500 150 300
Storage (ft/ln)275 75 225 225 225 225
Adequate (Y/N) Y Y N N Y N
Notes:

NB=Northbound; SB=southbound; EB=Eastbound; WB=Westbound;

EB NB SB

1. Vehicle queues are from Synchro outputs and are rounded up to the next whole number. Assumes one vehicle equals 25 feet of queue.

2. Storage length is rounded down to the nearest multiple of 25 feet (one vehicle length)
B Street & 7th
Avenue B Street & 5th Avenue
491 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 32
Under cumulative conditions, this increase would exceed the available storage capacity by 200 and 250 feet during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively for the northbound approach, and by 75 feet during the PM peak hour for the southbound approach. With the addition of project trips under cumulative plus project conditions, the 95th percentile queue on the northbound approach during the PM peak hour would increase by approximately one vehicle length.

B Street and 7th Avenue
Queueing analysis for the eastbound approach at B Street and 7th Avenue was conducted to determine if the queues would block the project driveway. The eastbound storage length was measured as the distance from the eastbound approach stop line to the proposed project driveway on 7th Avenue, which is approximately 75 feet. A queue of one vehicle was projected under all scenarios, which would not block the project driveway.

Site Access and On-Site Circulation
The site access and on-site circulation evaluation is based on the site plan dated August 11, 2025. Site access and on-site vehicular circulation were reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and transportation planning principles. The site plan for the project is shown in Figures 2, 13a, and 13b.

Site Access
The site would be accessed by two two-way driveways. The north driveway on 6th Avenue would provide access to the first parking level, while the south driveway on 7th Avenue would provide access to the second and third parking levels. Both driveways are approximately 20 feet wide, which meets the minimum width requirements for two-way driveways in accordance with Section 27.64.025 of the City of San Mateo Municipal Code. A 20-foot-wide driveway will also be sufficient for emergency vehicle access to the site.

Driveway Operations
The project is estimated to generate 59 trips (28 inbound, 31 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 66 trips (36 inbound, 30 outbound) during the PM peak hour (see Table 5). As discussed in Tables 6 and 7, the driveways would operate acceptably.

Sight Distance
The proposed driveway locations were evaluated to determine if the sight distance would be adequate.

The project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and other vehicles traveling on adjacent roadways. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way as to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers entering and exiting the site. Adequate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at driveways and provides drivers with the ability to locate sufficient gaps in traffic to exit a driveway.

The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) chapter 3B.19 recommends red curb segments at least 6 feet in length on each side of the driveway curb return to preserve visibility. The site plan shows red curb sections adjacent to both project driveways consistent with this guidance. Trees should have a high canopy of at least 6 feet so as to not limit a driver’s ability to see down the roadway.

Recommendation #1: Trees should have a high canopy of at least 6 feet within the sight triangle on either side of the project driveway to maintain sight distance. 492 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 33
On-Site Circulation
As shown in Figures 2, 13a, and 13b, parking for the proposed project would be provided within an onsite parking garage consisting of below-grade parking and two above-ground parking levels connected by ramps. The below-grade garage would be accessed via a straight ramp with a 6 percent grade. The ramp would be 24 feet wide and includes four parking spaces along its length. Section 27.64.130 of the City of San Mateo Municipal Code prohibits the use of circular ramps as parking aisles but does not specifically address parking aisles along straight ramps.

On the two above-ground parking levels, the ramp would curve upward to the next floor, where a twoway drive aisle would provide access to all parking spaces before another ramp continues upward in a spiral configuration. The ramp would have slopes ranging from 18 to 20 percent, with 10 percent grade transitions at each end. Section 27.64.130 of the City’s Municipal Code requires two-way ramps to be a minimum of 24 feet wide curb-to-curb, with a wall-to-wall width of 28 feet. The section of the ramp which curves would meet this requirement. One straight section of the ramp along the southeastern wall would be 22 feet wide. Per the City’s Municipal Code, the minimum width of a drive aisle is 22 feet.

This would meet the City’s requirements.

Circulation using the ramp between the second and third floor is shown in the turning templates in Figures 14a & 14b. Vehicles approaching the ramp can temporally utilize the left side of the drive aisle to make the turn towards the ramp, thus not encroaching into the adjacent lane while on the ramp. To assist this maneuver and improve visibility, mirrors should be installed at the ramp corners to allow drivers to see approaching vehicles. As shown in Figure 14b, some vehicles may partly cross the centerline while negotiating the turn on the ramp. The turning template represents a large passenger vehicle such as a full-size SUV; this minor encroachment is expected to occur only with the largest vehicles in the garage and only along the straight section of the ramp, where adequate passing distance remains for opposing movements.

Recommendation #2: The project should include mirrors at the corners of ramps to improve visibility around corners.

The retail garage on the first parking level would have a dead-end configuration that includes a designated turnaround space, providing sufficient width for vehicles to maneuver and exit safely if all parking spaces are occupied. The residential garage on the second and third parking levels would not include a turnaround space; however, this is not expected to create operational issues if parking spaces are assigned, as each entering vehicle would have a designated space. Potential conflicts could occur if an unassigned vehicle, such as a retail customer, inadvertently enters the residential garage.

Because the retail and residential garages have separate entrances, there is potential for driver confusion. To prevent such occurrences and the operational issues which could result, the installation of a gate at the residential garage entrance is recommended to limit the garage to resident access only.

City code section 23.54.030 requires residential uses providing a parking garage to secure against unauthorized vehicle and pedestrian access. The installation of a gate would achieve this.

Recommendation #3: A gate should be installed at the residential garage entrance on 7th Avenue to limit the garage to resident access only.

The dimensions of the parking spaces range from 8 feet 3 inches in width to 8 feet 9 inches in width, and 18 feet depth, meeting the City’s required dimensions for 90-degree parking spaces. The drive aisle that would provide access to the parking spaces is approximately 24 feet in width, which meets the City’s standard.
493 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 34
Loading Zone and Garbage Collection
A garbage collection room would be located on the ground floor near the 6th Avenue garage entrance.

A marked loading zone is proposed along the 6th Avenue frontage to accommodate short-term activities such as residential move-ins and move-outs, passenger pick-ups and drop-offs, and deliveries serving both residents and the on-site retail uses. The loading zone would also be utilized for temporary placement of dumpsters on scheduled trash collection days.

Per City Code Section 27.64.390, the project is required to provide one minimum 10 foot wide and 25 foot long loading area on-site for the retail use and one loading area on-site for the residential use. Per City Code Section 27.64.390, the residential loading area can be eliminated for mixed-use projects that propose at least one loading area. Section 27.64.390 states that requirements for off-street loading may be modified per the zoning administrator based on the following findings: (1) adequate on-street parking is available along a parcel frontage to accommodate a loading berth; (2) the on-street parking intended for temporary loading purposes is located at least 50 feet from any intersections and provides convenient access to building entrances; and (3) the street width is adequate to accommodate loading vehicles without impeding use of the sidewalk or local traffic circulation or otherwise be detrimental to public safety.

The proposed loading zone is located on-street and measures 9-foot-wide by 32-foot-long. The proposed zone begins approximately 24 feet from the crosswalk at the intersection of B Street and 6th Avenue extending towards the project driveway. The project is pursuing a wavier for the 9-foot-wide loading zone and a loading zone within 50 feet of an intersection. California Vehicle Code, CVC 22500(n) prohibits the stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any unmarked or marked crosswalk, the proposed loading zone would be beyond the 20 foot distance from the intersection and therefore outside of the daylighting zone. The curb-to-curb width of 6th Avenue is approximately 40 feet. With a 9-foot parking lane on the north side of the street, and a 9- foot loading zone on the south side of the street two 11-foot travel lanes would remain, thus it is expected that any loading operations would not negatively impact local traffic operations. 494 of 786
Figure 13A
Site Plan - Second Floor
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
6 T H A V E N U E
7 T H A V E N U E
11 TYP.
29 TYP.
30 TYP.
28 TYP.
23 TYP.
34 TYP.
35 TYP.
23 TYP.
5 5
31 TYP.
38 41
7 TYP.
1 0
42 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-3" 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-3" 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-9" 8'-9" 8'-9" 8'-9" 8'-9" 9'-9" 9'-5" 10'-0"
18'-0"
8'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6"
9'-3" 8'-10" 9'-3" 8'-10" 5'-0" 9'-0" 8'-9" 8'-3" 8'-6" 8'-9" 8'-3" 8'-6" 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-6" 18'-0" 24'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 8'-3" 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-9" 12'-0" 5'-0" 17'-5" 17'-0" 8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6"
8'-9" 8'-9"
18'-0" 18'-0"
24'-0"
8'-9" 9'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
27'-0"
22'-0"
24'-0"
+14'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. SLAB
32"
46 TYP.
48 TYP.
48 TYP.
12'-0"
12'-0"
28 TYP.
28 TYP.

R42'-0"
R18'-0"
R16'-8"
11'-0" 11'-0"
9'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6" 9'-0" 8'-6" 9'-0" 9'-6"
8'-3" 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-3" 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-3" 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-6" R18'-0"
28'-0"
14'-0"
DN
10%
DN 18%
NO

PARKING
STOP
NO

PARKING
1 A4.11
15'-11" 10'-7" 8'-1" 8'-2" 32'-0" 14'-9" 12'-3"
102'-11"
ELEV 01
##
ELEV 02
##
DNUP
STAIR #02
##
STAIR #01
##
UPDN

RESIDENTIAL

PARKING
##
R=33'
R=35'
R=33'
R=35'
R=33'
R=35'
UP 10%
UP 18%
SHAFT
##
495 of 786
Figure 13B
Site Plan - Third Floor
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis
DN
10%
DN
18%
NO

PARKING
STOP
NO

PARKING
ELEV 01
##
ELEV 02
##
RESI.LONG-TERM

BIKE STORAGE
##

RESIDENTIAL

PARKING
##
DN
UP
STAIR #02
##
STAIR #01
##
R=33'
R=35'
R=33'
R=35'
1 A4.11
10'-11" 6'-1" 7'-6" 5'-6" 6'-1" 8'-11" 6'-0" 9'-0" 12'-6" 11'-4" 16'-2" 27'-6" 15'-4" 12'-2" 11'-10" 16'-8" 7'-3" 22'-3" 2'-11" 11'-1" 227'-0"
15'-11" 10'-7" 8'-1" 8'-2" 32'-0" 14'-9" 12'-3"
102'-11"
UP
DN
SHAFT
##
11 TYP.
29 TYP.
30 TYP.
28 TYP.
23 TYP.
34 TYP.
35 TYP.
23 TYP.
5 31
TYP.
38 41
7 TYP.
1 42
43 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-3" 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-3" 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 10'-0" 9'-5" 9'-9" 8'-8" 8'-9" 8'-9" 8'-9" 8'-9"
18'-0" 24'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 12'-0" 5'-0" 9'-0" 8'-9" 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-3" 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-3" 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-3" 8'-3" 8'-6" 8'-9" 8'-9" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-9" 8'-6" 9'-0" 8'-9" 9'-0" 8'-9" 9'-0" 9'-3" 9'-8"24'-0" 8'-0" 17'-4"8'-6" 8'-6" 9'-0" 9'-0"
9'-3" 8'-9" 9'-9" 9'-3"
17'-0" 8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6"
8'-9" 8'-9"
24'-0"
4'-8"
+24'-0" A.F.F.

T.O. SLAB
46 TYP.
32"
48 TYP.
30 TYP.
28 28
24'-0"
12'-0"
12'-0"
R42'-0"
R18'-0"
R16'-8"
1 1
1 1
1 1
496 of 786
497 of 786
498 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 39
Parking
Vehicular Parking
The project proposes to provide 93 residential parking spaces located on the second and third levels, accessible via the south garage entrance on 7th Avenue, and 21 parking spaces for retail uses and visitors on the first level, accessible via the north garage entrance on 6th Avenue. The project also proposes 6 motorcycle parking spaces for residents. Under Assembly Bill (AB) 2097, minimum parking requirements are eliminated for projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop. As the project site is located within one-half mile of the San Mateo Caltrain Station, no minimum parking requirements apply to this development.

Figures 13a and 13b show two pairs of tandem parking spaces on the second parking level and two additional pairs of tandem spaces on the third parking level. These spaces should be allocated to the same unit.

Recommendation #5: Tandem parking spaces should be allocated to the same residential unit.

Bicycle Parking
The project proposes both short-term and long-term bicycle parking. The City’s municipal code (section

27.64.262) requires residential and retail developments in the downtown area to provide long-term and short-term bicycle parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms or retail square footage:

Residential Bicycle Parking Requirements
• Short-term: 0.05 spaces per studio/one-bedroom units, 0.1 spaces per two-bedroom units, and

0.15 spaces per three or more bedroom units
• Long-term: 1 space for each studio/one-bedroom unit, 1.25 spaces per two-bedroom units, and

1.5 spaces per three or more bedroom units
Retail Stores Bicycle Parking Requirements
• Short-term: 1 space per 2,000 s.f.
• Long-term: 1 space per 12,000 s.f.

The project would provide 42 studio units, 41 one-bedroom units, 11 two-bedroom units, and 7,286 square feet of retail. Based on this unit mix, the project is required to provide for residents 6 short-term parking spaces and 97 long-term parking spaces. For the retail uses the building is required to provide 4 short term parking spaces and 1 long term parking spaces for a total of 10 short term spaces and 98 long term spaces. According to the site plan, the project proposes to provide 5 short-term bicycle racks which hold two bikes each resulting in 10 short-term parking spaces along the outside edge of the building for retail/residential visitors. Inside the building 99 long term parking spaces would be provided with 2 spaces in a bike locker on the first floor for retail employees, and 97 spaces provided in a bike room located near the elevator on the third parking level.

Pedestrians, Bicycle, and Transit Facility Assessment
Pedestrians
The project site plan indicates that a curb extension (or bulb-out) would be installed along the project frontage at the intersection of B Street and 7th Avenue (See Figure 2). This curb extension would reduce pedestrian crossing distances and enhance visibility between pedestrians and approaching 499 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 40
drivers. Along 6th Avenue, the sidewalk would be widened to accommodate new landscaping, benches, and bicycle racks. Additionally, the project proposes adding benches and planting trees along the sidewalk along with plans to remove two existing driveways along the project frontage on B Street leading to fewer conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles. The planned improvements to the sidewalks create an overall pedestrian friendly design.

According to the U.S. Census, pedestrian trips comprise approximately 3 percent of the total commute mode share in the City of San Mateo. For the proposed project, assuming 3 percent of total commute trips would be walking trips, that would equate to approximately 2 pedestrian trips during the AM and PM peak hours each. The proposed project would also generate pedestrian trips to/from schools, recreation areas, transit, and retail centers such as downtown. Overall, the volume of pedestrian trips generated by the project could be accommodated by the existing and proposed facilities.

Bicycles
U.S. Census data indicate that bicycle trips comprise less than one percent of the total commute mode share in the City of San Mateo. For the proposed project, this would equate to approximately one bike trip during each of the AM and PM peak hours. The low volume of bicycle trips generated by the project would not exceed the bicycle-carrying capacity of streets surrounding the site, and the increase in bicycle trips would not by itself require new off-site bicycle facilities. The project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new bicycle facilities.

Transit Service
The project, by itself, would not preclude, modify or otherwise affect existing or proposed transit projects or policies, nor is it expected to materially increase delays in transit service. According to the U.S. Census, transit trips comprise approximately six percent of the total commute mode share in the City of San Mateo. For the proposed project, assuming six percent of total commute trips would be transit trips, there would be approximately four transit trips in the AM peak hour and four transit trips during the PM peak hour. In addition to commute trips, there will be additional transit trips to nearby schools, parks, shopping areas, and the region. This volume of transit trips generated by the project would not exceed the carrying capacity of the existing transit service to the site. Consequently, the project would not result in any significant impacts to transit service. 500 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 41

6. C/CAG Checklist
Per the C/CAG Travel Demand Management (TDM) Policy, all new development projects anticipated to generate 100 or more average daily trips must complete a TDM Checklist and implement associated measures to limit their traffic impacts on the CMP network. TDM Checklist includes a list of required and recommended TDM measures those developments may use to reduce their trip generation. C/CAG also establishes a trip reduction target for development projects based on the scale of the project and the project’s location relative to a high-quality transit station.

C/CAG categorizes new developments as small projects and large projects, transit-oriented developments (TOD), transit proximate developments, and non-transit proximate developments.

Residential projects larger than 50 units are considered to be large projects. Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) are defined as being less than 0.5 miles from high-quality transit, which includes Caltrain. The project proposes 94 dwelling units and is 0.4 miles from the downtown San Mateo Caltrain station. Thus, the project is considered a large residential project that is a transit-oriented development and has a trip reduction target of 25 percent.

To accomplish the reduction goals, C/CAG provides a list of potential transportation demand management (TDM) measures, some of which are required and some of which are optional. Each measure has an associated reduction percentage. Based on the C/CAG TDM policy, the project must first fulfill all required measures prior to selecting a sufficient number of additional recommended measures to achieve the minimum percent reduction.

With the required and recommended TDM measures, the project is expected to reduce residential trips by 32.5 percent (see Table 9). This would satisfy the C/CAG trip reduction requirements of 25 percent.

The C/CAG Checklist is presented in Appendix D.
501 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 42
Table 9
C/CAG TDM Checklist Measures for Large Residential Projects TDM Measure
Estimated Trip
Reduction
Measure Required for All Sites
M2 Orientation, Education, Promotional Programs and/or Materials 1.0% M3 TDM Coordinator/Contact Person 0.5%
M4 Actively participate in Commute.org or TMA Equivalent 5.0% M6 Transit or Rideshareing Passes/Subsidies 10.0%
M8 Secure Bicycle Storage 1.0%
M9 Design Streets to Encourage Bike/Ped Access 1.0%
Measure Recommended Measures
M10 Delivery Amenities 1.0%
M15 Reduced Parking 10.0%
M26 Pedestrian Oriented Uses and Amenities on Ground Floor 3.0% Total: 32.5%
Notes:

Source: C/CAG TDM Checklist for Large Residential Projects 502 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 43
616 South B Street
Technical Appendices
503 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 44
Appendix A
Traffic Counts
504 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Date:

Peak Hour Count Period:

Peak Hour:

HV% PHF
EB 0% 0.50
WB 0% 0.36
NB 1% 0.89
SB 3% 0.93
TOTAL 2% 0.88
Peak Hour Count Summaries

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 35 1 0 4 17 3 63 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 28 1 0 1 27 1 59 0
8:15 AM 0 2 3 2 0 4 1 4 0 1 31 0 0 4 25 0 77 0
8:30 AM 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 33 1 0 4 19 3 71 270
0 7 3 4 0 7 1 5 0 5 127 3 0 13 88 7 270
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 5
- 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 1% 33% - 0% 2% 14% 2%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 8 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 6 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 5 3 0 2
Peak Hour 0 0 2 3 5 0 1 5 4 10 7 18 0 2 27
10 2 2 8
1 2
1 2 8
1 4 1
Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
Total Total Total
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals
Note: For complete count summary (all intervals), see following pages. ** Heavy Vehicle Classifications include FHWA Classes 4-13. ** Count Summaries include heavy vehicles, but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Peak Hour
Interval
Start
6th Ave 6th Ave S B St S B St
15-min
Total
7:45 AM to 8:45 AM
10/22/2025
7:00 AM to 9:00 AM
0 0
0 0
40 14
0 1
0 0
0 2
18 7
N
S B St
6th Ave
6th Ave
S B St
6th Ave S B St
TEV: 270
PHF: 0.8766
7 88
13 108
139
0 5
1 7
13 19
0 3
127
5 99
135
0 4
3 7
14 13 0
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
505 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - All Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 13 0 24 0
7:15 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 0 0 0 17 0 39 0
7:30 AM 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 22 1 0 4 9 1 42 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 35 1 0 4 17 3 63 168
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 28 1 0 1 27 1 59 203
8:15 AM 0 2 3 2 0 4 1 4 0 1 31 0 0 4 25 0 77 241
8:30 AM 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 33 1 0 4 19 3 71 270
8:45 AM 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 23 1 0 3 15 0 49 256
Count Total 0 13 8 5 0 10 1 9 0 6 197 5 0 20 142 8 424
0 7 3 4 0 7 1 5 0 5 127 3 0 13 88 7 270
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 5
- 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 1% 33% - 0% 2% 14% 2%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
7:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 1
7:30 AM 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 6 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 8 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 6 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 5 3 0 2
8:45 AM 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 1
Count Total 1 0 6 7 1 2 6 4 19 28 2 4
Peak Hour 0 0 2 3 0 1 5 4 7 18 0 2
14 13 53
5 10 27
1 2 10
3 1 5
1 4 1
2 2 8
2 1 7
1 2 8
2 1 6
2 0 8
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Total Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
6th Ave 6th Ave S B St S B St
15-min
Total
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
506 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 6
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 7
Count Total 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 6 1 14
Pk Hr Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 5
Count Summaries - Bikes

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 4
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 7
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 9
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 10
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
Count Total 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 5 0 0 0 4 0 13
Pk Hr Bike 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 10
15-min
Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
6th Ave 6th Ave S B St S B St
Interval
Start
6th Ave 6th Ave S B St S B St
15-min
Total
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
507 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Date:

Peak Hour Count Period:

Peak Hour:

HV% PHF
EB 0% 0.48
WB 0% 0.75
NB 1% 0.84
SB 0% 0.85
TOTAL 1% 0.80
Peak Hour Count Summaries

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:15 PM 0 6 1 5 0 0 0 4 0 5 39 2 1 2 31 0 96 0
4:30 PM 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 28 2 0 0 26 1 64 0
4:45 PM 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 2 36 4 0 2 28 1 80 0
5:00 PM 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 35 0 0 1 23 0 68 308
0 16 1 6 0 2 3 10 0 8 138 8 1 5 108 2 308
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
- 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 1% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
4:15 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 7 8 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 2 1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 6 0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 12 1 1
Peak Hour 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 2 5 24 28 2 2 56
20 0 3 13
0 0
2 1 15
0 1 8
Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
Total Total Total
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals
Note: For complete count summary (all intervals), see following pages. ** Heavy Vehicle Classifications include FHWA Classes 4-13. ** Count Summaries include heavy vehicles, but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Peak Hour
Interval
Start
6th Ave 6th Ave S B St S B St
15-min
Total
4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
10/22/2025
4:00 PM to 6:00 PM
0 1
0 0
20 02
0 0
0 0
2 2
28 24
N
S B St
6th Ave
6th Ave
S B St
6th Ave S B St
TEV: 308
PHF: 0.8021
2 108
5 116
165
1 10
3 2
15 14
0 8
138
8 116
154
0 6
1 16
23 13 0
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
508 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - All Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 5 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 1 20 1 59 0
4:15 PM 0 6 1 5 0 0 0 4 0 5 39 2 1 2 31 0 96 0
4:30 PM 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 28 2 0 0 26 1 64 0
4:45 PM 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 2 36 4 0 2 28 1 80 299
5:00 PM 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 35 0 0 1 23 0 68 308
5:15 PM 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 2 30 3 0 2 21 1 69 281
5:30 PM 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 34 2 0 2 26 1 76 293
5:45 PM 0 5 1 3 0 1 0 3 0 0 40 5 0 2 27 1 88 301
Count Total 0 35 3 13 0 5 4 17 2 12 270 18 1 12 202 6 600 0 16 1 6 0 2 3 10 0 8 138 8 1 5 108 2 308
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
- 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 1% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 8 7 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 7 8 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 2 1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 6 0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 12 1 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 9 6 3 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 3 2 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 11 1 2
Count Total 0 0 2 0 2 0 7 8 55 55 8 5
Peak Hour 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 24 28 2 2
2 17 123
2 5 56
0 1 13
0 3 20
0 0 20
0 5 19
0 1 8
0 3 13
0 3 15
2 1 15
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Total Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
6th Ave 6th Ave S B St S B St
15-min
Total
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
509 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
Pk Hr Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
Count Summaries - Bikes

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 8
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 5 9
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 9
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 9
Count Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 5 3 17
Pk Hr Bike 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 5
15-min
Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
6th Ave 6th Ave S B St S B St
Interval
Start
6th Ave 6th Ave S B St S B St
15-min
Total
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
510 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Date:

Peak Hour Count Period:

Peak Hour:

HV% PHF

EB -- --
WB 6% 0.39
NB 1% 0.90
SB 3% 0.84
TOTAL 2% 0.87
Peak Hour Count Summaries

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 20 2 2 0 27 0 52 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 15 4 0 1 23 0 47 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 0 21 3 2 3 18 0 58 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 17 4 0 4 18 0 44 201
0 0 0 0 0 2 0 15 0 0 73 13 4 8 86 0 201
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 5
- - - - - 0% - 7% - - 0% 8% 0% 0% 3% - 2%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 5 2 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 6 4 0
8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0
8:45 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 5 2 3 0
Peak Hour 0 1 1 3 5 0 0 2 3 5 8 14 11 1 34
10 1 1 4
2 1
1 2 8
1 1 12
Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
Total Total Total
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals
Note: For complete count summary (all intervals), see following pages. ** Heavy Vehicle Classifications include FHWA Classes 4-13. ** Count Summaries include heavy vehicles, but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Peak Hour
Interval
Start
n/a 6th Ave Laurel Ave Laurel Ave
15-min
Total
8:00 AM to 9:00 AM
10/22/2025
N 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Laurel Ave
6th Ave
6th Ave
Laurel Ave
Laurel Ave
TEV: 201
PHF: 0.8664
86 8 98
92 4
15 2
17 21
0 7313
88 86
0 30 1
1 0
0 11
1 14
8 Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
511 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - All Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 5 0 0 8 0 21 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 2 1 3 6 0 21 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 16 0 0 2 10 0 30 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 11 1 1 1 18 0 34 106
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 20 2 2 0 27 0 52 137
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 15 4 0 1 23 0 47 163
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 0 21 3 2 3 18 0 58 191
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 17 4 0 4 18 0 44 201
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 22 0 0 113 21 6 14 128 0 307
0 0 0 0 0 2 0 15 0 0 73 13 4 8 86 0 201
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 5
- - - - - 0% - 7% - - 0% 8% 0% 0% 3% - 2%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 7 4 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 1 0
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 7 2 4 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 5 2 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 6 4 0
8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0
8:45 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 5 2 3 0
Count Total 0 2 2 4 0 0 5 6 21 30 20 1
Peak Hour 0 1 1 3 0 0 2 3 8 14 11 1
8 11 72
5 5 34
1 1 4
2 1 10
1 2 8
1 1 12
0 0 9
1 3 13
1 1 4
1 2 12
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Total Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
n/a 6th Ave Laurel Ave Laurel Ave
15-min
Total
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
512 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 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 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 5
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 8
Pk Hr Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 5
Count Summaries - Bikes

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
7:30 AM 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 0 0 2 0 3 6
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 7
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 6 0 11
Pk Hr Bike 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 5
15-min
Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
n/a 6th Ave Laurel Ave Laurel Ave
Interval
Start
n/a 6th Ave Laurel Ave Laurel Ave
15-min
Total
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
513 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Date:

Peak Hour Count Period:

Peak Hour:

HV% PHF

EB -- --
WB 0% 0.65
NB 1% 0.95
SB 0% 0.90
TOTAL 0% 0.92
Peak Hour Count Summaries

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 20 1 0 1 24 0 49 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 19 6 0 2 30 0 62 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 23 2 0 3 30 0 59 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 20 4 0 5 24 0 57 227
0 0 0 0 0 5 0 8 0 0 82 13 0 11 108 0 227
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
- - - - - 0% - 0% - - 1% 0% - 0% 0% - 0%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 10 1 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 5 10 5 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 4 1
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 6 11 14 1
Peak Hour 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 4 5 11 16 36 24 4 80
32 0 0 12
0 4
1 2 16
0 5 20
Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
Total Total Total
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals
Note: For complete count summary (all intervals), see following pages. ** Heavy Vehicle Classifications include FHWA Classes 4-13. ** Count Summaries include heavy vehicles, but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Peak Hour
Interval
Start
n/a 6th Ave Laurel Ave Laurel Ave
15-min
Total
5:00 PM to 6:00 PM
10/22/2025
N 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Laurel Ave
6th Ave
6th Ave
Laurel Ave
Laurel Ave
TEV: 227
PHF: 0.9153
108
11 119
90 0
8 5
13 24
0 8213
113
95 0
50 3
1 0
2 24
4 36
16 Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
514 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - All Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 13 3 0 4 21 0 43 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 17 4 0 5 23 0 55 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 8 1 0 4 24 0 41 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 17 2 1 5 23 0 53 192
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 20 1 0 1 24 0 49 198
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 19 6 0 2 30 0 62 205
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 23 2 0 3 30 0 59 223
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 20 4 0 5 24 0 57 227
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 19 0 0 137 23 1 29 199 0 419 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 8 0 0 82 13 0 11 108 0 227
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
- - - - - 0% - 0% - - 1% 0% - 0% 0% - 0%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
4:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 6 2 1 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 7 11 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 1 1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 5 5 0
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 10 1 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 5 10 5 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 4 1
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 6 11 14 1
Count Total 0 0 1 1 0 3 6 11 45 51 42 5
Peak Hour 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 5 16 36 24 4
2 20 143
1 11 80
0 0 12
0 4 32
1 2 16
0 5 20
0 4 6
0 3 19
1 2 10
0 0 28
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Total Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
n/a 6th Ave Laurel Ave Laurel Ave
15-min
Total
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
515 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 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
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
Pk Hr Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Count Summaries - Bikes

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 2 0 0 1 1 0 4 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 9
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 9
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 5 14
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 4 11
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 10 0 20
Pk Hr Bike 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 5 0 11
15-min
Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
n/a 6th Ave Laurel Ave Laurel Ave
Interval
Start
n/a 6th Ave Laurel Ave Laurel Ave
15-min
Total
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
516 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Date:

Peak Hour Count Period:

Peak Hour:

HV% PHF
EB 0% 0.71
WB 17% 0.60
NB 2% 0.97
SB 2% 0.86
TOTAL 3% 0.96
Peak Hour Count Summaries

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:45 AM 3 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 34 0 0 3 16 1 63 0
8:00 AM 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 29 1 0 1 27 0 67 0
8:15 AM 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 32 2 1 0 23 2 69 0
8:30 AM 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 3 29 3 0 0 20 2 65 264
4 6 0 7 0 4 1 7 2 7 124 6 1 4 86 5 264
0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 7
0% 0% - 0% - 50% 0% 0% 0% 14% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 3%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 11 0 0
8:00 AM 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 1 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 4 5 3 0
8:30 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 3 1
Peak Hour 0 2 3 2 7 2 0 4 4 10 12 20 6 1 39
11 2 2 12
2 2
1 2 12
2 4 4
Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
Total Total Total
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals
Note: For complete count summary (all intervals), see following pages. ** Heavy Vehicle Classifications include FHWA Classes 4-13. ** Count Summaries include heavy vehicles, but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Peak Hour
Interval
Start
7th Ave 7th Ave S B St S B St
15-min
Total
7:45 AM to 8:45 AM
10/22/2025
7:00 AM to 9:00 AM
0 1
1 0
40 04
0 0
0 0
6 1
20 12
N
S B St
7th Ave
7th Ave
S B St
7th Ave S B St
TEV: 264
PHF: 0.9565
5 86
4 96
138
1 7
1 4
12 10
0 6
124
7 99
139
2 7
0 6
17 17 4
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
517 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - All Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 13 0 23 0
7:15 AM 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 17 2 0 2 15 0 41 0
7:30 AM 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 18 0 0 1 10 1 38 0
7:45 AM 3 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 34 0 0 3 16 1 63 165
8:00 AM 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 29 1 0 1 27 0 67 209
8:15 AM 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 32 2 1 0 23 2 69 237
8:30 AM 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 3 29 3 0 0 20 2 65 264
8:45 AM 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 1 1 2 12 1 43 244
Count Total 8 11 2 9 0 5 1 12 2 8 187 9 2 10 136 7 409
4 6 0 7 0 4 1 7 2 7 124 6 1 4 86 5 264
0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 7
0% 0% - 0% - 50% 0% 0% 0% 14% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 3%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
7:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 1 1 0
7:15 AM 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 1
7:30 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 11 0 0
8:00 AM 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 1 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 4 5 3 0
8:30 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 3 1
8:45 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0
Count Total 1 3 6 6 2 0 5 4 22 32 9 2
Peak Hour 0 2 3 2 2 0 4 4 12 20 6 1
16 11 65
7 10 39
2 2 11
2 0 7
2 4 4
2 2 12
2 0 6
1 2 12
2 1 6
3 0 7
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Total Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
7th Ave 7th Ave S B St S B St
15-min
Total
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
518 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 8
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 8
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 7
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 8
Count Total 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 1 5 0 16
Pk Hr Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 7
Count Summaries - Bikes

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 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 0 0 1 0 2 3
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 6
8:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 8
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 10
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Count Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 11
Pk Hr Bike 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 10
15-min
Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
7th Ave 7th Ave S B St S B St
Interval
Start
7th Ave 7th Ave S B St S B St
15-min
Total
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
519 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Date:

Peak Hour Count Period:

Peak Hour:

HV% PHF
EB 0% 0.68
WB 4% 0.64
NB 2% 0.88
SB 0% 0.91
TOTAL 1% 0.86
Peak Hour Count Summaries

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:15 PM 2 0 1 3 0 1 2 6 0 2 38 1 0 0 32 0 88 0
4:30 PM 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 2 25 0 2 1 23 5 69 0
4:45 PM 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 4 35 1 0 1 28 0 77 0
5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 1 2 33 1 0 1 24 0 70 304
4 3 1 11 0 5 2 16 1 10 131 3 2 3 107 5 304
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4
0% 0% 0% 0% - 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
4:15 PM 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 3 4
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 9 0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 15 0 3
Peak Hour 0 1 3 0 4 0 0 1 2 3 28 35 3 8 74
26 0 3 15
0 0
4 0 23
0 0 10
Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
Total Total Total
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals
Note: For complete count summary (all intervals), see following pages. ** Heavy Vehicle Classifications include FHWA Classes 4-13. ** Count Summaries include heavy vehicles, but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Peak Hour
Interval
Start
7th Ave 7th Ave S B St S B St
15-min
Total
4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
10/22/2025
4:00 PM to 6:00 PM
0 0
0 0
20 01
0 0
0 0
3 8
35 28
N
S B St
7th Ave
7th Ave
S B St
7th Ave S B St
TEV: 304
PHF: 0.8636
5 107
3 117
152
2 16
2 5
23 7
0 3
131
10 124
145
1 11
1 3
19 21 4
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
520 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - All Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 24 1 0 2 22 1 55 0
4:15 PM 2 0 1 3 0 1 2 6 0 2 38 1 0 0 32 0 88 0
4:30 PM 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 2 25 0 2 1 23 5 69 0
4:45 PM 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 4 35 1 0 1 28 0 77 289
5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 1 2 33 1 0 1 24 0 70 304
5:15 PM 2 3 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 34 2 0 0 23 1 73 289
5:30 PM 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 33 4 0 1 28 1 77 297
5:45 PM 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 41 2 0 0 27 3 79 299
Count Total 7 11 2 16 0 10 2 23 2 14 263 12 2 6 207 11 588 4 3 1 11 0 5 2 16 1 10 131 3 2 3 107 5 304
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4
0% 0% 0% 0% - 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 7 0 0
4:15 PM 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 3 4
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 9 0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 15 0 3
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 16 1 2
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 5 6 2
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 15 4 0
Count Total 0 1 3 0 0 0 7 5 57 78 14 12
Peak Hour 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 2 28 35 3 8
4 12 161
4 3 74
0 1 26
0 4 23
0 0 26
0 2 25
0 0 10
0 3 15
0 2 13
4 0 23
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Total Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
7th Ave 7th Ave S B St S B St
15-min
Total
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
521 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 4
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4
Pk Hr Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4
Count Summaries - Bikes

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 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
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 5
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 5
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 6
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 4 7
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 4 1 12
Pk Hr Bike 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3
15-min
Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
7th Ave 7th Ave S B St S B St
Interval
Start
7th Ave 7th Ave S B St S B St
15-min
Total
Garrett Strang
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
522 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Date:

Peak Hour Count Period:

Peak Hour:

HV% PHF
EB 4% 0.87
WB 2% 0.57
NB 6% 0.62
SB 14% 0.58
TOTAL 4% 0.68
Peak Hour Count Summaries

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
8:00 AM 0 4 26 8 0 1 23 1 0 7 5 6 0 0 3 2 86 0
8:15 AM 0 1 23 6 0 2 37 3 0 4 8 4 0 0 3 1 92 0
8:30 AM 0 0 31 2 0 7 40 0 0 3 12 4 0 1 3 3 106 0
8:45 AM 0 0 26 5 0 12 72 4 0 16 15 5 0 0 11 1 167 451
0 5 106 21 0 22 172 8 0 30 40 19 0 1 20 7 451
0 0 4 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 2 19
- 0% 4% 5% - 0% 2% 13% - 3% 10% 0% - 0% 10% 29% 4%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
8:00 AM 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1
8:15 AM 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 2
8:30 AM 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 3 2
8:45 AM 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 4 3 2 5
Peak Hour 5 5 5 4 19 2 2 2 1 7 10 5 6 10 31
14 4 2 7
4 2
5 1 4
6 2 6
Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
Total Total Total
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals
Note: For complete count summary (all intervals), see following pages. ** Heavy Vehicle Classifications include FHWA Classes 4-13. ** Count Summaries include heavy vehicles, but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Peak Hour
Interval
Start
E 5th St E 5th St S B St S B St
15-min
Total
8:00 AM to 9:00 AM
11/18/2025
7:00 AM to 9:00 AM
0 1
1 0
10 02
0 0
0 2
6 10
5 10
N
S B St
E 5th St
E 5th St
S B St
E 5th St S B St
TEV: 451
PHF: 0.6751
7 20
1 28
53 0
8 172
22 202
126
0 30
40 19
63 89
0 21
106
5 132
209 0
NorCal Project Manager
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
523 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - All Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 2 10 3 0 2 7 0 0 1 6 3 0 0 0 0 34 0
7:15 AM 0 0 9 1 0 1 11 1 0 2 4 1 0 0 2 0 32 0
7:30 AM 0 2 19 0 0 2 11 1 0 3 5 2 0 0 3 2 50 0
7:45 AM 0 4 10 4 0 4 13 3 0 6 5 4 0 0 5 0 58 174
8:00 AM 0 4 26 8 0 1 23 1 0 7 5 6 0 0 3 2 86 226
8:15 AM 0 1 23 6 0 2 37 3 0 4 8 4 0 0 3 1 92 286
8:30 AM 0 0 31 2 0 7 40 0 0 3 12 4 0 1 3 3 106 342
8:45 AM 0 0 26 5 0 12 72 4 0 16 15 5 0 0 11 1 167 451
Count Total 0 13 154 29 0 31 214 13 0 42 60 29 0 1 30 9 625 0 5 106 21 0 22 172 8 0 30 40 19 0 1 20 7 451
0 0 4 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 2 19
- 0% 4% 5% - 0% 2% 13% - 3% 10% 0% - 0% 10% 29% 4%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 3
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1
7:30 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 4 2
8:00 AM 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1
8:15 AM 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 2
8:30 AM 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 3 2
8:45 AM 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 4 3 2 5
Count Total 6 6 5 4 2 2 4 2 23 12 13 16
Peak Hour 5 5 5 4 2 2 2 1 10 5 6 10
21 10 64
19 7 31
4 2 7
4 2 14
5 1 4
6 2 6
1 0 8
1 2 11
0 1 9
0 0 5
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Total Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
E 5th St E 5th St S B St S B St
15-min
Total
NorCal Project Manager
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
524 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 7
8:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 13
8:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 16
8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 19
Count Total 0 0 5 1 0 1 4 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 2 21
Pk Hr Heavy 0 0 4 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 2 19
Count Summaries - Bikes

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 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 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
8:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 7
8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 7
Count Total 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 10
Pk Hr Bike 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 7
15-min
Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
E 5th St E 5th St S B St S B St
Interval
Start
E 5th St E 5th St S B St S B St
15-min
Total
NorCal Project Manager
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
525 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Date:

Peak Hour Count Period:

Peak Hour:

HV% PHF
EB 2% 0.93
WB 0% 0.89
NB 1% 0.91
SB 1% 0.84
TOTAL 1% 0.94
Peak Hour Count Summaries

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:15 PM 0 6 58 15 0 10 40 3 0 7 14 14 0 2 17 3 189 0
4:30 PM 0 4 56 21 0 5 36 6 0 7 31 8 0 1 16 5 196 0
4:45 PM 0 4 72 15 0 5 48 3 0 10 20 13 0 1 13 4 208 0
5:00 PM 0 5 72 10 0 7 33 4 0 8 24 11 0 1 5 6 186 779
0 19 258 61 0 27 157 16 0 32 89 46 0 5 51 18 779
0 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 10
- 5% 2% 3% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 2% 0% - 0% 0% 6% 1%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
4:15 PM 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 11 5
4:30 PM 2 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 9 10 2 1
4:45 PM 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 10 14 5 12
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 9 5 4 6
Peak Hour 7 0 2 1 10 5 2 1 1 9 36 36 22 24 118
24 4 2 41
0 2
3 0 31
3 5 22
Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)
Total Total Total
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals
Note: For complete count summary (all intervals), see following pages. ** Heavy Vehicle Classifications include FHWA Classes 4-13. ** Count Summaries include heavy vehicles, but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Peak Hour
Interval
Start
E 5th St E 5th St S B St S B St
15-min
Total
4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
11/18/2025
4:00 PM to 6:00 PM
2 2
1 1
00 01
0 0
2 0
22 24
36 36
N
S B St
E 5th St
E 5th St
S B St
E 5th St S B St
TEV: 779
PHF: 0.9363
18 51
5 74
124
0 16
157
27 200
309
0 32
89 46
139
167
0 61
258
19 338
207 0
NorCal Project Manager
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
526 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - All Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 9 58 16 0 6 38 5 0 14 22 5 0 2 6 1 182 0
4:15 PM 0 6 58 15 0 10 40 3 0 7 14 14 0 2 17 3 189 0
4:30 PM 0 4 56 21 0 5 36 6 0 7 31 8 0 1 16 5 196 0
4:45 PM 0 4 72 15 0 5 48 3 0 10 20 13 0 1 13 4 208 775
5:00 PM 0 5 72 10 0 7 33 4 0 8 24 11 0 1 5 6 186 779
5:15 PM 0 4 62 10 0 14 31 4 0 8 21 12 0 2 4 5 177 767
5:30 PM 0 10 55 8 0 6 47 8 0 6 12 12 0 2 14 4 184 755
5:45 PM 0 9 63 13 0 10 44 7 0 4 17 15 0 2 14 4 202 749
Count Total 0 51 496 108 0 63 317 40 0 64 161 90 0 13 89 32 1,524 0 19 258 61 0 27 157 16 0 32 89 46 0 5 51 18 779
0 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 10
- 5% 2% 3% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 2% 0% - 0% 0% 6% 1%

EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB E W N S
4:00 PM 2 4 1 0 0 1 0 3 12 7 7 8
4:15 PM 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 11 5
4:30 PM 2 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 9 10 2 1
4:45 PM 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 10 14 5 12
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 9 5 4 6
5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 20 4 4 6
5:30 PM 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15 7 6 10
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 9 5 2
Count Total 11 4 4 2 6 5 3 7 101 63 44 50
Peak Hour 7 0 2 1 5 2 1 1 36 36 22 24
21 21 258
10 9 118
3 2 38
0 1 34
0 2 24
1 5 34
3 5 22
4 2 41
7 4 34
3 0 31
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Total Total Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
E 5th St E 5th St S B St S B St
15-min
Total
NorCal Project Manager
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
527 of 786
www.idaxdata.com
Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0
4:15 PM 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
4:30 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
4:45 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 17
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 8
5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 8
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Count Total 0 1 7 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 21
Pk Hr Heavy 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 10
Count Summaries - Bikes

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0
4:45 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 9
5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 14
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 11
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 10
Count Total 0 1 3 2 0 0 5 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 4 3 21
Pk Hr Bike 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 9
15-min
Total
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Rolling
Hour
Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Interval
Start
E 5th St E 5th St S B St S B St
Interval
Start
E 5th St E 5th St S B St S B St
15-min
Total
NorCal Project Manager
(415) 444-6376 [email protected]
528 of 786

AUTO CENSUS
Date: Traffic Monitoring and Analysis
Counters: 5973 Larkstone Loop 445 Lily Ann Way
Intersection Name: San Jose, CA 95123
Weather: Fair
Start Time IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT
7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 0 0 1 1 0 0
7:45 0 0 1 1 0 0
8:00 1 0 1 1 0 0
8:15 1 0 1 1 0 0
8:30 1 0 1 1 0 0
8:45 1 0 1 1 0 0
9:00 1 0 1 1 0 0
Hourly
Peak Hour Totals
7:00 - 8:00 1 0 1 1 0 0 3
7:15 - 8:15 1 0 1 1 0 0 3
7:30 - 8:30 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
7:45 - 8:45 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:00 - 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Volumes: 1 0 1 1 0 0 3
Start Time IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 0 0 1 0 0 0
4:30 0 1 3 0 1 0
4:45 0 1 4 1 1 1
5:00 0 2 4 3 1 1
5:15 0 2 4 4 1 1
5:30 0 2 4 4 1 1
5:45 0 2 4 6 1 1
6:00 0 2 4 6 1 1
Hourly
Peak Hour Totals
4:00-5:00 0 2 4 3 1 1 11
4:15-5:15 0 2 3 4 1 1 11
4:30-5:30 0 1 1 4 0 1 7
4:45-5:45 0 1 0 5 0 0 6
5:00-6:00 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
Peak Volumes: 0 2 4 3 1 1 11
DWY 3
9/11/2025
DWY 1 DWY 2 DWY 3
PM Volume Count- 25OZ11(San Mateo)
Tap Plastics
Steve
DWY 1 DWY 2
529 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 45
Appendix B
Scenario Volumes
530 of 786

Page 1 ends

Intersection Number: 1
Traffix Node Number: 1
Intersection Name: B Street and 6th Avenue
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

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 7 88 13 5 1 7 3 127 5 4 3 7 270
Approved Project Trips
31-57 S. B Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 E. 3rd Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Block 21 - 500 E. 3rd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger's Market) 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 11 477 9th Avenue 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 7
Total Approved Trips 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 18
Opening Year Conditions 7 94 13 5 1 7 3 139 5 4 3 7 288 Proposed Project Trips 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 2 0 4 28
Opening Year + Project Conditions 12 100 13 5 1 7 3 148 7 6 3 11 316 Cumulative No Project Conditions 25 308 46 18 4 25 11 445 18 14 11 25 950 Cumulative + Project Conditions 30 314 46 18 4 25 11 454 20 16 11 29 978 Intersection Number: 2
Traffix Node Number: 2
Intersection Name: Laurel Avenue and 6th Avenue
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

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 86 12 15 0 2 13 73 0 0 0 0 201
Approved Project Trips
31-57 S. B Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 E. 3rd Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Block 21 - 500 E. 3rd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger's Market) 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 40 477 9th Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approved Trips 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 40
Opening Year Conditions 0 102 12 15 0 2 13 97 0 0 0 0 241 Proposed Project Trips 0 2 3 3 0 3 4 4 0 0 0 0 19
Opening Year + Project Conditions 0 104 15 18 0 5 17 101 0 0 0 0 260 Cumulative No Project Conditions 0 301 42 53 0 7 46 256 0 0 0 0 705 Cumulative + Project Conditions 0 303 45 56 0 10 50 260 0 0 0 0 724 03/23/26
10/22/25
03/23/26
10/22/25
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
3/25/2026
Sum_AM
616 B Street Volumes 3-23-2026
531 of 786

Page 2 ends

Intersection Number: 3
Traffix Node Number: 3
Intersection Name: B Street and 7th Avenue
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

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 5 86 5 7 1 4 6 124 9 7 0 10 264
Approved Project Trips
31-57 S. B Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 E. 3rd Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Block 21 - 500 E. 3rd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger's Market) 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 11 477 9th Avenue 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 7
Total Approved Trips 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 18
Opening Year Conditions 5 92 5 7 1 4 6 136 9 7 0 10 282 Proposed Project Trips 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 9 22
Opening Year + Project Conditions 11 94 5 7 1 4 6 138 10 9 0 19 304 Cumulative No Project Conditions 18 301 18 25 4 14 21 434 32 25 0 35 927 Cumulative + Project Conditions 24 303 18 25 4 14 21 436 33 27 0 44 949 Intersection Number: 4
Traffix Node Number: 4
Intersection Name: B Street and 5th Avenue
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

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 7 20 1 8 172 22 19 40 30 21 106 5 451 Approved Project Trips
31-57 S. B Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 E. 3rd Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Block 21 - 500 E. 3rd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15
222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger's Market) 5 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 7 4 20 1 87 477 9th Avenue 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Total Approved Trips 5 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 7 4 36 1 104
Opening Year Conditions 12 20 1 8 223 22 19 40 37 25 142 6 555 Proposed Project Trips 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 24
Opening Year + Project Conditions 12 31 1 8 223 22 19 53 37 25 142 6 579 Cumulative No Project Conditions 47 229 1 8 418 78 43 385 105 82 323 26 1745 Cumulative + Project Conditions 47 240 1 8 418 78 43 398 105 82 323 26 1769 10/22/25
03/23/26
11/18/25
03/23/26
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
3/25/2026
Sum_AM
616 B Street Volumes 3-23-2026
532 of 786

Page 3 ends

Intersection Number: 5
Traffix Node Number: 5
Intersection Name: Project Driveway and 6th Avenue
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

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 13 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 38
Approved Project Trips
31-57 S. B Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 E. 3rd Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Block 21 - 500 E. 3rd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger's Market) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 477 9th Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Opening Year Conditions 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 38
Proposed Project Trips 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 6 7 0 0 26
Opening Year + Project Conditions 0 0 0 0 13 7 6 0 6 7 25 0 64 Cumulative No Project Conditions 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 134 Cumulative + Project Conditions 0 0 0 0 46 7 6 0 6 7 88 0 160 Intersection Number: 6
Traffix Node Number: 6
Intersection Name: Project Driveway and 7th Avenue
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

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 3 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 20
Approved Project Trips
31-57 S. B Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 E. 3rd Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Block 21 - 500 E. 3rd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger's Market) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 477 9th Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Opening Year Conditions 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 20
Proposed Project Trips 7 0 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 30
Opening Year + Project Conditions 7 0 11 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 17 5 50 Cumulative No Project Conditions 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 71 Cumulative + Project Conditions 7 0 11 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 60 5 101 03/23/26
10/22/25
03/23/26
10/22/25
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
3/25/2026
Sum_AM
616 B Street Volumes 3-23-2026
533 of 786

Page 1 ends

Intersection Number: 1
Traffix Node Number: 1
Intersection Name: B Street and 6th Avenue
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

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 2 108 6 10 3 2 8 138 8 6 1 16 308
Approved Project Trips
31-57 S. B Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 E. 3rd Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Block 21 - 500 E. 3rd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger's Market) 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 15 477 9th Avenue 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8
Total Approved Trips 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 23
Opening Year Conditions 2 124 6 10 3 2 8 145 8 6 1 16 331 Proposed Project Trips 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 6 28
Opening Year + Project Conditions 8 131 6 10 3 2 8 148 11 9 1 22 359 Cumulative No Project Conditions 7 342 19 32 10 7 26 437 26 19 4 51 980 Cumulative + Project Conditions 13 349 19 32 10 7 26 440 29 22 4 57 1008 Intersection Number: 2
Traffix Node Number: 2
Intersection Name: Laurel Avenue and 6th Avenue
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

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 0 108 11 8 0 5 13 82 0 0 0 0 227
Approved Project Trips
31-57 S. B Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 E. 3rd Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Block 21 - 500 E. 3rd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger's Market) 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 477 9th Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approved Trips 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Opening Year Conditions 0 117 11 8 0 5 13 82 0 0 0 0 236 Proposed Project Trips 0 3 4 4 0 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 21
Opening Year + Project Conditions 0 120 15 12 0 9 18 83 0 0 0 0 257 Cumulative No Project Conditions 0 342 35 26 0 16 42 260 0 0 0 0 721 Cumulative + Project Conditions 0 345 39 30 0 20 47 261 0 0 0 0 742 03/23/26
10/22/25
03/23/26
10/22/25
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
3/25/2026
Sum_PM
616 B Street Volumes 3-23-2026
534 of 786

Page 2 ends

Intersection Number: 3
Traffix Node Number: 3
Intersection Name: B Street and 7th Avenue
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

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 5 107 5 16 2 5 3 131 11 11 1 7 304
Approved Project Trips
31-57 S. B Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 E. 3rd Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Block 21 - 500 E. 3rd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger's Market) 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 15 477 9th Avenue 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8
Total Approved Trips 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 23
Opening Year Conditions 5 123 5 16 2 5 3 138 11 11 1 7 327 Proposed Project Trips 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 3 18
Opening Year + Project Conditions 12 126 5 16 2 5 3 141 12 12 1 10 345 Cumulative No Project Conditions 16 339 16 51 7 16 10 414 35 35 4 23 966 Cumulative + Project Conditions 23 342 16 51 7 16 10 417 36 36 4 26 984 Intersection Number: 4
Traffix Node Number: 4
Intersection Name: B Street and 5th Avenue
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

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 18 51 5 16 157 27 46 89 32 61 258 19 779 Approved Project Trips
31-57 S. B Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 E. 3rd Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Block 21 - 500 E. 3rd Ave 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 -6 0 3
222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger's Market) 4 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 4 11 66 8 118 477 9th Avenue 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4
Total Approved Trips 4 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 4 11 62 8 125
Opening Year Conditions 22 51 5 16 193 27 46 89 36 72 320 27 904 Proposed Project Trips 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 22
Opening Year + Project Conditions 22 64 5 16 193 27 46 98 36 72 320 27 926 Cumulative No Project Conditions 72 351 5 16 317 87 90 351 88 136 457 48 2018 Cumulative + Project Conditions 72 364 5 16 317 87 90 360 88 136 457 48 2040 10/22/25
03/23/26
11/18/25
03/23/26
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
3/25/2026
Sum_PM
616 B Street Volumes 3-23-2026
535 of 786

Page 3 ends

Intersection Number: 5
Traffix Node Number: 5
Intersection Name: Project Driveway and 6th Avenue
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

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 13 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 37
Approved Project Trips
31-57 S. B Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 E. 3rd Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Block 21 - 500 E. 3rd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger's Market) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 477 9th Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Opening Year Conditions 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 37
Proposed Project Trips 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 8 9 0 0 35
Opening Year + Project Conditions 0 0 0 0 13 9 9 0 8 9 24 0 72 Cumulative No Project Conditions 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 118 Cumulative + Project Conditions 0 0 0 0 42 9 9 0 8 9 76 0 153 Intersection Number: 6
Traffix Node Number: 6
Intersection Name: Project Driveway and 7th Avenue
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

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 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 21
Approved Project Trips
31-57 S. B Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 E. 3rd Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Block 21 - 500 E. 3rd Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 E. 4th Avenue (Draeger's Market) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 477 9th Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Opening Year Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 21
Proposed Project Trips 3 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 20
Opening Year + Project Conditions 3 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 5 41 Cumulative No Project Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 67 Cumulative + Project Conditions 3 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 5 87 03/23/26
10/22/25
03/23/26
10/22/25
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
3/25/2026
Sum_PM
616 B Street Volumes 3-23-2026
536 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 46
Appendix C
Level of Service
537 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
1: South B St. & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 3 4 7 1 5 5 127 3 13 88 7
Future Vol, veh/h 7 3 4 7 1 5 5 127 3 13 88 7
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 8 3 4 8 1 5 5 138 3 14 96 8
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 277 280 99 276 282 140 103 0 0 141 0 0 Stage 1 128 128 - 151 151 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 149 152 - 126 132 - - - - - - -
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 675 628 956 676 627 908 1489 - - 1442 - - Stage 1 876 790 - 852 773 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 853 771 - 878 787 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 660 619 956 660 618 908 1489 - - 1442 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 660 619 - 660 618 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 867 782 - 849 770 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 843 768 - 862 779 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.16 10.01 0.28 0.91

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 66 - - 713 733 214 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.021 0.019 0.01 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.4 0 - 10.2 10 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
538 of 786
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Laurel Ave. & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.5
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 15 73 13 12 86
Future Vol, veh/h 2 15 73 13 12 86
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 16 79 14 13 93
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 6.9 7.4 7.6

HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 12% 12%
Vol Thru, % 85% 0% 88%
Vol Right, % 15% 88% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 86 17 98
LT Vol 0 2 12
Through Vol 73 0 86
RT Vol 13 15 0
Lane Flow Rate 93 18 107
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.103 0.019 0.12
Departure Headway (Hd) 3.955 3.769 4.06
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 906 934 883
Service Time 1.982 1.854 2.083
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.103 0.019 0.121
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.4 6.9 7.6
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.1 0.4
539 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
3: South B St. & 7th Ave. 03/24/2026
Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 0 7 4 1 7 9 124 6 5 86 5
Future Vol, veh/h 10 0 7 4 1 7 9 124 6 5 86 5
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 11 0 8 4 1 8 10 135 7 5 93 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 262 268 96 262 267 138 99 0 0 141 0 0 Stage 1 107 107 - 158 158 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 155 161 - 104 110 - - - - - - -
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 691 638 960 691 639 910 1494 - - 1442 - - Stage 1 898 807 - 845 767 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 847 765 - 901 804 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 676 631 960 678 631 910 1494 - - 1442 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 676 631 - 678 631 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 895 803 - 839 762 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 833 759 - 891 801 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.79 9.63 0.48 0.39

HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 115 - - 770 791 93 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - 0.024 0.016 0.004 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.4 0 - 9.8 9.6 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - A A A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
540 of 786
Queues
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 194 297 131 40
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.47 0.29 0.08
Control Delay (s/veh) 10.6 13.1 13.0 10.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 10.6 13.1 13.0 10.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 47 18 5
Queue Length 95th (ft) 48 76 40 16
Internal Link Dist (ft) 223 203 229 207
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1268 1236 1102 1235
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.24 0.12 0.03
Intersection Summary
541 of 786
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 106 21 22 172 8 30 40 19 1 20 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 106 21 22 172 8 30 40 19 1 20 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 156 31 32 253 12 44 59 28 1 29 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 139 395 76 170 429 19 235 105 46 134 173 59
Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 25 1488 288 107 1617 73 490 801 351 26 1319 448 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 194 0 0 297 0 0 131 0 0 40 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1801 0 0 1797 0 0 1641 0 0 1794 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.04 0.16 0.11 0.04 0.34 0.21 0.02 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 611 0 0 619 0 0 386 0 0 366 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1684 0 0 1677 0 0 1518 0 0 1612 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.5 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 8.8 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 194 297 131 40
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.8 9.6 12.0 11.0
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 17.0 11.2 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 9.5 7.5 9.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 24.5 23.5 24.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 4.5 2.6 6.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 1.0 0.1 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 9.9
HCM 7th LOS A
542 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Retail Driveway & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 0 0 13 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 25 0 0 13 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 27 0 0 14 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 27 0 41 27
Stage 1 - - - - 27 -
Stage 2 - - - - 14 -
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 - 970 1048
Stage 1 - - - - 995 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1009 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1587 - 970 1048
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 970 -
Stage 1 - - - - 995 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1009 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
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 -
543 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
6: 7th Ave. & Residential Driveway 03/24/2026
Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 17 3 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 17 3 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 18 3 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 3 0 - 0 22 3
Stage 1 - - - - 3 -
Stage 2 - - - - 18 -
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 1619 - - - 995 1081
Stage 1 - - - - 1020 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1004 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1619 - - - 995 1081
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 995 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1020 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1004 -
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) 1619 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
544 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
1: South B St. & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 1 6 2 3 10 8 138 8 6 108 2
Future Vol, veh/h 16 1 6 2 3 10 8 138 8 6 108 2
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 17 1 7 2 3 11 9 150 9 7 117 2
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 301 308 118 303 304 154 120 0 0 159 0 0 Stage 1 132 132 - 172 172 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 169 176 - 131 133 - - - - - - -
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 652 606 933 650 609 892 1468 - - 1421 - - Stage 1 872 787 - 830 757 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 833 753 - 873 787 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 633 599 933 637 602 892 1468 - - 1421 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 633 599 - 637 602 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 868 784 - 825 752 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 814 748 - 861 783 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.42 9.74 0.39 0.39

HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 92 - - 689 776 93 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.036 0.021 0.005 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - 10.4 9.7 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B A A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
545 of 786
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Laurel Ave. & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 8 82 13 11 108
Future Vol, veh/h 5 8 82 13 11 108
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 9 89 14 12 117
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.2 7.5 7.8

HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 38% 9%
Vol Thru, % 86% 0% 91%
Vol Right, % 14% 62% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 95 13 119
LT Vol 0 5 11
Through Vol 82 0 108
RT Vol 13 8 0
Lane Flow Rate 103 14 129
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.114 0.016 0.146
Departure Headway (Hd) 3.974 4.038 4.055
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 900 870 885
Service Time 2.006 2.137 2.08
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.114 0.016 0.146
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.5 7.2 7.8
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0 0.5
546 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
3: South B St. & 7th Ave. 03/24/2026
Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 1 11 5 2 16 11 131 3 5 107 5
Future Vol, veh/h 7 1 11 5 2 16 11 131 3 5 107 5
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 8 1 12 5 2 17 12 142 3 5 116 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 297 299 119 296 301 144 122 0 0 146 0 0 Stage 1 130 130 - 168 168 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 167 170 - 128 133 - - - - - - -
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 655 613 933 657 612 903 1466 - - 1436 - - Stage 1 874 789 - 834 759 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 835 758 - 876 787 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 632 605 933 639 604 903 1466 - - 1436 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 632 605 - 639 604 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 870 785 - 827 753 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 809 752 - 860 783 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.77 9.66 0.57 0.32

HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 136 - - 775 797 76 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - - 0.027 0.031 0.004 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - 9.8 9.7 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - A A A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
547 of 786
Queues
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 359 213 178 78
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.33 0.34 0.15
Control Delay (s/veh) 13.0 11.6 13.7 11.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 13.0 11.6 13.7 11.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 33 26 10
Queue Length 95th (ft) 139 84 80 40
Internal Link Dist (ft) 223 203 229 207
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1189 1100 1090 1142
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.19 0.16 0.07
Intersection Summary
548 of 786
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 19 258 61 27 157 16 32 89 46 5 51 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 19 258 61 27 157 16 32 89 46 5 51 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 274 65 29 167 17 34 95 49 5 54 19 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 133 423 97 164 451 42 172 168 78 130 216 72
Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 45 1418 324 120 1510 141 224 1004 467 55 1286 432 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 359 0 0 213 0 0 178 0 0 78 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1787 0 0 1771 0 0 1695 0 0 1773 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.06 0.18 0.14 0.08 0.19 0.28 0.06 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 653 0 0 657 0 0 419 0 0 417 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1481 0 0 1442 0 0 1365 0 0 1409 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.8 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 10.5 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 359 213 178 78
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.5 9.1 13.0 11.7
Approach LOS B A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 19.0 12.8 19.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 9.5 7.5 9.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 24.5 23.5 24.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 7.5 3.2 4.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 2.0 0.3 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 10.8
HCM 7th LOS B
549 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Retail Driveway & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 0 0 13 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 24 0 0 13 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 26 0 0 14 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 26 0 40 26
Stage 1 - - - - 26 -
Stage 2 - - - - 14 -
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 - - 1588 - 971 1050
Stage 1 - - - - 996 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1009 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1588 - 971 1050
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 971 -
Stage 1 - - - - 996 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1009 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1588 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
550 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
6: 7th Ave. & Residential Driveway 03/24/2026
Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 21 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 21 0 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 0 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1 0 - 0 24 1
Stage 1 - - - - 1 -
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 1622 - - - 992 1083
Stage 1 - - - - 1022 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1000 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1622 - - - 992 1083
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 992 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1022 -
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) 1622 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
551 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
1: South B St. & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Opening Year AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

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 7 3 4 7 1 5 5 139 3 13 94 7
Future Vol, veh/h 7 3 4 7 1 5 5 139 3 13 94 7
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 8 3 4 8 1 5 5 151 3 14 102 8
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 297 299 106 296 302 153 110 0 0 154 0 0 Stage 1 134 134 - 164 164 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 163 165 - 132 138 - - - - - - -
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 656 613 948 657 611 893 1480 - - 1426 - - Stage 1 869 785 - 838 763 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 840 762 - 871 782 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 641 604 948 641 602 893 1480 - - 1426 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 641 604 - 641 602 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 860 777 - 835 760 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 830 758 - 855 774 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.29 10.14 0.25 0.86

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 61 - - 696 715 202 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.022 0.02 0.01 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.4 0 - 10.3 10.1 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
552 of 786
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Laurel Ave. & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Opening Year AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.7
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 15 97 13 12 102
Future Vol, veh/h 2 15 97 13 12 102
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 16 105 14 13 111
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7 7.6 7.8

HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 12% 11%
Vol Thru, % 88% 0% 89%
Vol Right, % 12% 88% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 110 17 114
LT Vol 0 2 12
Through Vol 97 0 102
RT Vol 13 15 0
Lane Flow Rate 120 18 124
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.132 0.02 0.14
Departure Headway (Hd) 3.987 3.945 4.076
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 897 913 879
Service Time 2.02 1.945 2.106
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.134 0.02 0.141
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.6 7 7.8
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 0.1 0.5
553 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
3: South B St. & 7th Ave. 03/24/2026
Opening Year AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

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 10 0 7 4 1 7 9 136 6 5 92 5
Future Vol, veh/h 10 0 7 4 1 7 9 136 6 5 92 5
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 11 0 8 4 1 8 10 148 7 5 100 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 282 288 103 282 287 151 105 0 0 154 0 0 Stage 1 114 114 - 171 171 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 168 174 - 111 116 - - - - - - -
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 671 622 952 671 623 895 1486 - - 1426 - - Stage 1 891 801 - 831 757 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 834 755 - 894 799 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 656 615 952 658 616 895 1486 - - 1426 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 656 615 - 658 616 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 888 798 - 825 752 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 820 750 - 884 796 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.9 9.74 0.44 0.37

HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 106 - - 753 773 87 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - 0.025 0.017 0.004 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.4 0 - 9.9 9.7 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - A A A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
554 of 786
Queues
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Opening Year AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 255 372 141 48
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.50 0.30 0.09
Control Delay (s/veh) 10.9 13.2 14.6 10.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 10.9 13.2 14.6 10.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 38 64 22 5
Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 98 49 19
Internal Link Dist (ft) 223 203 229 207
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1324 1302 993 1119
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.29 0.14 0.04
Intersection Summary
555 of 786
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Opening Year AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 142 25 22 223 8 37 40 19 1 20 12 Future Volume (veh/h) 6 142 25 22 223 8 37 40 19 1 20 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 209 37 32 328 12 54 59 28 1 29 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 129 470 81 153 517 18 237 101 43 123 145 88
Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 23 1520 262 80 1670 58 553 751 323 20 1082 661 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 255 0 0 372 0 0 141 0 0 48 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1805 0 0 1808 0 0 1628 0 0 1762 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.04 0.15 0.09 0.03 0.38 0.20 0.02 0.37
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 680 0 0 687 0 0 381 0 0 356 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1613 0 0 1614 0 0 1337 0 0 1404 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.5 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 8.8 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 255 372 141 48
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.8 9.8 13.1 11.9
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 18.9 11.6 18.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 9.5 7.5 9.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 25.5 22.5 25.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 5.4 2.7 7.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 1.4 0.2 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 10.2
HCM 7th LOS B
556 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Retail Driveway & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Opening Year AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
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 -
557 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
6: 7th Ave. & Residential Driveway 03/24/2026
Opening Year AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1619 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
558 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
1: South B St. & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Opening Year PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 1 6 2 3 10 8 145 8 6 124 2
Future Vol, veh/h 16 1 6 2 3 10 8 145 8 6 124 2
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 17 1 7 2 3 11 9 158 9 7 135 2
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 326 333 136 328 329 162 137 0 0 166 0 0 Stage 1 149 149 - 179 179 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 177 184 - 148 150 - - - - - - -
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 628 587 913 625 590 883 1447 - - 1412 - - Stage 1 854 774 - 822 751 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 825 748 - 854 773 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 609 580 913 613 583 883 1447 - - 1412 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 609 580 - 613 583 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 849 770 - 817 746 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 806 743 - 843 769 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.62 9.84 0.37 0.34

HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 89 - - 666 760 82 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.038 0.021 0.005 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - 10.6 9.8 7.6 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B A A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
559 of 786
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Laurel Ave. & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Opening Year PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 8 82 13 11 117
Future Vol, veh/h 5 8 82 13 11 117
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 9 89 14 12 127
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.2 7.5 7.8

HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 38% 9%
Vol Thru, % 86% 0% 91%
Vol Right, % 14% 62% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 95 13 128
LT Vol 0 5 11
Through Vol 82 0 117
RT Vol 13 8 0
Lane Flow Rate 103 14 139
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.114 0.016 0.157
Departure Headway (Hd) 3.981 4.158 4.054
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 898 866 885
Service Time 2.015 2.158 2.078
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.115 0.016 0.157
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.5 7.2 7.8
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0 0.6
560 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
3: South B St. & 7th Ave. 03/24/2026
Opening Year PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 1 11 5 2 16 11 138 3 5 123 5
Future Vol, veh/h 7 1 11 5 2 16 11 138 3 5 123 5
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 8 1 12 5 2 17 12 150 3 5 134 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 322 324 136 321 326 152 139 0 0 153 0 0 Stage 1 147 147 - 176 176 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 175 177 - 145 150 - - - - - - -
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 631 593 912 632 593 895 1444 - - 1427 - - Stage 1 855 775 - 826 754 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 827 753 - 858 773 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 608 586 912 615 585 895 1444 - - 1427 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 608 586 - 615 585 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 852 772 - 819 747 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 801 746 - 842 770 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.93 9.76 0.54 0.28

HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 130 - - 752 781 67 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - - 0.027 0.032 0.004 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - 9.9 9.8 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - A A A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
561 of 786
Queues
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Opening Year PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 446 251 182 82
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.30 0.42 0.18
Control Delay (s/veh) 12.7 10.7 16.9 13.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 12.7 10.7 16.9 13.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 82 41 31 11
Queue Length 95th (ft) 183 99 94 45
Internal Link Dist (ft) 223 203 229 207
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1170 1101 957 1011
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.23 0.19 0.08
Intersection Summary
562 of 786
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Opening Year PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 27 320 72 27 193 16 36 89 46 5 51 22 Future Volume (veh/h) 27 320 72 27 193 16 36 89 46 5 51 22 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 29 340 77 29 205 17 38 95 49 5 54 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 129 493 107 148 544 42 165 165 76 117 204 83 Arrive On Green 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 55 1418 308 96 1565 121 245 988 454 49 1220 495 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 446 0 0 251 0 0 182 0 0 82 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 0 1781 0 0 1687 0 0 1765 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.5 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.07 0.17 0.12 0.07 0.21 0.27 0.06 0.28
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 728 0 0 734 0 0 406 0 0 404 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1444 0 0 1418 0 0 1143 0 0 1177 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.9 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 10.7 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 446 251 182 82
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.7 8.9 14.3 13.0
Approach LOS B A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 21.7 13.3 21.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 9.5 7.5 9.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 26.5 21.5 26.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 9.5 3.4 5.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 2.7 0.3 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.1
HCM 7th LOS B
563 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Retail Driveway & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Opening Year PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1588 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
564 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
6: 7th Ave. & Residential Driveway 03/24/2026
Opening Year PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1622 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
565 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
1: South B St. & 6th Ave. 03/25/2026
Opening Year + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 3 6 7 1 5 7 148 3 13 100 12
Future Vol, veh/h 11 3 6 7 1 5 7 148 3 13 100 12
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 12 3 7 8 1 5 8 161 3 14 109 13
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 320 323 115 316 328 162 122 0 0 164 0 0 Stage 1 143 143 - 178 178 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 177 179 - 139 150 - - - - - - -
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 633 595 937 636 591 882 1466 - - 1414 - - Stage 1 859 778 - 824 752 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 825 751 - 864 773 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 617 585 937 618 581 882 1466 - - 1414 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 617 585 - 618 581 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 850 770 - 819 748 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 814 747 - 846 765 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.46 10.29 0.33 0.79

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 79 - - 681 695 183 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - 0.032 0.02 0.01 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - 10.5 10.3 7.6 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
566 of 786
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Laurel Ave. & 6th Ave. 03/25/2026
Opening Year + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.7
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 18 101 17 15 104
Future Vol, veh/h 5 18 101 17 15 104
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 20 110 18 16 113
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.2 7.7 7.8

HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 22% 13%
Vol Thru, % 86% 0% 87%
Vol Right, % 14% 78% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 118 23 119
LT Vol 0 5 15
Through Vol 101 0 104
RT Vol 17 18 0
Lane Flow Rate 128 25 129
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.142 0.028 0.147
Departure Headway (Hd) 3.988 4.056 4.099
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 895 888 873
Service Time 2.027 2.056 2.134
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.143 0.028 0.148
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.7 7.2 7.8
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 0.1 0.5
567 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
3: South B St. & 7th Ave. 03/25/2026
Opening Year + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 0 9 4 1 7 10 138 6 5 94 11
Future Vol, veh/h 19 0 9 4 1 7 10 138 6 5 94 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 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 21 0 10 4 1 8 11 150 7 5 102 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 291 297 108 288 300 153 114 0 0 157 0 0 Stage 1 119 119 - 175 175 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 172 178 - 113 125 - - - - - - -
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 661 615 946 664 612 893 1475 - - 1423 - - Stage 1 885 797 - 827 754 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 830 752 - 892 792 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 646 607 946 649 605 893 1475 - - 1423 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 646 607 - 649 605 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 882 794 - 820 748 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 815 746 - 879 789 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.22 9.78 0.48 0.34

HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 116 - - 719 767 80 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - 0.042 0.017 0.004 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - 10.2 9.8 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B A A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
568 of 786
Queues
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Opening Year + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 255 372 161 66
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.50 0.33 0.12
Control Delay (s/veh) 11.2 13.6 15.1 11.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 11.2 13.6 15.1 11.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 39 67 27 9
Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 102 56 25
Internal Link Dist (ft) 223 203 229 207
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1210 1189 991 1122
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.31 0.16 0.06
Intersection Summary
569 of 786
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Opening Year + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 142 25 22 223 8 37 54 19 1 32 12 Future Volume (veh/h) 6 142 25 22 223 8 37 54 19 1 32 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 209 37 32 328 12 54 79 28 1 47 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 126 466 80 149 511 18 222 140 44 118 197 74
Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 23 1520 262 80 1670 58 450 913 287 12 1283 486 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 255 0 0 372 0 0 161 0 0 66 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1805 0 0 1808 0 0 1651 0 0 1782 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.04 0.15 0.09 0.03 0.34 0.17 0.02 0.27
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 671 0 0 678 0 0 406 0 0 389 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1566 0 0 1567 0 0 1308 0 0 1385 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.8 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 9.2 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 255 372 161 66
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.2 10.2 13.1 11.9
Approach LOS A B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.3 19.1 12.3 19.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 9.5 7.5 9.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 25.5 22.5 25.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 5.5 3.0 7.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 1.4 0.2 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 10.5
HCM 7th LOS B
570 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Retail Driveway & 6th Ave. 03/25/2026
Opening Year + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 7 7 13 6 6
Future Vol, veh/h 25 7 7 13 6 6
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 27 8 8 14 7 7
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 35 0 60 31
Stage 1 - - - - 31 -
Stage 2 - - - - 29 -
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 - - 1577 - 946 1043
Stage 1 - - - - 992 -
Stage 2 - - - - 993 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1577 - 942 1043
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 942 -
Stage 1 - - - - 987 -
Stage 2 - - - - 993 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 2.55 8.69

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 990 - - 630 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - - 0.005 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.7 - - 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
571 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
6: 7th Ave. & Residential Driveway 03/25/2026
Opening Year + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 17 3 7 11 7
Future Vol, veh/h 5 17 3 7 11 7
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 5 18 3 8 12 8
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 11 0 - 0 36 7
Stage 1 - - - - 7 -
Stage 2 - - - - 29 -
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 1608 - - - 976 1075
Stage 1 - - - - 1016 -
Stage 2 - - - - 993 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1608 - - - 973 1075
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 973 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1013 -
Stage 2 - - - - 993 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.65 0 8.63

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 409 - - - 1010
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.019
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.2 0 - - 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
572 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
1: South B St. & 6th Ave. 03/25/2026
Opening Year + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 1 9 2 3 10 11 148 8 6 131 8
Future Vol, veh/h 22 1 9 2 3 10 11 148 8 6 131 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 24 1 10 2 3 11 12 161 9 7 142 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 346 353 147 345 353 165 151 0 0 170 0 0 Stage 1 160 160 - 189 189 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 186 193 - 156 164 - - - - - - -
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 608 572 900 609 572 879 1430 - - 1408 - - Stage 1 842 766 - 813 744 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 815 740 - 846 762 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 589 564 900 593 564 879 1430 - - 1408 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 589 564 - 593 564 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 838 762 - 805 737 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 794 734 - 832 759 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.84 9.92 0.5 0.31

HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 117 - - 651 747 74 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - - 0.053 0.022 0.005 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - 10.8 9.9 7.6 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B A A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 0.1 0 - -
573 of 786
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Laurel Ave. & 6th Ave. 03/25/2026
Opening Year + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.7
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 12 83 18 15 120
Future Vol, veh/h 9 12 83 18 15 120
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 10 13 90 20 16 130
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.3 7.6 7.9

HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 43% 11%
Vol Thru, % 82% 0% 89%
Vol Right, % 18% 57% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 101 21 135
LT Vol 0 9 15
Through Vol 83 0 120
RT Vol 18 12 0
Lane Flow Rate 110 23 147
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.121 0.027 0.166
Departure Headway (Hd) 3.976 4.223 4.078
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 897 853 878
Service Time 2.02 2.223 2.112
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 0.027 0.167
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.6 7.3 7.9
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.1 0.6
574 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
3: South B St. & 7th Ave. 03/25/2026
Opening Year + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 1 12 5 2 16 12 141 3 5 126 12
Future Vol, veh/h 10 1 12 5 2 16 12 141 3 5 126 12
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 11 1 13 5 2 17 13 153 3 5 137 13
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 335 337 143 329 342 155 150 0 0 157 0 0 Stage 1 154 154 - 181 181 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 180 183 - 148 161 - - - - - - -
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 619 584 904 624 580 891 1431 - - 1423 - - Stage 1 848 770 - 821 750 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 821 749 - 854 765 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 596 576 904 605 572 891 1431 - - 1423 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 596 576 - 605 572 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 844 767 - 813 742 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 795 741 - 837 762 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.15 9.81 0.58 0.26

HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 138 - - 723 774 62 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - 0.035 0.032 0.004 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - 10.2 9.8 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B A A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
575 of 786
Queues
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Opening Year + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 446 251 194 98
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.30 0.44 0.22
Control Delay (s/veh) 12.9 11.0 17.3 13.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 12.9 11.0 17.3 13.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 83 42 34 15
Queue Length 95th (ft) 187 101 101 53
Internal Link Dist (ft) 223 203 229 207
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1162 1094 952 1015
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.23 0.20 0.10
Intersection Summary
576 of 786
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Opening Year + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 27 320 72 27 193 16 36 101 46 5 66 22 Future Volume (veh/h) 27 320 72 27 193 16 36 101 46 5 66 22 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 29 340 77 29 205 17 38 107 49 5 70 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 127 490 106 146 541 42 160 184 76 113 233 74 Arrive On Green 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 55 1418 307 96 1565 121 224 1044 428 40 1322 417 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 446 0 0 251 0 0 194 0 0 98 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 0 1782 0 0 1696 0 0 1779 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.07 0.17 0.12 0.07 0.20 0.25 0.05 0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 724 0 0 729 0 0 420 0 0 420 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1421 0 0 1396 0 0 1128 0 0 1169 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.1 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 11.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 446 251 194 98
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.0 9.1 14.4 13.0
Approach LOS B A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.8 21.8 13.8 21.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 9.5 7.5 9.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 26.5 21.5 26.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.7 9.7 3.7 5.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 2.7 0.4 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.4
HCM 7th LOS B
577 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Retail Driveway & 6th Ave. 03/25/2026
Opening Year + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 9 9 13 8 9
Future Vol, veh/h 24 9 9 13 8 9
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 26 10 10 14 9 10
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 36 0 65 31
Stage 1 - - - - 31 -
Stage 2 - - - - 34 -
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 - 941 1043
Stage 1 - - - - 992 -
Stage 2 - - - - 989 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1575 - 935 1043
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 935 -
Stage 1 - - - - 985 -
Stage 2 - - - - 989 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 2.99 8.71

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 989 - - 736 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - - 0.006 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.7 - - 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
578 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
6: 7th Ave. & Residential Driveway 03/25/2026
Opening Year + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 21 0 8 4 3
Future Vol, veh/h 5 21 0 8 4 3
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 5 23 0 9 4 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 9 0 - 0 38 4
Stage 1 - - - - 4 -
Stage 2 - - - - 34 -
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 1611 - - - 974 1079
Stage 1 - - - - 1019 -
Stage 2 - - - - 989 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1611 - - - 971 1079
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 971 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1015 -
Stage 2 - - - - 989 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.39 0 8.58

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 346 - - - 1014
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.008
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.2 0 - - 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
579 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
1: South B St. & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Cumulative AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 11 14 25 4 18 18 445 11 46 308 25 Future Vol, veh/h 25 11 14 25 4 18 18 445 11 46 308 25
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 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 25 11 14 25 4 18 18 445 11 46 308 25
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 896 905 321 892 912 451 333 0 0 456 0 0 Stage 1 413 413 - 487 487 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 483 492 - 406 425 - - - - - - -
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 261 277 720 263 274 609 1226 - - 1105 - - Stage 1 617 594 - 562 551 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 565 548 - 622 586 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 232 257 720 230 255 609 1226 - - 1105 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 232 257 - 230 255 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 585 563 - 551 540 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 533 537 - 567 556 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 19.71 18.93 0.3 1.02

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 68 - - 294 305 215 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - 0.17 0.154 0.042 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8 0 - 19.7 18.9 8.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.6 0.5 0.1 - -
580 of 786
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Laurel Ave. & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Cumulative AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.1
Intersection LOS B
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 53 256 46 42 301
Future Vol, veh/h 7 53 256 46 42 301
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 7 53 256 46 42 301
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.3 9.8 10.6

HCM LOS A A B
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 12% 12%
Vol Thru, % 85% 0% 88%
Vol Right, % 15% 88% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 302 60 343
LT Vol 0 7 42
Through Vol 256 0 301
RT Vol 46 53 0
Lane Flow Rate 302 60 343
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.364 0.08 0.42
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.344 4.811 4.412
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 830 743 816
Service Time 2.364 2.848 2.432
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.364 0.081 0.42
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9.8 8.3 10.6
HCM Lane LOS A A B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.7 0.3 2.1
581 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
3: South B St. & 7th Ave. 03/24/2026
Cumulative AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

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 35 0 25 14 4 25 32 434 21 18 301 18
Future Vol, veh/h 35 0 25 14 4 25 32 434 21 18 301 18
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 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 35 0 25 14 4 25 32 434 21 18 301 18
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 846 865 310 846 864 445 319 0 0 455 0 0 Stage 1 346 346 - 509 509 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 500 519 - 337 355 - - - - - - -
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 282 292 730 282 292 614 1241 - - 1106 - - Stage 1 670 635 - 547 538 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 553 533 - 677 630 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 253 276 730 258 277 614 1241 - - 1106 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 253 276 - 258 277 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 656 623 - 528 520 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 508 514 - 641 617 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 17.52 15.29 0.52 0.44

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 117 - - 347 393 95 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - - 0.173 0.109 0.016 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8 0 - 17.5 15.3 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.6 0.4 0 - -
582 of 786
Queues
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Cumulative AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 431 504 533 277
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.88 0.88 0.40
Control Delay (s/veh) 23.9 39.5 38.1 17.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 23.9 39.5 38.1 17.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 156 213 220 85
Queue Length 95th (ft) 255 #391 #402 146
Internal Link Dist (ft) 223 203 229 207
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 735 657 698 802
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.77 0.76 0.35
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
583 of 786
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Cumulative AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 323 82 78 418 8 105 385 43 1 229 47 Future Volume (veh/h) 26 323 82 78 418 8 105 385 43 1 229 47 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 323 82 78 418 8 105 385 43 1 229 47 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 83 483 118 135 517 9 168 475 50 62 551 113
Arrive On Green 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 53 1397 341 187 1494 27 259 1298 137 1 1505 308 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 431 0 0 504 0 0 533 0 0 277 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1790 0 0 1708 0 0 1694 0 0 1814 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.1 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 16.9 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.06 0.19 0.15 0.02 0.20 0.08 0.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 684 0 0 661 0 0 693 0 0 725 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 919 0 0 886 0 0 911 0 0 968 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.6 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 17.5 0.0 0.0 20.4 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 431 504 533 277
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.5 20.4 19.9 14.3
Approach LOS B C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.1 29.9 29.1 29.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 9.5 7.5 9.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.5 28.5 29.5 28.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.9 14.1 8.7 17.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.7 2.4 1.6 2.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.6
HCM 7th LOS B
584 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Retail Driveway & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Cumulative AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 88 0 0 46 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 88 0 0 46 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 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 88 0 0 46 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 88 0 134 88
Stage 1 - - - - 88 -
Stage 2 - - - - 46 -
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 - - 1508 - 860 970
Stage 1 - - - - 935 -
Stage 2 - - - - 976 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1508 - 860 970
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 860 -
Stage 1 - - - - 935 -
Stage 2 - - - - 976 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1508 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
585 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
6: 7th Ave. & Residential Driveway 03/24/2026
Cumulative AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 60 11 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 60 11 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 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 60 11 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 11 0 - 0 71 11
Stage 1 - - - - 11 -
Stage 2 - - - - 60 -
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 1608 - - - 933 1070
Stage 1 - - - - 1012 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1608 - - - 933 1070
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 933 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1012 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
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) 1608 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
586 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
1: South B St. & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Cumulative PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

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 51 4 19 7 10 32 26 437 26 19 342 7
Future Vol, veh/h 51 4 19 7 10 32 26 437 26 19 342 7
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 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 51 4 19 7 10 32 26 437 26 19 342 7
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 878 899 346 884 889 450 349 0 0 463 0 0 Stage 1 384 384 - 502 502 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 494 515 - 382 387 - - - - - - -
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 269 279 697 266 282 609 1210 - - 1098 - - Stage 1 639 612 - 552 542 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 557 535 - 640 610 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 233 265 697 242 268 609 1210 - - 1098 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 233 265 - 242 268 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 626 599 - 535 526 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 503 519 - 606 596 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 22.12 14.89 0.43 0.43

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 95 - - 284 413 93 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - - 0.261 0.119 0.017 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8 0 - 22.1 14.9 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C B A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1 0.4 0.1 - -
587 of 786
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Laurel Ave. & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Cumulative PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.3
Intersection LOS B
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 26 260 42 35 342
Future Vol, veh/h 16 26 260 42 35 342
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 26 260 42 35 342
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.4 9.8 11

HCM LOS A A B
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 38% 9%
Vol Thru, % 86% 0% 91%
Vol Right, % 14% 62% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 302 42 377
LT Vol 0 16 35
Through Vol 260 0 342
RT Vol 42 26 0
Lane Flow Rate 302 42 377
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.364 0.059 0.457
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.34 5.087 4.363
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 830 703 826
Service Time 2.359 3.125 2.381
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.364 0.06 0.456
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9.8 8.4 11
HCM Lane LOS A A B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.7 0.2 2.4
588 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
3: South B St. & 7th Ave. 03/24/2026
Cumulative PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 4 35 16 7 51 35 414 10 16 339 16
Future Vol, veh/h 23 4 35 16 7 51 35 414 10 16 339 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 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 23 4 35 16 7 51 35 414 10 16 339 16
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 867 873 347 862 876 419 355 0 0 424 0 0 Stage 1 379 379 - 489 489 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 488 494 - 373 387 - - - - - - -
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 273 289 696 275 287 634 1204 - - 1135 - - Stage 1 643 615 - 561 549 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 562 546 - 648 610 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 232 273 696 244 272 634 1204 - - 1135 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 232 273 - 244 272 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 632 604 - 539 528 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 490 526 - 600 599 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 16.4 15.09 0.62 0.35

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 137 - - 378 431 77 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - - 0.164 0.172 0.014 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.1 0 - 16.4 15.1 8.2 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.6 0.6 0 - -
589 of 786
Queues
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Cumulative PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 641 420 529 428
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.60
Control Delay (s/veh) 45.0 40.5 47.5 24.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 45.0 40.5 47.5 24.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 335 212 270 181
Queue Length 95th (ft) #562 #388 #473 278
Internal Link Dist (ft) 223 203 229 207
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 756 544 649 804
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 0.77 0.82 0.53
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
590 of 786
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Cumulative PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 48 457 136 87 317 16 88 351 90 5 351 72 Future Volume (veh/h) 48 457 136 87 317 16 88 351 90 5 351 72 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 48 457 136 87 317 16 88 351 90 5 351 72 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 84 524 150 133 435 20 130 418 101 50 558 113 Arrive On Green 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 82 1288 369 186 1068 50 204 1127 273 6 1506 306 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 641 0 0 420 0 0 529 0 0 428 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1739 0 0 1304 0 0 1603 0 0 1817 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.3 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.01 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 759 0 0 588 0 0 649 0 0 721 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 877 0 0 690 0 0 816 0 0 912 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.1 0.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.8 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.2 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 27.9 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 0.0 27.4 0.0 0.0 20.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 641 420 529 428
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.9 21.4 27.4 20.6
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.9 40.7 35.9 40.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 9.5 7.5 9.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 25.6 28.3 16.9 23.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 24.9
HCM 7th LOS C
591 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Retail Driveway & 6th Ave. 03/24/2026
Cumulative PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 76 0 0 42 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 76 0 0 42 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 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 76 0 0 42 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 76 0 118 76
Stage 1 - - - - 76 -
Stage 2 - - - - 42 -
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 - - 1523 - 878 985
Stage 1 - - - - 947 -
Stage 2 - - - - 980 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1523 - 878 985
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 878 -
Stage 1 - - - - 947 -
Stage 2 - - - - 980 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1523 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
592 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
6: 7th Ave. & Residential Driveway 03/24/2026
Cumulative PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 67 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 67 0 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 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 67 0 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1 0 - 0 68 1
Stage 1 - - - - 1 -
Stage 2 - - - - 67 -
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 1622 - - - 937 1084
Stage 1 - - - - 1022 -
Stage 2 - - - - 956 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1622 - - - 937 1084
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 937 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1022 -
Stage 2 - - - - 956 -
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) 1622 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
593 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
1: South B St. & 6th Ave. 03/25/2026
Cumulative + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 11 16 25 4 18 20 454 11 46 314 30 Future Vol, veh/h 29 11 16 25 4 18 20 454 11 46 314 30
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 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 29 11 16 25 4 18 20 454 11 46 314 30
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 917 926 329 911 936 460 344 0 0 465 0 0 Stage 1 421 421 - 500 500 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 496 505 - 412 436 - - - - - - -
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 253 269 712 255 265 602 1215 - - 1096 - - Stage 1 610 589 - 553 543 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 556 540 - 617 580 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 224 249 712 222 246 602 1215 - - 1096 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 224 249 - 222 246 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 578 558 - 541 531 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 523 528 - 561 550 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 20.67 19.47 0.33 0.99

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 74 - - 285 296 209 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - - 0.196 0.159 0.042 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8 0 - 20.7 19.5 8.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.7 0.6 0.1 - -
594 of 786
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Laurel Ave. & 6th Ave. 03/25/2026
Cumulative + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 56 260 50 45 303
Future Vol, veh/h 10 56 260 50 45 303
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 10 56 260 50 45 303
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.4 10 10.8

HCM LOS A A B
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 15% 13%
Vol Thru, % 84% 0% 87%
Vol Right, % 16% 85% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 310 66 348
LT Vol 0 10 45
Through Vol 260 0 303
RT Vol 50 56 0
Lane Flow Rate 310 66 348
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.376 0.089 0.429
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.362 4.87 4.439
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 825 734 811
Service Time 2.386 2.912 2.463
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.376 0.09 0.429
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 10 8.4 10.8
HCM Lane LOS A A B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.8 0.3 2.2
595 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
3: South B St. & 7th Ave. 03/25/2026
Cumulative + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 0 27 14 4 25 33 436 21 18 303 24
Future Vol, veh/h 44 0 27 14 4 25 33 436 21 18 303 24
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 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 44 0 27 14 4 25 33 436 21 18 303 24
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 855 874 315 852 876 447 327 0 0 457 0 0 Stage 1 351 351 - 513 513 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 504 523 - 339 363 - - - - - - -
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 278 288 725 280 288 612 1233 - - 1104 - - Stage 1 666 632 - 544 536 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 550 530 - 676 625 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 249 272 725 255 272 612 1233 - - 1104 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 249 272 - 255 272 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 652 620 - 525 517 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 505 511 - 637 612 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 18.79 15.41 0.54 0.43

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 120 - - 332 389 93 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - - 0.214 0.111 0.016 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8 0 - 18.8 15.4 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.8 0.4 0 - -
596 of 786
Queues
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Cumulative + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 431 504 547 289
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.89 0.88 0.40
Control Delay (s/veh) 24.8 42.4 38.2 16.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 24.8 42.4 38.2 16.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 160 218 223 87
Queue Length 95th (ft) 261 #403 #409 149
Internal Link Dist (ft) 223 203 229 207
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 699 622 709 817
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.81 0.77 0.35
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
597 of 786
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Cumulative + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 323 82 78 418 8 105 399 43 1 241 47 Future Volume (veh/h) 26 323 82 78 418 8 105 399 43 1 241 47 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 323 82 78 418 8 105 399 43 1 241 47 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 82 480 117 133 511 9 166 489 50 60 568 110
Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 53 1396 340 187 1488 27 253 1309 133 1 1520 295 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 431 0 0 504 0 0 547 0 0 289 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1789 0 0 1702 0 0 1695 0 0 1816 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.3 0.0 0.0 16.4 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.06 0.19 0.15 0.02 0.19 0.08 0.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 678 0 0 654 0 0 705 0 0 739 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 873 0 0 840 0 0 922 0 0 981 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.8 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 18.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B C C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 431 504 547 289
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.0 21.4 20.2 14.4
Approach LOS B C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 30.2 30.0 30.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 9.5 7.5 9.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.5 27.5 30.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.6 14.3 9.1 18.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.8 2.3 1.7 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 19.1
HCM 7th LOS B
598 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Retail Driveway & 6th Ave. 03/25/2026
Cumulative + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 88 7 7 46 6 6
Future Vol, veh/h 88 7 7 46 6 6
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 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 88 7 7 46 6 6
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 95 0 152 92
Stage 1 - - - - 92 -
Stage 2 - - - - 60 -
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 - - 1499 - 840 966
Stage 1 - - - - 932 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1499 - 836 966
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 836 -
Stage 1 - - - - 928 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 0.98 9.07

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 896 - - 238 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - - 0.005 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9.1 - - 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
599 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
6: 7th Ave. & Residential Driveway 03/25/2026
Cumulative + Proj AM Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 60 11 7 11 7
Future Vol, veh/h 5 60 11 7 11 7
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 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 60 11 7 11 7
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 18 0 - 0 85 15
Stage 1 - - - - 15 -
Stage 2 - - - - 70 -
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 1599 - - - 917 1065
Stage 1 - - - - 1008 -
Stage 2 - - - - 953 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1599 - - - 914 1065
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 914 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1005 -
Stage 2 - - - - 953 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.56 0 8.79

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 138 - - - 967
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.019
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.3 0 - - 8.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
600 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
1: South B St. & 6th Ave. 03/25/2026
Cumulative + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 4 22 7 10 32 29 440 26 19 349 13
Future Vol, veh/h 57 4 22 7 10 32 29 440 26 19 349 13
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 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 57 4 22 7 10 32 29 440 26 19 349 13
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 897 918 356 900 911 453 362 0 0 466 0 0 Stage 1 394 394 - 511 511 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 503 524 - 389 400 - - - - - - -
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 261 272 688 259 274 607 1197 - - 1095 - - Stage 1 631 606 - 545 537 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 551 530 - 635 602 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 225 257 688 234 259 607 1197 - - 1095 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 225 257 - 234 259 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 618 592 - 527 519 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 495 512 - 597 588 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 23.54 15.13 0.47 0.42

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 104 - - 276 404 89 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - - 0.301 0.121 0.017 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.1 0 - 23.5 15.1 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1.2 0.4 0.1 - -
601 of 786
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Laurel Ave. & 6th Ave. 03/25/2026
Cumulative + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.6
Intersection LOS B
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 30 261 47 39 345
Future Vol, veh/h 20 30 261 47 39 345
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 20 30 261 47 39 345
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.6 10 11.3

HCM LOS A A B
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 40% 10%
Vol Thru, % 85% 0% 90%
Vol Right, % 15% 60% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 308 50 384
LT Vol 0 20 39
Through Vol 261 0 345
RT Vol 47 30 0
Lane Flow Rate 308 50 384
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.374 0.071 0.469
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.367 5.134 4.397
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 825 696 822
Service Time 2.387 3.177 2.417
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.373 0.072 0.467
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 10 8.6 11.3
HCM Lane LOS A A B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.7 0.2 2.5
602 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
3: South B St. & 7th Ave. 03/25/2026
Cumulative + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 4 36 16 7 51 36 417 10 16 342 23
Future Vol, veh/h 26 4 36 16 7 51 36 417 10 16 342 23
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 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 26 4 36 16 7 51 36 417 10 16 342 23
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 878 885 354 870 891 422 365 0 0 427 0 0 Stage 1 386 386 - 494 494 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 493 499 - 376 397 - - - - - - -
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 268 284 690 272 282 632 1194 - - 1132 - - Stage 1 638 610 - 557 546 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 558 544 - 645 603 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 227 268 690 240 266 632 1194 - - 1132 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 227 268 - 240 266 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 626 600 - 535 525 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 486 522 - 597 593 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 17.09 15.23 0.63 0.35

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 139 - - 363 426 75 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - - 0.182 0.174 0.014 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.1 0 - 17.1 15.2 8.2 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.7 0.6 0 - -
603 of 786
Queues
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Cumulative + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 641 420 541 443
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.85 0.93 0.61
Control Delay (s/veh) 46.4 41.9 49.1 24.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 46.4 41.9 49.1 24.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 335 212 281 190
Queue Length 95th (ft) #562 #390 #491 291
Internal Link Dist (ft) 223 203 229 207
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 746 535 639 794
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.86 0.79 0.85 0.56
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
604 of 786
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: South B St. & 5th Avenue 03/24/2026
Cumulative + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 48 457 136 87 317 16 88 363 90 5 366 72 Future Volume (veh/h) 48 457 136 87 317 16 88 363 90 5 366 72 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 48 457 136 87 317 16 88 363 90 5 366 72 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 83 520 149 130 426 20 128 427 100 48 574 112 Arrive On Green 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 82 1281 367 183 1048 49 198 1129 265 5 1519 296 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 641 0 0 420 0 0 541 0 0 443 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1730 0 0 1280 0 0 1592 0 0 1820 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.4 0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 25.1 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 752 0 0 575 0 0 655 0 0 734 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 850 0 0 660 0 0 790 0 0 888 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.8 0.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.6 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.8 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 29.5 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 28.9 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 641 420 541 443
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.5 22.8 28.9 20.9
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.2 41.5 37.2 41.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 9.5 7.5 9.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 27.1 29.4 17.8 24.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 26.1
HCM 7th LOS C
605 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Retail Driveway & 6th Ave. 03/25/2026
Cumulative + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 76 9 9 42 8 9
Future Vol, veh/h 76 9 9 42 8 9
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 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 76 9 9 42 8 9
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 85 0 141 81
Stage 1 - - - - 81 -
Stage 2 - - - - 60 -
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 - - 1512 - 852 980
Stage 1 - - - - 943 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1512 - 847 980
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 847 -
Stage 1 - - - - 937 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 1.31 9.02

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 912 - - 318 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - - 0.006 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9 - - 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
606 of 786
HCM 7th TWSC
6: 7th Ave. & Residential Driveway 03/25/2026
Cumulative + Proj PM Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 67 0 8 4 3
Future Vol, veh/h 5 67 0 8 4 3
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 100 100 100 100 100 100
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 67 0 8 4 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 8 0 - 0 81 4
Stage 1 - - - - 4 -
Stage 2 - - - - 77 -
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 1612 - - - 921 1080
Stage 1 - - - - 1019 -
Stage 2 - - - - 946 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1612 - - - 918 1080
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 918 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1016 -
Stage 2 - - - - 946 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.5 0 8.7

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 125 - - - 981
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.007
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.2 0 - - 8.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
607 of 786
616 South B Street – Transportation Impact Analysis April 23, 2026 P a g e | 47
Appendix D
C/CAG Checklist
608 of 786
Jan 1, 2022
Form Continues on Page 2
Sum percentages from each selected
measure from rows 1-6
Total from Required Measures
%
7 6 1% M9 - Design Streets to Encourage Bike/Ped Access Design adjacent streets or roadways to facilitate multimodal travel. ALL 5 1% M8 - Secure Bicycle Storage
Comply with CalGREEN minimum bicycle parking requirements.

ALL
4 10% M6 - Transit or Ridesharing Passes/Subsidies
Offer tenants passes or subsidies for monthly public transit or ridesharing costs incurred, equivalent to 30% of value or $50 - whichever is lower.

ALL
3 5% M4 - Actively Participate in Commute.org or Transportation Management Association (TMA) Equivalent
Obtain certification of registration from Commute.org or equivalent TMA incorporation documents.

TOD & Non- transit Proximate
Select only one based on Project Type
Transit
Proximate 15%
2 0.5% M3 - TDM Coordinator/Contact Person
Provide TDM coordinator/liaison for tenants. May be contracted through 3rd party provider, such as Commute.org.

ALL
1 1% M2 - Orientation, Education, Promotional Programs and/or Materials Offer new residents an orientation or education program or materials.

ALL
Measure Project Types Percentage Yes
C Required Measures You must select all measures that apply for your project type Click on each measure s title for more information Identify your project type
B Trip Reduction Target
1/2 to 3 miles from high quality transit service
35% Trip Reduction Required
Transit Proximate
More than 3 miles from high quality transit service
35% Trip Reduction Required
Non-Transit Proximate
Less than 1/2-mile from high quality transit service
25% Trip Reduction Required
TOD
Select one option based on your project s distance to high quality transit Read more about high quality transit at
ccagtdm.org/high-quality-transit
Project Jurisdiction

D D M M Y Y Y Y
Application Date
Project Address
Contact Email Address
Contact Phone Address
Contact First and Last Name
Parcel Number
A Applicant Information
[email protected]
Questions?
Any new development project anticipated to
generate at least 100 average daily trips is subject to the C/CAG TDM Policy and must complete a TDM
Checklist and implement associated measures to
mitigate traffic impacts.

About this Form
Read more at ccagtdm.org
500+ ADT; 50+ Units
Residential (Multi-Family) Land Use: Large Project TDM Checklist ccagtdm.org

Page 1 of 2 ends

616 South B Street 034-194-030/ 034-194-140 0 8 0 4 2 0 2 5 San Mateo, CA Mounir Kardosh (650) 347-9500 [email protected] ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

18.5609 of 786
Jan 1, 2022
ccagtdm.org
Visit Our Website
[email protected]
Email Us
Questions?
F Submit Checklist
See for how to
submit this form.
ccagtdm.org/submission
Percentage from Additional Measures
Section D Row 22 %
Sum of required and
additional measures
Total Percentage from all Selected Measures
%
Percentage from Required Measures
Section C Row 7 %
+
Copy from Section
Trip Reduction Target
B %
Total Percentage from all selected measures must be greater than or equal to Trip Reduction Target E Project Totals
Sum percentages from each selected
measure from rows 8 - 21
Total from Additional Measures
%
22 21 3% M26 Pedestrian Oriented Uses & Amenities on Ground Floor Provide on-site, visible amenities to tenants and guests, such as cafes, gyms, childcare, retail.

All
20 0.5% M24 Bike Repair Station
Offer on-site bike repair space/tools in visible, secure area.

All
19 7% M23 Gap Closure
Construct or enhance quality of biking and walking facilities to/from site to existing trails, bikeways, and/or adjacent

streets.

All
18 2% M22 Active Transportation Subsidies
Offer biking/walking incentives to tenants, such as gift card/product raffles.

All
17 1% M21 Bike/Scooter Share On Site
Allocate space for bike/scooter share parking.

All
16 10% M20 Shuttle Program/Shuttle Consortium/Fund Transit Service Establish a shuttle service to regional transit hubs or commercial centers. Shuttle service should be provided free of charge to employees and guests.

Non-transit
Proximate
%
15 M19 Land Dedication or Capital Improvements for Transit Contribute space on, or adjacent to, the project site for transit improvements.

Other (i.e., Micromobility Parking Zone, TNC Loading Zone) 1% Visual/Electrical Improvements (i.e., Lighting, Signage) 1% Bus Shelter 1%
Bus Pullout Space 1% ALL
Total percentages
selected

Select one or more
14 1% M18 Car Share On Site
Provide on-site car share or vehicle fleets.

ALL
13 4% M17 Developer TDM Fee/TDM Fund
Voluntary impact fee payment on a per unit or square footage basis, to fund the implementation of TDM programs. ALL 12 10% M15 Reduced Parking
Provide off-street parking at least 10% below locally-required minimums, or else below the locally-permitted parking maximums.

Consideration may be required of potential spillover parking into surrounding areas.

ALL
11 25% M14 Paid Parking at Market Rate
Offer hourly/daily parking rates proportional to monthly rate or equivalent to cost of transit fare. ALL 10 3% M11 Family supportive Amenities
On-site secure storage of personal car seats, strollers, cargo bicycles, or other large bicycles. Property owners can also provide shared building equipment, such as shopping carts or cargo bicycles for check out by residents.

ALL
9 1% M10 Delivery Amenities
Offer delivery amenities, including dedicated receipt and storage areas, to reduce need for multiple trips to conduct similar

business.

ALL
8 2% M5 Carpool or Vanpool Program
Establish carpool/vanpool program for tenants and register program with Commute.org. ALL Measure Project Types Percentage Yes
D Additional Recommended Select enough to meet the trip reduction target from section B Click on each measure s title for more information 500+ ADT; ~50+ Units
Residential (Multi Family) Land Use: Large Project TDM Checklist ccagtdm.org

Page 2 of 2 ends

✓
✓
✓
14 18.5 1432.5 25 610 of 786
1 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com

MEMORANDUM
Date
To
From
Subject
May 26, 2026
Liz Gagliardi, Associate Planner, City of San Mateo
Maria Kisyova, Project Manager
Akoni Danielsen, President and Principal Project Manager Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use Development at 606-616 South B Street – California Environmental Quality Act Categorical Exemption Qualification I. Introduction to Categorical Exemptions
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contain classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and are, therefore, exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 – 15333 constitute the list of categorically exempt projects and contain specific criteria that must be met in order for a project to be found exempt. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 includes a list of exceptions to exemptions, none of which may apply to a project in order for it to qualify for a categorical exemption (i.e., if an exception applies, a project is precluded from being found categorically exempt).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects sets forth criteria for projects characterizes as in-fill development, meeting the following conditions:
a. The project is consistent with all applicable general plan and zoning designations, policies, and regulations;
b. The proposed development occurs with city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses1
;
c. The project site has no habitat value for endangered, rare, or threatened species; d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air or water quality; and
1 The Office of Planning and Research defines in-fill development as buildings within unused and underutilized lands within existing development patterns, typically but not exclusively in urban areas. Source: Office of Planning and Research. “Infill Development.” https://opr.ca.gov/planning/land-use/infill-development/. 611 of 786
2 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The City of San Mateo, as the Lead Agency, is completing environmental review for the Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use Project (“project”) in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of San Mateo, California. This Exemption Memorandum describes the proposed project and provides evidence to support a determination by the City of San Mateo that the project would be eligible for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA.

II. Project Site Location and Existing Setting
The approximately 27,921 square foot (0.64 acre) site is located at 616 South B Street in San Mateo, California. The site is bordered by 6th Avenue to the north, South B Street to the east, 7th Avenue to the south, and single- and multi-family residential development to the west. West of South B Street, surrounding land uses are predominantly residential, while commercial uses are present along South B Street to the north and south of the site. Refer to Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 for regional, vicinity, and aerial maps of the project site and surrounding area, respectively.

III. General Plan and Zoning
The project site is located in the City of San Mateo’s Downtown Area Plan, has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed-Use Medium II, and is zoned C1-3/R5, Neighborhood Commercial / High Density Multifamily (Mixed Use). The Mixed-Use Medium II land use designation is intended to allow a mix of uses near other mixed-use, commercial, or residential areas, and within Downtown.

It allows a floor area ratio (FAR2
) of 4.0 for nonresidential uses, a maximum density range 51 to 99 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for residential uses, and building heights of four to six stories. The C1-3/R5 zoning district allows for up to 50 du/ac and building heights of 55 feet. 2 FAR is the measurement of a building’s floor area in relation to the size of the lot that the building is located on.

FAR is expressed as a decimal number, and is derived by dividing the total area of the building by the total area of the parcel (Building area divided by lot area).
612 of 786
101
101
101
82 84
82 92
92 92
35 1 280
280
San Francisco Bay
San Bruno
Millbrae
Burlingame
Foster City
San Mateo
Belmont
San Carlos
Redwood City
Half Moon Bay
South San
Francisco
San Bruno
Millbrae
Burlingame
Foster City
San Mateo
Belmont
San Carlos
Redwood City
Half Moon Bay
South San
Francisco
Project Site
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 1
Pacific Ocean
Monterey Bay
San José
Sunnyvale
Fremont
Redwood City
Livermore
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Mountain View
Morgan Hill
Project Site
CuperƟno
0 .5 1 2 3 5 Miles
3 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com 613 of 786
South B Street
San Mateo Drive
South Railroad Avenue
South Claremont Street
Laurel Avenue
El Camino Real
South B Street
9th Avenue
8th Avenue
6th Avenue
East 5th Avenue
West 5th Avenue
East 4th Avenue
3rd Avenue
2nd Avenue
7th Avenue
9th Avenue
10th Avenue
South Delaware Street
South Eldorado Street
South Fremont Street
U.P.R.R.

South B Street
San Mateo Drive
South Railroad Avenue
South Claremont Street
Laurel Avenue
El Camino Real
South B Street
9th Avenue
8th Avenue
6th Avenue
East 5th Avenue
West 5th Avenue
East 4th Avenue
3rd Avenue
2nd Avenue
7th Avenue
9th Avenue
10th Avenue
South Delaware Street
South Eldorado Street
South Fremont Street
U.P.R.R.

Project Boundary
Base Map: Esri, ArcGIS
0 50 300 400 600 Feet
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2
4 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com 614 of 786
ResidenƟal
ResidenƟal
ResidenƟal
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial/
Light Industrial
Office
South B Street
Laurel Avenue
South Railroad Avenue
U.P.R.R.
7th Avenue
6th Avenue
East 5th Avenue
8th Avenue
South B Street
Laurel Avenue
South Railroad Avenue
U.P.R.R.
7th Avenue
6th Avenue
East 5th Avenue
8th Avenue
Photo Date: Apr. 2024
0 25 100 150 200 Feet
Project Boundary
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, May 4, 2026.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 3
5 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com 615 of 786
6 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com IV. Project Description
Overview
The project proposes to demolish the existing improvements on-site to construct an eight-story, approximately 162,119 square-foot mixed-use commercial and residential development. The building would include 7,286 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor, a retail and residential parking garage on levels one through three, and 94 residential units on floors four through eight. As 15 percent of the proposed residential units would be provided as affordable housing, the project would qualify for a density bonus of 50 percent under California’s Density Bonus Law. The project’s components are described below.

Retail and Residential Building
The retail component of the site would be on the first level accessed via South B Street. The residential uses would be accessible from the ground floor from entrances on 7th Avenue and 6th Avenue, which open into the residential lobby and mail room and an interior stairwell, respectively.

The ground floor would include elevators providing access to the residential units, retail and residential trash rooms, two utility storage rooms, and a fire control room. Residential amenities include a gym on the ground floor, and a community room and shaded residential open area on the fourth floor. The project would result in a total FAR of 5.8. 3 The project site plan and a ‘birds-eye
view’ rendering are shown on Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively. Exterior elevations from the north & east are shown on Figure 6 and exterior elevations from the south & west are shown on Figure 7.

Parking and Site Access
The project would construct three levels of above ground parking to provide a total of 114 parking spaces. The project would provide a total of 21 spaces for visitors and retail customers on the first level and 93 residential-only spaces on levels two and three. Of the 114 parking spaces, six would be Americans with Disability Act compliant spaces and 79 would be electric vehicle (EV) spaces. Access to the garage would be provided via a ramp located on 7th Avenue and a driveway on 6th Avenue.

A loading zone would be designated adjacent to the parking lot entrance on 6th Avenue.

Long-term bicycle parking would be provided in a residential bike room on the third level of the parking garage and one bike locker for commercial users would be provided on the first level. Bike racks would also be provided along 6th Avenue, S. B Street, and 7th Avenue for short-term parking.

The project would provide a total of 108 short- and long-term bicycle parking spaces. 3 FAR calculated based on the proposed building square footage of 162,119 and the site’s lot area of 27,921 (162,119 sf / 27,921 sf = 5.8 FAR).
616 of 786
Source: ARC TEC, December 22, 2026.

ON PARKING NO PARKING
UP 20%

T NRU AROUND
ELEV 01
##
E EL V 20
##
ATS RI 10#
##
UP

RE AT I /L VISI OT R PARKING
##

EG EN AR T RO
##

ELECTRICAL
##

FIRE CONTROL ROOM
##

PARCELS
##
EMR
##

RESIDENTIAL LOBBY
##
MAIL
##

TER LIA
##

TER LIA TRASH
##
STAIR #02
##
RESI. FITNESS CENTER
##
PU 10%

RESIDENTIAL TRASH
##
SHAFT
##
DN 6.0%
DN %0.5
DN 5.0%
DN 5.0%
UP

H T U O S T E E R T S B
(7 '0 BUP EDIW CIL S TEERT )
7 T H A V E N U E
(70' WIDE PUBLIC STREET)
6 T H A V E N U E
(60' WIDE PUBLIC STREET)
4 19
10 10
1 20
1 15
TYP.
6 6
6 32
53 10
35 TYP.
15 TYP.
14 36
34 33
21 1
10 11
30 29
27 26
12 31
7 28
8 3
TYP.
1 45'-0"
45'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
45'-0"
45'-0"
3 8
21 22
23 24
23 TYP.
22 TYP.
25 TYP.
49 23
TYP.
8 13
9 21
21 37
20 20
20 17
17 17 17
17 17
17 17
'T6'
'T7'
'T5' 'T4'
'T3' 'T9'
'T2'
'T1'
12 9'-0"
36'-0"
24 6
32 21'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
40 110.07'
110.03'
253.71'
253.72'
5'-0"
5'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
3'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
39 6'-0"
48 21
21 41
41 41
41 41
41 41
42 42
42 42
43 42
42 42
45 44
45 45
46 22'-0"
20'-0"
60'-0"

RIGHT-OF-WAY
70'-0"

RIGHT-OF-WAY
30 47
16'-10"
15'-7"
12'-5"
3'-6" 2'-3"
9'-5" 19'-0"
1'-6" 2'-0"
45 11
3'-9"
12'-10"
49 23
0 5 10 20 30 50 Feet
SITE PLAN FIGURE 4
7 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com 617 of 786
The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TEC and ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of such documentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall not use or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.

Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.
© Copyright ARC TEC, Inc. 2021
In Association with:
www.arctecinc.com
Arizona 2960 East Northern Avenue, Building C
Phoenix, AZ 85028 602.953.2355
California 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 750
San Jose, CA 95110 408.496.0676 A Planning Applicationt For: NAZARETH VISTA 606 - 616 SOUTH B STREET SAN MATEO, CA 94401 Source: ARC TEC, December 22, 2026.

RENDERING FIGURE 5
8 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com 618 of 786
Source: ARC TEC, December 22, 2026.

NORTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION
NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS FIGURE 6
9 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com 619 of 786
Source: ARC TEC, December 22, 2026.

SOUTH ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS FIGURE 7
10 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com 620 of 786
11 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Landscaping and Stormwater Controls
There are a total of six trees onsite, including one protected heritage tree and one protected street tree. The project proposes to remove all six trees (which would be replaced in accordance with Municipal Code Section 27.71). Landscaping along the ground floor would include street tree wells and raised planters adjacent to the building. The residential open space area of the fourth floor would include 15 trees and vegetated planter boxes. The project would plant 12 new street trees along the project’s street frontage. Runoff from the project site would be directed to silva cells4 on the ground level on 6th Avenue. Silva cells located on South B Street and 7th Avenue would treat public right-of-way areas. Excess runoff from the silva cells would be discharged to the City storm drain system.

Utility and Right-of-Way Improvements
Utility services to the proposed project would be provided by the City of San Mateo (storm drain, sanitary sewer), California Water Service (water service), and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) (electricity). The project would install a new 12-inch City storm drain main along 6th Avenue and South B Street and new fire water line on 7th Avenue that would connect to the project. The project would remove the existing gas meter.

The project would include a six-foot sidewalk easement on 6th Avenue that would extend to the edge of the sidewalk’s 10-foot-wide pedestrian through zone.

Green Building and Energy Efficiency Measures
The project would be designed for energy efficiency and water conservation in accordance with the latest California Green Building Code (CALGreen). This includes mandatory installation of low-flow plumbing fixtures and low-water use landscaping. The project would be all-electric, provide EV parking spaces, and include solar photovoltaic panels on the roof.

Transportation Demand Management
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County’s (C/CAG) TDM Policy Implementation Guide recommends that projects demonstrate a 25 percent trip reduction when the project will generate 100 or more daily vehicle trips. The project would implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to encourage automobile-alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle trips to and from the site by 25 percent. The project would incorporate required measures, including TDM education programs; a designated TDM coordinator; participation in a Transportation Management Association (TMA); providing transit or ridesharing passes; providing bicycle storage; and designing adjacent streets to facilitate multimodal travel (i.e., 4 Silva cells are a type of suspended pavement that prevent soil from compacting around tree roots and support on-site stormwater runoff absorption and treatment.
621 of 786
12 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com pedestrian and cyclist amenities on the ground floor such as public seating and bike parking). The project would incorporate additional recommended measures including a carpool or vanpool program; delivery amenities; family-supportive amenities (such as on-site storage of car seats and strollers); on-site car, bicycle, and scooter share; active transportation subsidies; and a bike repair station.

Construction
Construction of the project is anticipated to last approximately 22 months. Construction phases of the proposed project would include site clearing and demolition, excavation and off haul of excess soil, utility connections, building construction, frontage improvements, and landscaping. Equipment used during construction activities would include saws, excavators, dozers, tractors/loaders/backhoes, graders, cranes, forklifts, welders, air compressors, cement/mortar mixers, pavers, and rollers. No pile driving is proposed. Consistent with Section 7.30.060 of the City’s Municipal Code, construction would take place between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays, and 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. The project would not import any soil and would export 450 cubic yards of soil associated with excavation, building footings, grading, and trenching activities, which would extend to a maximum depth of eight feet.

Concessions and Waivers
As mentioned, the project qualifies for the State Density Bonus Law because it would provide 15 percent affordable units. The project applicant requests waivers to deviate from the site’s land use designation and zoning FAR, density, building height, ramp slope, and setback requirements. The project applicant also includes a concession requesting relief from the City’s Objective Design Standard requiring that new development in the Downtown area implement a Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style.
622 of 786
13 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com V. Environmental Review
The purpose of this section is to document whether any of the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the project and assess the project’s eligibility for a Categorical Exemption from CEQA under Section 15332 (Class 32) In-Fill Development Projects.

Section 15300.2 – Exceptions
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply to all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

This exception only applies to Class 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 exemptions. The proposed project is categorically exempt under Class 32; therefore, this exception is not applicable to the project. (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

Agricultural and Mineral Resources
There are no agricultural, forestry, or mineral resources present on-site or in the surrounding area; therefore, the project would not have any cumulative impacts to these resources.

Localized Resources
Within the localized area of effect (immediately adjacent from the project site), there are no approved or future projects that are reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, the project would have no cumulative impacts to localized environmental factors, specifically including aesthetics, biological and cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and vibration.

Air Quality and Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Within approximately 1,000 feet of the project site, the cumulative area of effect for air quality and hazards/hazardous materials, there are seven pending or foreseeable projects. The projects are listed and described in Table 1 below.
623 of 786
14 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Table 1: List of Cumulative Projects
Cumulative Project
Location
Description of Project Approximate Distance
from Project Site
1 East 4th Avenue Mixed-use office, commercial, and residential development 1,400 feet west 222 East 4th Avenue Mixed-use office, commercial, and residential development 400 feet west 445 South B Street Mixed-use office, commercial, and residential development 350 feet northwest 477 9th Avenue Mixed-use office and residential development 500 feet east 500 East 3rd Avenue Mixed-use office and residential development 1,000 feet northeast 500 East 4th Avenue Mixed-use office and residential development 750 feet northeast 668 East 3rd Avenue Multi-family residential development 1,100 feet northeast These projects (including those over 1,000 feet from the site for a conservative analysis) were accounted for in the cumulative Air Quality analysis provided below, which concluded that the cumulative conditions from all projects would not result in a significant effect on air quality.

With regard to hazardous materials, none of the aforementioned addresses are included on any lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, and the proposed uses on both project sites do not generate hazardous emissions or involve the handling of any acutely hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not have a cumulative impact with regard to air quality or hazardous materials in conjunction with the seven projects listed above.

Noise
The cumulative area of effect for noise impacts is 500 feet. The noise analysis for the project accounted for the projects at 477 9th Avenue, 222 East 4th Avenue, and 445 South B Street. The noise analysis concluded that implementation of construction noise and vibration conditions of approval for each individual project (such as those listed previously) would ensure construction noise impacts are reduced. Therefore, the project would not have a cumulative noise impact in conjunction with the 477 9th Avenue, 222 East 4th Avenue, or 445 South B Street Mixed-Use projects.

Land Use and Population and Housing
Citywide, the project would not have a cumulative impact on land use and planning or population and housing, since there is no existing housing on-site. With the application of a 50 percent density bonus, the project would be consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning district. The San Mateo 2040 General Plan EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact on these environmental factors. The project would also not have a cumulative impact on traffic, since the analysis of the project’s individual impacts on traffic (discussed below) factored in trips generated by existing, approved, and reasonably foreseeable future development through the year 2040. The analysis of the project’s impacts on utilities and 624 of 786
15 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com public services (provided below) determined the project would not have a significant effect on these resources. Further, the San Mateo 2040 General Plan EIR found that buildout of the General Plan (including the project) would not result in cumulatively considerable public service or utilities impacts.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Because a project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions do not have localized impacts, but instead contribute to the global climate change effect, a project’s GHG impact is inherently cumulative.

GHG impacts are analyzed using the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (Air District’s) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area. The jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (which encompasses San Mateo) utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing GHG impacts developed by the Air District within the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The guidelines include information on legal requirements, Air District rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures.

The Air District’s CEQA Guidelines also include thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. For land use projects, the Air District developed plan- and project-level thresholds that evaluate the significance of operational GHG emissions based on its effect on the State’s efforts to meet the identified long-term climate goals. Pursuant with the Air District, for land use projects to result in a less than significant GHG emissions impact, the land use project would need to comply with threshold A or B below.

A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following design elements:
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b)of the State CEQA Guidelines.
c. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill (SB) 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts. d. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

The City’s 2024 Climate Action Plan (CAP) sets quantifiable emission reduction goals of 49 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2030 and 87 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2045. The CAP is 625 of 786
16 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com a qualified GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b); therefore, compliance with the CAP would result in a less than significant operational GHG emissions impact pursuant to the Air District guidance. A specific project proposal is considered consistent with the City’s CAP if it complies with the required GHG reduction measures in the adopted CAP. The project’s consistency with the City’s CAP reduction measures is summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Summary of Project CAP Consistency
Reduction Measure and Applicable Standard Project Compliance Reduction Measure BE 1. All new development: The
project does not have natural gas connections and
does not have any natural gas appliances or other
equipment installed.

The project proposes all electric systems and no
natural gas appliances are proposed. Therefore, the
project complies with this measure.

Reduction Measure RE 2. All new developments with
residential units: The project includes an on-site
renewable energy system that meets or exceeds the
minimum requirements of the California State Building
Code.

All new developments with residential units: The
project includes an on-site energy storage system,
such as a battery.

The project proposes a rooftop solar photovoltaic
system that would serve both the residential and
nonresidential uses proposed by the project.

Furthermore, the project is required to meet the
minimum requirements of the most recent California
State Building Code.

The proposed project will not provide an on-site
energy storage system. The photovoltaic
infrastructure system for energy generation will not
provide enough energy to warrant on-site energy
storage. Therefore, this reduction measure is not
applicable to the project.

Reduction Measure RE 3. All new developments with
nonresidential space: The project includes an on-site
renewable energy system that meets or exceeds the
minimum requirements of the California State Building
Code.

All new developments with nonresidential space: The
project includes an on-site energy storage system,
such as a battery.

The project proposes a rooftop solar photovoltaic
system that would serve both the residential and
nonresidential uses proposed by the project.

Furthermore, the project is required to meet the
minimum requirements of the most recent California
State Building Code.

Reduction Measure EE 3. All new developments with
residential units: The project includes trees that
provide shade to residences.

The proposed project cannot comply with the above
requirements. The project is an infill mixed use
project, with the proposed residential units located on the upper building levels, above the canopies of most
trees in an urban environment. As such, there is not
626 of 786
17 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Reduction Measure and Applicable Standard Project Compliance an opportunity to provide a substantial number of
trees and the resulting shade to these residential
units. Therefore, this measure is infeasible to
implement and not applicable to the project.

Reduction Measure CF 1 (a). All new development
with dedicated off-street parking: The project includes parking spaces with installed electric vehicle (EV)
chargers or are pre-wired for EV chargers, consistent
with state and any local regulations.

The project would provide a total of 114 parking
spaces for both residents and retail customers. Of the
114 parking spaces, 79 would be EV spaces. The
project would also provide 108 bicycle parking spaces.

Therefore, the project complies with this measure.

Reduction Measure ST 6. New developments of at
least six multifamily units and or 10,000 square feet of nonresidential space: Implement TDM strategies to
comply with the appropriate trip reduction target
identified in applicable area plans and San Mateo
Citywide TDM Plan.

The project applicant has committed to implementing
TDM measures documented in a completed C/CAG
TDM Checklist. The project would achieve a 25
percent trip reduction as required by C/CAG.

Therefore, the project complies with this measure.

Reduction Measure ST 7. All new development: Be
located along El Camino Real, within one-half mile of
any Caltrain station, or in the Rail Corridor Transit
Oriented Development or Hillsdale Station Area Plan
areas.

The project site is located less than a half mile from
the Caltrain Downtown San Mateo Station. Therefore,
the project complies with this measure.

Reduction Measure SW 1. All developments with
multifamily units or nonresidential space: Provide an
area of sufficient space to store and allow access to a compost bin.

The project would include composting chutes at the
residential levels of the proposed building and
composting bins in the residential and retail trash
rooms on the ground floor. Therefore, the project
complies with this measure.

Reduction Measure WW 3. All new development:

Include a greywater system.

The project cannot comply with this requirement.

There is a lack of infrastructure for greywater in
downtown San Mateo. Furthermore, the project
would not produce enough greywater internally to
feasibly require the construction of the needed
infrastructure in downtown San Mateo. It is
considered infeasible for the project until such time
that the infrastructure for greywater exists in
downtown San Mateo. Therefore, this measures does
not apply to the project.

As discussed in in Table 2, the proposed project would comply with the applicable measures from the City’s CAP and therefore result in a less than significant impact from operational GHG emissions.

Neither the City nor the Air District have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions. However, the project would implement Air District construction best management practices (BMPs) to restrict idling of construction equipment and utilize energyefficient equipment, which would in turn reduce GHG emissions. 627 of 786
18 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Based on the above discussion, the project would comply with the latest Air District qualitative GHG thresholds, would comply with the City’s Climate Action Plan, and would not have a cumulative impact on energy or GHG emissions. Therefore, the cumulative impact exclusion does not apply to the project.
(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

The proposed project does not include any elements that are atypical for a mixed-use commercial and residential development in a downtown area. The proposed uses are consistent with commercial and residential uses that are present throughout the surrounding area in all directions.

Further, the project site itself does not contain any unusual characteristics. As documented below, the site is not on any lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code or mapped within a Very High Wildfire Hazard Zone, there are no historic resources on-site or nearby historic districts, and there is no habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The project site is also mapped by the City within a “Low Sensitivity Zone” for archaeological resources, and any undiscovered subsurface archaeological (including tribal cultural) or paleontological resources present would be protected with adherence to the conditions of approval identified in Section IV Project Description, above, as well as in discussion (f) below.

Given that the site is fully developed with commercial uses and a surface parking lot within a heavily urbanized area, there are no agricultural, forestry, or mineral resources present on-site. Further, a Geotechnical Investigation (dated October 2025) prepared by Summit Engineering for the project determined that there were no unique or unusual geological issues that would prevent development of the site as proposed. A copy of the Geotechnical Investigation is attached to this Exemption Memorandum as Appendix A.

As discussed under Section 15332 – In-Fill development Projects below, the project would not have any significant effects on traffic, noise/vibration, air or water quality, utilities, or public services.

Therefore, there are no unusual circumstances present that could result in the project having a significant effect on the environment, and the significant impact due to unusual circumstances exclusion does not apply to the project.
628 of 786
19 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

There are no officially designated state scenic highways in the project area. The nearest officially designated state highway is Interstate 280, which is located approximately three miles west of the project site and is not visible from the project site.5 The project, therefore, would not damage scenic resources within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway, and no exception to the exemption applies under 15300.2(d).
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

The following analysis is based, in part, on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated October 2020 prepared by PIERS Environmental Services for the property at 616 South B Street, and a Phase I ESA dated August 2021 prepared by SOMA Environmental Engineering, Inc. prepared for the property at 606 South B Street. Copies of these reports are attached to this Exemption Memorandum as Appendices B and C.

The Phase I ESA for 616 South B Steet determined a Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) is associated with the site due to previous uses. The site is listed as a closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) case for a former tire facility’s removal of underground hoists. The site is also listed on the LUST, HAZMAT, GENERATORS, and HAZNET databases for the former tire facility being a closed LUST case, and for the existing commercial use (paint company) being a chemical storage facility generating hazardous waste. Following removal of the underground hoists, the site was excavated and contaminated soil was removed. The LUST case was closed, and no further action was deemed necessary by the City. The Phase I ESA for 606 South B Street determined the site was not listed on any hazardous waste sites. Because the project site is not listed as an active case on any lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, no exception to the exemption applies under 15300.2.6
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The following analysis is based, in part, on a Historic Resource Evaluation Report (HRE), dated July 29, 2022, prepared by Architecture + History, LLC., and an Archaeological Literature Review (ALR), 5 California Department of Transportation. “California State Scenic Highway System Map”. Accessed April 24, 2026. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. 6 California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources”. Accessed April 24, 2026. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
629 of 786
20 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com dated January 30, 2023, prepared by Basin Research Associates. A copy of the HRE is attached to this Exemption Memorandum as Appendix D. The ALR contains sensitive information about cultural resources in the area and is on file with the City of San Mateo.

The existing commercial buildings on-site at 616 South B. Street and 606 South B. Street were constructed 67 and 51 years ago, respectively. Though over 50 years old, the existing buildings are not listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register or Historic Resources (CRHR) because they are not associated with events that made a significant contribution to local, regional, state, or national history; are not associated with the lives of persons important to local, state, or national history; do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; and were not designed by a master builder or architect. In addition, there are no historic resources adjacent to the project site that are listed on the NRHP or CRHR.7,8
The City of San Mateo’s Archaeological Survey Map shows the project site is located in an area of low sensitivity for buried prehistoric archaeological resources.9 The project would be required to implement the following conditions of approval to avoid impacts to archaeological resources, if encountered during construction.

Conditions of Approval:
a. Archaeological Resources. In the event of the discovery of archaeological resources whether on-site or in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall halt all construction activities, notify the Planning Manager and/or Project Planner, and retain a qualified archaeologist. The archaeologist shall evaluate the uniqueness of the find, contact local Native American and Historical organizations for proposed recommendations for continuing construction, and submit a summary of findings to the Project Planner. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the local Native American and Historical organizations when continuing construction.
b. Cultural Resources. In the event of the discovery of human remains whether on-site in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall halt all activity within 50 feet of the discovery and notify the Planning Manager and/or Project Planner. The applicant shall also immediately notify San Mateo County Coroner to have a determination made as to whether the remains are of Native American origin or whether an investigation into the cause of death is required. Treatment of human remains and any associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soil-disturbing activity within the project site shall comply with applicable State laws. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. Once the NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations 7 Architecture + History, LLC. Historic Resource Evaluation Report, 600-606 and 616 South B Street. July 19, 2022. 8 Basin Research Associates. Archaeological Literature Review in Support of Environmental Clearance of 616 S. B Street (Nazareth Vista), Mixed-Use Development. January 30, 2023. 9 City of San Mateo. City of San Mateo Historic Resources Figure C/OS-5. April 2022. 630 of 786
21 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
c. Cultural Resources Monitor. Should construction monitoring be required, the applicant shall submit a scope of work with a cultural resources monitor as prescribed by the Archaeological Monitoring Plan. The scope of work shall indicate that, in the event of a discovery, the monitor:
i. Has stop-work authority to halt all construction activities; ii. Will notify the Planning Manager and/or Project Planner; iii. Will evaluate the discovery to determine whether additional treatment is warranted; and,
iv. Will determine adequacy of the evaluation of the discovery prior to authorization of construction activities to resume.
d. Paleontological Resources. In the event of the discovery of paleontological resources (fossils) whether on-site or in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall halt all construction activities within 50 feet of the discovery, notify the Planning Manager and/or Project Planner, and retain a qualified paleontologist to determine the significance of the discovery.

The paleontologist shall evaluate the uniqueness of the find, prepare a written report documenting the find and recommending further courses of action, and submit a summary of findings to the Project Planner. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the paleontologist when continuing construction.

For the reasons described above, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and no exception to the exemption applies under 15300.2(f).

Section 15332 – In-Fill Development Projects
Section 15332, or Class 32, applies to projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described below:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

As discussed in Section III General Plan and Zoning, the project site is designated Mixed-Use Medium II and zoned C1-3/R5. This land use designation and zoning district both permit a wide range of uses, including commercial and residential. Therefore, the proposed commercial and residential mixed-use project is consistent with the uses allowed on the project site.

The proposed development’s height, as measured to the top plate line (eight stories and 85 feet) exceeds the six-story and 55-foot height limits of the land use designation and zoning district. The project’s FAR of 5.8 also exceeds the allowable FAR of 4.0. Since 15 percent of the project’s residential units would be affordable units, however, the project’s height and FAR would be 631 of 786
22 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com permitted under the State Density Bonus Law. Further, the City has reviewed the proposed project and found it compliant with all applicable policies and regulations set forth in the San Mateo General Plan and San Mateo Municipal Code with State Density Bonus Law concessions and waivers applied. Therefore, the project meets the conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(a). (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The proposed development would occur on a 0.64-acre site within the limits of the City of San Mateo that, as documented in Section II Project Site Location and Existing Setting and shown on Figure 3, is surrounded by urban uses. Thus, the project meets the conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(b).
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

As previously documented, the project site is fully developed with commercial buildings and a surface parking lot. Further, the project site and surrounding area are not identified in areas of special-status plant or animal species on Figures 4.3-1 or 4.3-2 of the San Mateo 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).10 Therefore, the project does not provide any habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

While the project site does not provide any habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, the project would remove six trees, including two protected trees, that could be used by urban-adapted raptors or other protected birds as nesting and foraging habitat. Raptors and nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW). Noise and vibration generated by construction activities have the potential to disturb raptors and nesting birds, which could potentially lead to nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort, both of which are prohibited by the MBTA and CDFW. As required by the MBTA and CDFW, the project would be subject to the following measures to prevent construction activities from disturbing nesting birds and raptors.

Conditions of Approval:
a. Nesting Birds and Migratory Raptors. All potential nesting substrates (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are planned to be removed by the project shall be removed prior to February 1 or after August 31, unless the applicant or his/her designee complies with the following procedures:
i. Should construction activities be scheduled between February 1 and August 31, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that 10 City of San Mateo. 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022010160. August 2023. Pages 4.3- 16 and 4.3-17.
632 of 786
23 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com no nests will be disturbed during project implementation. These surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction. During this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats within 250 feet of the limits of construction activities. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone (typically 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other species), to ensure that nests of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department of Fish & Wildlife shall not be disturbed during project implementation. These buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest with the permission of the ornithologist. ii. The applicant shall submit a report prepared by a qualified ornithologist indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the City’s Planning Division subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, or his/her designee.

Adherence with these conditions would ensure that all potential nesting substrates on-site would be removed prior to the beginning of nesting season (February 1), and that any active nests within 250 feet of construction activities would be protected by a construction-free buffer zone.

Implementation of these conditions would prevent nesting birds and raptors from being disturbed such that no nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort would occur. Therefore, the project meets the conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(c). (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

Traffic
The following analysis is based, in part, on a Transportation Analysis (dated December 2025) prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. A copy of this report is attached to this memorandum as Appendix E.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
With the passage of SB 743, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) replaced level of service (LOS) as the criteria for determining the significance of traffic impacts. As required by SB 743 and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the City of San Mateo incorporated VMT policies and thresholds of significance into its Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines (dated August 17, 2020).

The City’s TIA Guidelines include screening criteria which, if met by a project, would result in the project having a less than significant VMT impact under CEQA. Under the High-Quality Transit Area 633 of 786
24 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com screening criteria, projects that are within a half mile of a high-quality transit station and meet the following criteria are considered to have a less than significant VMT impact11:
• Have a floor area ratio greater than 0.75;
• Include less parking for residents, customers, and employees than required by the jurisdiction;
• Are consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050;
• Do not replace affordable housing units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units.

The proposed project is located 0.3 miles from the San Mateo Caltrain station and 0.3 miles from the El Camino Real bus service, both of which are considered high-quality transit stops under the City’s TIA Guidelines. As documented in Section IV Project Description, the proposed development would have a FAR of 5.8. Under the City’s Municipal Code, the project would be required to provide 109 parking spaces. The project would meet the requirement by providing 114 parking spaces.

The project would be consistent with the goals of Plan Bay Area 2050, such as building affordable housing, creating healthy and safe streets by building a complete streets network, and reducing climate emissions, because it would provide land use growth and affordable housing near highquality transit while promoting alternative modes of travel (walking/biking) through implementation of the TDM Plan. Lastly, the existing project site is only developed with commercial uses, and the proposed demolition of the existing development and construction of new commercial and residential uses would result in a net increase in affordable housing. Therefore, the project satisfies the City’s High-Quality Transit Area screening criteria and therefore would have a less than significant VMT impact.

Level of Service
As previously discussed, SB 743 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) prohibit the use of LOS as a metric to identify traffic impacts under CEQA. However, the San Mateo 2040 General Plan includes policies addressing potential project effects on intersection operations. The City maintains a LOS standard of mid-level LOS D for all intersections. A development project may be required to fund off-site circulation improvements which are needed as a result of project-generated traffic if:
• The LOS at the intersection drops below mid-level LOS D (average delay of more than 45 seconds) when the project is added, and
• An intersection that operates below its LOS standard under the base year conditions experiences an increase in delay of four or more seconds, and 11 The City’s TIA Guidelines define a high-quality transit station as a Caltrain station or bus stop that provides service on 15-minute headways during peak commute hours. 634 of 786
25 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com • The needed improvement of the intersection(s) is not funded in the applicable five-year City Capital Improvement Program from the date of application approval.

While an impact on LOS is no longer considered an impact under CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies to assess the direct and indirect physical impacts of projects. As such, if a project’s effects on intersection LOS and/or roadway operations would necessitate the construction or funding of physical improvements, the law requires an analysis of the potential adverse effects on the environment that could be caused by the construction of these physical improvements. The Transportation Analysis analyzed the project’s impact in conjunction with existing and reasonably foreseeable future development on nine nearby intersections and the roadway network under existing, existing plus project, cumulative, and cumulative plus project conditions. The analysis determined that the project would not have any adverse effects on intersection LOS or roadway operations (see Appendix E for more details). Therefore, the project would not necessitate the construction or funding of any physical improvements.

Site Access and Circulation
The proposed driveway locations were evaluated to determine if the sight distance would be adequate. The Transportation Analysis recommended modifications to remove tall vegetation within the sight triangle and prohibit parking for at least 15 feet on either side of the project driveway; include mirrors at the corners of ramps to improve visibility around corners; install a gate at the residential garage on 7th Avenue to limit the garage to resident access only; allocate tandem parking spaces to the same residential unit. These modifications would not impede traffic operations.

Since the project would have a less than significant VMT impact, and all physical improvements to the transportation network as a result of the project would not result in adverse effects on the environment, the project would not have any significant effects relating to traffic.

Noise and Vibration
The following analysis is based, in part, on a Noise and Vibration Assessment dated November 2023 (for a previous iteration of the proposed project) and an Addendum to the Assessment dated April 2026 prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Copies of these reports are attached to this memorandum as Appendices F and G.

Project Construction
Construction Noise
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 7.30.060, construction activities that would occur outside the permitted hours of construction (weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and Sundays and holidays between 12:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.) or would 635 of 786
26 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com generate noise exceeding 90 dBA at adjacent property lines would have a significant constructionrelated noise impact.

Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time.

Construction activities would generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during earthmoving activities when heavy equipment is used. During each stage of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by stage and vary within stages, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating.

As described in Section IV Project Description, construction of the project is anticipated to last approximately 22 months. Construction activities would occur on weekdays between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and Saturdays between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Construction phases of the proposed project would include site clearing and demolition, excavation and off haul of excess soil, utility connections, building construction, frontage improvements, and landscaping. Equipment used during construction activities would include saws, excavators, dozers, tractors/loaders/backhoes, graders, cranes, forklifts, welders, air compressors, cement/mortar mixers, pavers, and rollers. No pile driving is proposed.

The Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model was used to calculate the hourly average noise levels for each stage of construction, assuming every piece of equipment would operate simultaneously, which would represent the worst-case scenario. Table 3 below shows the calculated construction noise levels at the surrounding land uses shown on Figure 3.

Additional information on the methodology and assumptions used to estimate the project’s construction noise levels is available in Appendices F and G. 636 of 786
27 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Table 3. Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Adjacent Property Lines Calculated Hourly Average Noise Levels, dBA Leq
Construction Phase Adjoining West
Residences (90
feet)
North Residences
(125 feet)
East Commercial
Uses (175 feet)
South Residences
and Commercial
Uses (125 feet)
Demolition 82 79 76 79
Site Preparation 78 76 73 76
Grading 80 77 74 77
Trenching 79 76 73 76
Building Exterior 81 78 75 78
Building Interior 73 70 67 70
Paving 79 76 73 76
Notes:

The distances shown above were measured from the center of the proposed mixed-use building to the receiving property lines. These levels represent construction noise levels calculated from all equipment per phase operating simultaneously.

The noise levels shown above are from the November 2023 Noise and Vibration Assessment that analyzed a prior version of the proposed project (i.e., a five-story mixed-use building with 48 residential units, 9,199 square feet of retail space, and a garage with one level of underground parking and one level of above-ground parking).

While construction dates have changed from the original analysis, the construction duration, phasing, and equipment type and quantity are consistent with the original project. Therefore, the project would result in the same noise levels.

Sources:

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use Project Noise and Vibration Assessment. November 8, 2023.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Addendum Letter to the Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use Project Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 14, 2026.

Although construction noise levels are not anticipated to exceed 90 dBA at adjacent property lines, the use of construction equipment (specifically saws, cement mixers, cranes, dozers, excavators, graders, and pavers) could generate noise levels in excess of 90 dBA if used within 25 feet of adjacent property lines. General Plan policies N-2.2 through N-2.7 require new development to incorporate measures to minimize their noise impacts. As required by the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, the project would be required to adhere to the following measures to minimize noise below 90 dBA at adjacent property lines.

The applicant and contractor shall place and operate construction equipment to minimize the impact of construction noise on existing sensitive receptors. Construction equipment shall be wellmaintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as possible. Additionally, the applicant and contractor shall incorporate the following conditions of approval to reduce noise from construction activities on nearby sensitive land uses:
637 of 786
28 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Conditions of Approval:
a. Construction Plan for Noise. The contractor shall prepare and submit a construction plan that complies with all standards and BMPs established in the Noise and Vibration Assessment by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated November 8, 2023, showing how noise levels during demolition or construction will not exceed 90 A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) at distance of 25 feet from the source of noise. The contractor shall submit the construction plan to the City’s Building Division subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, or his/her designee prior to the issuance of any demolition, building, and site development permit relating to the construction of the superstructure and prior to the pre-construction conference. At minimum, the construction plan for noise shall include:
i. A staging area map, establishing locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and adjacent residential uses to the west of the project site.
ii. A schedule indicating the stages of construction that will generate high noise levels.

The schedule shall also indicate at which points the contractor or his/her designee will submit verification letters to the Building Division verifying compliance with the plan.
iii. Name and contact information for a designated Disturbance Coordinator(s) responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration.

The Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin (refer to Appendices F and G) determined that adherence with the above conditions of approval would ensure noise levels generated during construction of the project would not exceed 90 dBA at adjacent property lines.

Accordingly, the project would not result in any significant effects related to construction noise.

Construction Vibration
The California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, which typically consist of buildings constructed since the 1990s. Conservative vibration limits of 0.3 in/sec PPV has been used for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern. For historical buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened, a cautious limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV is often used to provide the highest level of protection.

Construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams) are used in the vicinity of nearby sensitive land uses. As previously discussed, construction activities would include site clearing and demolition, excavation and off haul of excess soil, utility connections, building construction, frontage improvements, and landscaping. Equipment used during construction activities would include saws, excavators, dozers, tractors/loaders/backhoes, graders, cranes, forklifts, welders, air compressors, cement/mortar 638 of 786
29 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com mixers, pavers, and rollers. Pile driving (which generates substantial vibration) is not proposed as a method of construction.

Based on a review of the NRHP12, CRHP13, and City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey, the nearest historical buildings are located opposite South B Street from the proposed project site (approximately 65 feet from the eastern property line) and more than 200 feet northeast of the project boundary. These buildings would be subject to the 0.08 in/sec PPV threshold, while all other buildings surrounding the site would be of conventional materials and subject to the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold. Based on typical vibration levels generated by construction equipment, the vibration levels from project construction were estimated from the boundary of the project site, which would represent the nearest location for use of vibration generating equipment, at the nearest building facades. Refer to Appendices F and G for more information on the methodology used to calculate vibration levels. Table 4 on the following page summarizes the vibration levels from construction activities at buildings within the project’s area of effect. 12 National Register of Historic Places. “National Register Database and Research. Accessed April 24, 2026. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm 13 California Register of Historic Places. “California Historical Resources”. Accessed April 24, 2026. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/listedresources/
639 of 786
30 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Table 4. Estimated Vibration Levels at Nearby Buildings Equipment PPV (in/sec) at Nearest Building Façades
North Residences (60
feet)
East Commercial
Uses (65 feet)
South
Residences (100
feet)
Adjoining West
Residences (5
feet)
Nearest
Historical
Building (65
feet)
Northeast
Historical Building
(216 feet)
Clam shovel drop 0.077 0.071 0.044 1.186 0.071 0.019
Hydromill in soil 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.047 0.03 0.001
Hydromill in rock 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.100 0.006 0.002
Vibratory roller 0.080 0.073 0.046 1.233 0.073 0.020
Hoe ram 0.034 0.031 0.019 0.523 0.031 0.008
Large bulldozer 0.034 0.031 0.019 0.523 0.031 0.008
Caisson drilling 0.034 0.031 0.019 0.523 0.031 0.008
Loaded trucks 0.029 0.027 0.017 0.446 0.027 0.007
Jackhammer 0.013 0.012 0.008 0.206 0.012 0.003
Small bulldozer 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.018 0.001 0.0003
Notes:

Bolded values indicate an exceedance of the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold.

The vibration levels shown above are from the November 2023 Noise and Vibration Assessment that analyzed a prior version of the proposed project (i.e., a five-story mixed-use building with 48 residential units, 9,199 square feet of retail space, and a garage with one level of underground parking and one level of above-ground parking). While construction dates have changed from the original analysis, the construction duration, phasing, and equipment type and quantity are consistent with the original project. Project construction would also be the same distance from the surrounding buildings. Therefore, the project would result in the same vibration levels.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use Project Noise and Vibration Assessment. November 8, 2023. 640 of 786
31 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com As shown in Table 4, the nearest historical building would not be exposed to vibration levels exceeding the conservative 0.08 in/sec PPV threshold. However, buildings adjoining the site consisting of conventional construction materials would potentially be exposed to vibration levels exceeding the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold. The applicant and contractor would be required to incorporate the following measures to reduce vibration levels from construction activities to below the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold. Infill development commonly involves construction adjacent to sensitive receptors, as is the case for the subject project, and the conditions below represent common restrictions and requirements on construction activity when proposed adjacent to sensitive receptors. The nature of the proposed construction and its effects on adjacent land use do not constitute unusual circumstances.

Conditions of Approval:
a. Construction Equipment Vibration. The contractor shall submit a construction vibration plan prepared by a technical expert subject to all standards and BMPs established in the Noise and Vibration Assessment by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated November 8, 2023, showing how vibration levels during demolition or construction will not exceed 0.3 in/sec Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) at the conventional buildings within 25 feet of the project site. The contractor shall submit the plan to the City’s Planning and Building Divisions, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, or his/her designee, prior to issuance of a demolition permit. At minimum, the construction vibration plan shall include:
o A list of all heavy construction equipment. The list shall also specify smaller equipment (less than 18,000 pounds) to be used near the property lines adjacent to the residential uses to the west of the project site.
o A schedule indicating the stages of construction anticipated to generate high vibration levels. The schedule shall also indicate at which points the contractor or his/her designee will submit reports to the Planning and Building Divisions to verify compliance with the plan. The reports shall include the activities that triggered alerts, the PPV readings, and the actions enacted to reduce the impact, all time and dated stamped.

Reports shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions at a minimum after demolition: shoring and tieback placement; excavation; pier placement; compaction activities; and any other activities that create a vibration reaching the threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV. o A list of demolition methods to be used in order to minimize vibration impacts.
o Name and contact information for a designated Disturbance Coordinator(s) responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration, and coordinating any outreach or noticing to 641 of 786
32 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com inform neighboring properties of activities that may generate high vibration levels.
o A plan to document conditions at all structures located within 25 feet of construction site, where access is granted, prior to, during, and after vibration-generating construction activities.

The Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin (refer to Appendices F and G) determined that adherence with the above conditions of approval would ensure vibration generated during construction of the project would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold.

Accordingly, the project would not result in any significant effects related to construction vibration.

Project Operation
Project-Generated Traffic
Pursuant to General Plan Policy N-2.4, noise produced by project-generated traffic would result in a significant effect if it caused a permanent noise increase of three dBA Ldn or greater. Based on the traffic volumes provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project (refer to Appendix E) for the scenarios involving ‘existing no project’, ‘existing plus project’, ‘cumulative no project’, and ‘cumulative plus project’ scenarios, the project would increase noise levels along nearby roadway segments by one dBA Ldn or less. Further, noise levels along these roadways under both cumulative no project and cumulative plus project scenarios would increase by one dBA Ldn or less, and therefore the project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Accordingly, noise from project-generated traffic would not result in any significant effects.

Mechanical Equipment
General Plan Policy N-2.3 prohibits new uses that would generate noise levels of 65 dBA Ldn or above at the property line, excluding existing ambient noise levels. Section 7.30.040 of the San Mateo Municipal Code limits noise levels at commercial/office property lines to 65 dBA during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 60 dBA during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.).

Noise measurements conducted for the Noise and Vibration Assessment determined that daytime noise levels ranged from 54 to 63 dBA Leq and nighttime noise levels ranged from 42 to 58 dBA Leq along the southwest corner of the project site. Daytime noise levels ranged from 58 to 68 dBA Leq and nighttime noise levels ranged from 44 to 62 dBA Leq along the eastern boundary of the project site. Based on existing ambient noise levels, the noise level thresholds would be 60 dBA during daytime hours and 50 dBA during nighttime hours at the west residences; 63 dBA during daytime hours and 54 dBA during nighttime hours for the north and south residences; and 63 dBA during daytime hours and 55 dBA during nighttime hours for the east commercial uses. 642 of 786
33 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com The proposed project includes an emergency generator; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units; and solar panels. Solar panels would not generate noise levels audible at the property lines. Accordingly, only the emergency generator and HVAC units are analyzed below.

Emergency Generator
The proposed project includes an emergency generator room in the ground level of the proposed building, along the northern building façade. The generator selected (Rehlko KD200) typically generates noise levels up to 71 dB at a distance of 23 feet when soundproofed. Emergency generators are typically tested monthly for a period of 30 minutes to one hour between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. It is assumed that the City’s thresholds would not apply during emergency conditions when the generators may run continuously during daytime and nighttime; however, the City’s threshold of 60 dBA L50 would apply during testing periods.

With no windows in the generator room, the building would provide about 20 dBA attenuation from the generator for surrounding receptors. Noise levels generated by the generator would not be audible at the property line. Table 5 below summarizes the emergency generator noise that would be propagated to the nearest receptors.

Table 5. Operational Noise Levels from Mechanical Equipment Receptor Distance from
Center of
Generator
Hourly Average Leq,
dBA1
Combined Ldn, dBA1 Noise Level
Increase, dBA Ldn
Adjoining West
Residences
60 feet 43 29 0
North Residences 85 feet 40 26 0
East Commercial
Uses
120 feet 37 23 0
Notes:
1 Conservative 20 dBA noise level reduction is assumed from the building and generator room.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Addendum Letter to the Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use Project Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 14, 2026.

As summarized in Table 5, emergency generator noise would not exceed the City’s threshold of 60 dBA L50, assuming soundproofing is incorporated into the design and 20 dBA attenuation from the building. For all existing receptors, the noise level increase due to testing of the emergency generator would not be measurable or detectable (0 dBA Ldn increase).

Rooftop HVAC Equipment
While specific HVAC units have not been identified for the project, the site plan shows at least 90 HVAC units on the rooftop. Typical heat pump condensing units for buildings of this size generate 643 of 786
34 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com noise levels up to 66 dBA at a distance of three feet. Assuming all units operate simultaneously, the total combined noise level would be up to 86 dBA at three feet. These types of units would cycle on and off continuously over a given 24-hour period, and assuming all eight units would run continuously, the day-night average noise level under worst-case conditions would be 92 dBA Ldn at three feet.

The project also proposes a parapet wall surrounding the roof and a mechanical screen surrounding HVAC units. The adjoining receptors to the west and residential building to the north would have elevated receptors up to five stories high. The rooftop equipment on the proposed building would provide a minimum attenuation of 20 dBA. Ground-level receptors would be farther from the noise sources and would have more attenuation. Conservatively, 20 dBA attenuation is applied to all surrounding receptors.

Table 6 below summarizes the hourly average noise levels and day-night average noise levels projected at the surrounding land uses.

Table 6. Operational Noise Levels from HVAC Equipment
Receptor Distance from Center
of HVAC Units
Hourly Average
Leq, dBA1
Combined Ldn,
dBA1
Noise Level
Increase, dBA Ldn
Adjoining West
Residences
55 feet 40 47 0
North Residences 165 feet 31 37 0
East Commercial Uses 120 feet 34 40 0
South Residences and
Commercial Uses
195 feet 29 36 0
Notes:
1 Conservative 20 dBA noise level reduction is assumed from the HVAC units, parapet wall, and the mechanical screen.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Addendum Letter to the Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use Project Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 14, 2026.

As shown in Table 6, noise generated by the project’s HVAC equipment would not exceed the City’s daytime and nighttime noise thresholds or increase ambient noise levels at the land uses north and east of the site. For all existing receptors, the noise level increase due to operation of the rooftop equipment would not be measurable or detectable.

Based on the above discussion, the project would not result in any significant effects related to mechanical equipment noise.
644 of 786
35 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Truck Loading and Unloading
A loading zone would be designated adjacent to the parking garage entrance on 6th Avenue. The south residences and commercial uses would be shielded from truck loading and unloading activities by the proposed building. Thus, the south receptors would not be exposed to substantial noise. In contrast, the adjoining west residences, north residences, and east commercial uses would have direct line-of-sight to the loading zone. For all loading and unloading activities, truck maneuvering would take more than five minutes but less than 15 minutes per delivery.14 Truck maneuvering noise would include a combination of engine, exhaust, and tire noise, as well as the intermittent sounds of back-up alarms and releases of compressed air associated with truck/trailer air brakes. Medium-sized delivery trucks would be expected at the proposed building. Mediumsized delivery trucks typically generate maximum noise levels of 60 to 65 dBA at 50 feet. The noise level of backup alarms can vary depending on the type and directivity of the sound, but maximum noise levels are typically in the range of 65 to 75 dBA at 50 feet.

It is conservatively assumed that up to one delivery would occur daily at the project site. While the proposed building would provide some shielding for the receptors to the west and to the east, no attenuation is assumed for this analysis. Table 7 summarizes expected noise levels generated by typical truck deliveries at the receptors with exposure to the loading areas.

Table 7. Operational Noise Levels from Truck Loading and Unloading Activities Receptor Distance from Center
of Loading Area
Noise Levels from Truck
Deliveries, dBA L08
dBA Ldn Noise Level
Increase, dBA Ldn
Adjoining West
Residences
60 feet 63 44 0
North Residences 60 feet 63 44 0
East Commercial Uses 130 feet 57 37 0
Notes:

L08 refers to the A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded eight percent of the time during the measurement period.

The noise levels shown above are from the November 2023 Noise and Vibration Assessment that analyzed a prior version of the proposed project. The proposed project would not change truck loading and unloading activities. Therefore, the project would result in the same noise levels.

Sources:

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Nazareth Vista Noise and Vibration Assessment. November 8, 2023.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Addendum Letter to the Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use Project Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 14, 2026.
14 Based on the Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.’s (I&R’s) experience, truck maneuvering activities at loading docks last a few minutes. Conservatively, I&R estimates more than five minutes. Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Nazareth Vista Noise and Vibration Assessment. November 8, 2023. 645 of 786
36 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Based on the estimated noise levels in Table 7, truck loading and unloading activities would not exceed the City’s L08 daytime thresholds, which are summarized above to be 70 dBA L08 at the adjoining west residences and 73 dBA L08 at the north residences and east commercial uses. For all existing receptors, the noise level increase due to truck loading and unloading activities would not be measurable or detectable (0 dBA Ldn increase). Thus, the project would not result in any significant effects related to truck loading and unloading.

Total Combined Project-Generated Noise
Once operational, noise generated by all project activities (i.e., traffic, mechanical equipment, and truck loading/unloading activities) would result in an increase of two dBA Ldn or less at surrounding land uses. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in any significant effects related to noise.

Air Quality
The following discussion is based, in part, on an Air Quality Assessment prepared for the project by Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. A copy of this report, dated April 2026, is attached to this memorandum as Appendix H.

Air quality impacts may occur when a project conflicts with or obstructs the applicable air quality plan, or results in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria air pollutant for which the region (i.e., the San Francisco Bay Area) is non-attainment under the applicable federal or state standard, the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (including toxic air contaminants (TACs), such as diesel particulate matter (DPM) that would result in community health risks, or in odors that would adversely affect a significant number of people.15 2017 Clean Air Plan
The proposed project would not conflict with the 2017 CAP because the project would not exceed the Air District thresholds of significance for construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions, as described below. Because the project would not exceed the Air District screening criteria, it would not result in significant impacts due to the generation of construction or operational-related criteria air pollutants. Thus, the project is not required to incorporate projectspecific control measures listed in the 2017 CAP. Further, the project is considered urban infill and would be located near bike facilities and transit with regional connections. Implementation of the project would not prevent the Air District or partner agencies from continuing progress toward attaining State and federal air quality standards and eliminating health-risk disparities from 15 The applicable air quality plan is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017 Clean Air Plan. The San Francisco Bay Area is non-attainment for ground-level ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SOx), and lead. The project does not include substantial new emissions of sulfur dioxide or lead; therefore, these criteria pollutants are not discussed further. 646 of 786
37 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities, as described within the 2017 CAP.

Accordingly, the project would not result in significant effects due to a conflict with the 2017 CAP.

Criteria Air Pollutants
Construction Period Emissions
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1 was used to estimate emissions from project construction. Construction emissions were modeled based on equipment list and schedule information provided by the applicant. CalEEMod defaults for the associated land use and size were used where project-specific information was unavailable. Details about the equipment list, construction schedule, modeling, data inputs, and assumptions are included in Appendix H. Table 8 summarizes the unmitigated annualized average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the project.

Table 8. Project Construction Period Emissions
Year Annualized Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust
2026 0.67 5.3 0.26 0.24
2027 0.43 2.3 0.092 0.084
2028 5.0 2.0 0.063 0.058
Air District Threshold 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Source: Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. CEQA Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment for Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use Project. April 10, 2026.

As shown in Table 8, the unmitigated average daily emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5 generated by project construction would not exceed Air District thresholds. Accordingly, the project’s construction period emissions would have a less than significant impact.

Operational Period Emissions
Operational period criteria pollutant emissions associated with the project would be generated primarily from vehicles driven by future residents and retail customers, and to a lesser extent by waste disposal and daily energy and water usage. The project proposes 94 dwelling units and falls below the Air District’s operational criteria air pollutants 638-unit screening threshold for the “Apartments” land use type. While the type of retail use to be implemented is unknown at this time, the project’s proposed 7,286 square foot retail space falls below the Air District’s operational criteria air pollutant screening threshold for all “Retail” land use subtypes (ranging from 11,000 to 356,000 square feet). Since the project’s uses would be below the Air District’s screening criteria, a 647 of 786
38 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com detailed operational period criteria air pollutant emissions analysis is not warranted, and the project would result in a less than significant operational air quality impact.

Community Health Risks
Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur either by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive residents and workers in the project vicinity or by significantly exacerbating existing cumulative TAC impacts. The project would introduce new sources of TACs during construction (i.e., on-site construction and truck hauling emissions) and operation (i.e., mobile sources).

Project construction activity would generate dust and equipment exhaust that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. During project operation, the project would generate emissions associated with traffic consisting of mostly light-duty vehicles.

Project impacts to existing sensitive receptors were addressed for temporary construction activities and long-term operational conditions, as discussed below. There are also several sources of existing TACs and localized air pollutants in the vicinity of the project. The impact of the existing sources of TACs was also assessed in terms of the cumulative risk which includes the project’s contribution.

Community risk impacts were addressed by predicting increased cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations and computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks. The risk impacts from the project are the combination of risks from construction and operation sources.

These sources include on-site construction activity, construction truck hauling, and increased traffic from the project. To evaluate the increased cancer risks from the project, a 30-year exposure period is typically used (per Air District guidance), with the nearby residential sensitive receptors being exposed to both project construction and operation emissions during this timeframe.

The project’s increased cancer risk is computed by summing the project construction cancer risk and operation cancer risk contributions. Unlike the increased maximum cancer risk, the annual PM2.5 concentration and HI values are not additive but based on the annual maximum values for the entirety of the project. The project’s maximally exposed individual (MEI) is identified as the existing resident or worker that would be most impacted by the project’s construction and operation. Other residents and workers in the surrounding area would be exposed to a lower health risk than identified for the MEI. Additional explanation of the methodology for computing community risk impacts is provided in Appendix H.

Construction Health Risks
The MEI with the greatest cancer risks, exposure to PM2.5, and exposure to non-cancer health risks during construction would be a single-family residence located on 7th Avenue between South B Street and Laurel Avenue. The location of the MEI is shown on Figure 8 on the following page. 648 of 786
Source: Ramboll.
0(,5
&DQFHU30DQG&KURQLF+,2IIVLWH5HVLGHQW

*HQHUDWRU
1HDUE\%XLOGLQJV
&RQVWUXFWLRQ$UHD
+DXO5RXWHV
3URMHFW6LWH 0 100 200 400 600 1,000 Feet
LOCATION OF OFF-SITE MAXIMALLY EXPOSED INDIVIDUALS FIGURE 8 39 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com 649 of 786
40 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. Although construction exhaust air pollutant emissions would not contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations, construction exhaust emissions may still pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as surrounding residents. Diesel exhaust particulate matter (DPM) poses both a potential health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. The primary community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. A quantitative health risk assessment of the project construction activities was conducted to evaluate the potential health effects to nearby sensitive receptors from construction emissions of DPM and PM2.5, pursuant to the Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines using CalEEMod and the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model. Details about the community health risk modeling, data inputs, and assumptions are included in Appendix H.

Table 9 below summarizes maximum cancer risks, PM2.5 concentrations, and hazard index from project construction activities at the MEI.

Table 9. Construction Health Risks at Offsite MEI
Source Cancer Risk per Million Hazard Index PM2.5 Concentration Construction 16 0.022 0.41
Air District Threshold 10.0 1.0 0.30
Exceed Threshold? Yes No Yes
Source: Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. CEQA Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment for Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use Project. April 10, 2026.

As shown in Table 9, the project’s construction-related community health risks would exceed the Air District’s thresholds for cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration. The applicant and contractor would be required to comply with the following BMPs established by the Air District for reducing construction emissions of fugitive PM10 and PM2.5. Infill development commonly involves construction adjacent to sensitive receptors, as is the case for the subject project, and the conditions below represent common restrictions and requirements on construction activity when proposed adjacent to sensitive receptors. The nature of the proposed construction and its effects on adjacent land use do not constitute unusual circumstances.

Condition of Approval16:
a. The following provision to control traffic congestion, noise, and dust shall be followed during site excavation, grading, and construction:
i. Construction activities related to the issuance of any Public Works permit shall be restricted to the weekday between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Please note, however, 16 Please note the Air Quality Report (Appendix G) identifies impact-reducing measures as “mitigation measures” rather than “conditions of approval.” They are listed as “conditions of approval” in this CE Memo because they are standard practice for construction projects and do not constitute unusual circumstances. 650 of 786
41 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com that no work shall be allowed to take place within the City right-of-way after 5:00 p.m. In addition, no work being done under the issuance of a Public Works encroachment permit may be performed on the weekend unless prior approvals have been granted by Public Works. Earth haul and materials delivery to and from the site, including truck arrivals and departures to and from the site, will be prohibited between the weekday hours of 4:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. Signs outlining these restrictions shall be posted at conspicuous locations on site. The signs shall be per the City Standard Drawing for posting construction hours. The sign shall be kept free of graffiti at all times. Contact the Public Works Department to obtain sample City Standard sign outlining hours of operation.

The allowed hours of Public Works construction activities may be waived or modified through an exemption, for limited periods, if the Director of Public Works or designee finds that:
• The following criteria are met:
o Permitting extended hours of construction will decrease the total time needed to complete the project thus mitigating the total amount of noise associated with the project as a whole; or
o Permitting extended hours of construction are required to accommodate design or engineering requirements, such as a large concrete pour. Such a need would be determined by the project’s design engineer and require approval of the Director of Public Works or designee.
o An emergency situation exists where the construction work is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition
resulting in obvious and eminent peril to public health and safety. If such a condition exists, the City may waive any of the remaining requirements outlined below.
• The exemption will not conflict with any other condition of approval required by the City to mitigate significant impacts.
• The contractor or owner of the property will notify residential and commercial occupants of property adjacent to the construction site of the hours of construction activity which may impact the area. This notification shall be provided three days prior to the start of the extended construction activity.
• The approved hours of construction activity will be posted at the construction site in a place and manner that can be easily viewed by any interested member of the public.

The Director of Public Works or designee may revoke the exemption at any time if the contractor or owner of the property fails to abide by the conditions of 651 of 786
42 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com exemption or if it is determined that the peace, comfort, and tranquility of the occupants of adjacent residential and commercial properties are impaired because of the location and nature of the construction. The waiver application shall be submitted to the Public Works Construction Inspector ten (10) working days prior to the requested date of waiver.
b. The following conditions shall be complied with at all times during the construction phase of the project:
ii. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). iii. All construction vehicles shall be properly maintained and equipped with exhaust mufflers that meet State standards.
iv. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average winds exceed 20 mph.
v. All trucks and equipment, including their ties, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
vi. All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
vii. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day. Newly disturbed soil surfaces shall be watered down regularly by a water trucks or by other approved method maintained on site during all grading operations. Construction grading activity shall be discontinued in wind conditions that in the opinion of the Public Works Construction Inspector cause excessive neighborhood dust problems. Wash down of dirt and debris into storm drain systems will not be allowed. viii. Construction activities shall be scheduled so that paving and foundation placement begin immediately upon completion of grading operation. ix. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a six- to twelve-inch layer of compacted wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
x. All aggregate materials transported to and from the site shall be covered in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code during transit to and from the site.
xi. Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
c. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit traffic control plans for any impact to the right-of-way for each phase of operation, including pedestrian and bicycle detour plans as applicable. The traffic control plan shall comply with the most recent 652 of 786
43 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com version of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the City’s Traffic Control Plan Requirements. The applicant shall also submit a site logistics plan for each phase of operation. The plan, at a minimum, shall include estimated timeframes for implementation, duration, and construction operations.

In addition, the applicant and contractor would be required to incorporate the following measures to reduce construction equipment emissions.

Conditions of Approval:
a. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the Building Division that demonstrates that all cranes, forklifts, generator sets, and welders used in project construction shall be equipped with Tier 4 diesel engines or better (e.g., natural gas generators or electric welders). The construction management plan is subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director, or his/her designee.
b. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall also submit an emissions reduction plan to the Planning Division that details the equipment to be used during construction and be signed by a qualified air quality specialist, verifying that the equipment included in the plan meets standards set forth in this measure. i. Alternatively, if use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, the applicant may propose use of equipment that meets U.S. EPA emissions standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve a 90 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment. The use of Tier 3 equipment shall not exceed five percent of all equipment usage (described in terms of total horsepower hours during a phase). Alternatively, the project may also use electrical or non-diesel fueled equipment. All construction vehicles shall be properly maintained and equipped with exhaust mufflers that meet State standards. ii. The emissions reduction plan is subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director, or his/her designee.

The Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment prepared by Ramboll (refer to Appendix H) determined that adherence with the above conditions of approval would reduce cancer risk and by PM2.5 concentration by approximately 60 percent to below Air District thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in any significant effects related to construction health risks.

Cumulative Health Risks from All TAC Sources
Community health risk assessments typically look at all substantial sources of TACs that can affect sensitive receptors that are located within 1,000 feet of the project site. These sources include busy surface streets (i.e., roadways that exceed 10,000 vehicles per day), stationary sources, railways, and projects with concurrent construction schedules. There are seven projects within 1,000 feet of 653 of 786
44 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com the project site (listed in Section V Environmental Review on page 12) that are projected to be constructed at around the same time as the proposed project, i.e., their schedules could overlap.

Construction of these projects was factored into the cumulative analysis based on data provided by the City. Modeling was completed to calculate the community health risk from the cumulative sources at the project MEI. Refer to Appendix H for details about the cumulative health risk modeling, including model inputs and assumptions. Table 10 below shows the cumulative community risk impacts from project construction and other cumulative sources at the MEIs.

Table 10. Cumulative Health Risks at Offsite MEI
Source Cancer Risk per Million Hazard Index PM2.5 Concentration Project Construction 6.71 0.0102 0.173
Project Operation (Generator) 0.8 0.0001 0.002
Stationary Sources 0.9 -- --
Roadways 7.9 0.03 0.23
Railways 0.38 0.0001 0.00047
Future Cumulative Development4 1.5 0.0011 0.011
Total 18 0.041 0.41
Air District Threshold 100.0 10.0 0.80
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Source: Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. CEQA Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment for Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use Project. April 10, 2026.

Notes:
1 Reduced from 16 cases per million with implementation of conditions of approval. 2 Reduced from 0.022 with implementation of conditions of approval. 3 Reduced from 0.41 with implementation of conditions of approval. 4 Foreseeable future cumulative development projects include the mixed-use developments at 500 East 4th Avenue, 222 East 4th Avenue, 445 South B Street, 500 East 3rd Avenue, and 477 9th Avenue.

As shown in Table 10, the cumulative cancer risks, annual PM2.5 concentrations, and hazard index for non-cancer health risks would not exceed the Air District’s cumulative-source thresholds.

Accordingly, the project’s cumulative health risks would not have a significant effect.

Odors
According to the Air District CEQA Guidelines, an odor source with five or more confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years is considered to have a significant impact.17 The Air 17 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. Page 2-1.
654 of 786
45 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com District has identified a variety of land uses that produce emissions that may lead to odors and generate complaints including, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting operations, and food manufacturing facilities.

Commercial and residential uses do not typically generate objectionable odors, nor do they fall under any of the land uses identified by the Air District to cause objectionable odors. Localized odors, mainly resulting from diesel exhaust and construction equipment on-site, would be created during the construction phase of the project. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticed beyond the project site’s boundaries. Odors associated with the application of paints and coatings may also be noticeable on occasion by adjacent receptors. Painting and coating of the project would occur during daytime hours only, be localized, and be generally confined to the project site. These odors would also be temporary. Operation and maintenance of the project would require the use of cleaning supplies, maintenance chemicals, and herbicides and pesticides for landscape maintenance. Any odors generated by the use of these materials would be both temporary and highly localized. Therefore, the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as non-point source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain.

Construction
Construction activities, such as grading and excavation, have the potential to result in temporary impacts to surface water quality in adjacent waterways and groundwater. When disturbance to the soil occurs, sediments may be dislodged and discharged into the storm drainage system after surface runoff flows across the site.

Construction of the below level parking garage, building footings, grading, and trenching activities would extend to a depth of eight feet and would not encounter groundwater on-site.18 No dewatering would be required as a result of the project. Projects that would disturb one acre or more of soil are required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Projects are required by Chapter 7.39 of the San Mateo Municipal Code to adhere with the SWRCB regulations and obtain 18 Based on a Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Summit Engineering and a Phase I ESA prepared by PIERS Environmental Services, groundwater on-site is located at depths greater than 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). 655 of 786
46 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com a Stormwater Pollution Prevention (STOPPP) Construction permit. Adherence with the aforementioned regulations would ensure that the discharge of pollutants is minimized to the extent feasible, and would protect beneficial uses and receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction-related storm water discharges. Accordingly, construction of the project would not result in any significant effects on water quality.

Post-Construction
Provision C.3 of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) requires project that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to implement site design, source control, and Low Impact Development (LID)-based stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff. The project would replace over 50 percent of the existing impervious area and therefore would be required to comply with Provision C.3. As documented in Section IV Project Description, the project would comply with Provision C.3 by treating stormwater runoff through the use of silva cells on 6th Avenue. Silva cells located on South B Street and 7th Avenue would treat public right-of-way areas. Excess runoff from the silva cells would be discharged to the City storm drain system. Additionally, as required by Chapter 7.39 of the San Mateo Municipal Code and the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan, the project applicant would be required to implement the following measures.

Conditions of Approval:
a. Owner/occupant shall inspect private stormwater treatment devices and GI features in the public right-of-way at least two times per year and sweep parking lots immediately prior to and once during storm season.
b. The applicant shall pay a Pollution Prevention Inspection fee on a yearly basis for cost associated with, but not limited to, City inspection of the private stormwater treatment facilities, emergency maintenance needed to protect public health or watercourses, and facility replacement or repair in the event that the treatment facility is no longer able to meet performance standards or has deteriorated. The fee shall be based upon the Comprehensive Fee Schedule, established by the City Council, in effect at the time. c. Label new and redeveloped storm drain inlets with the phrase “No Dumping – Drains to Bay” plaques to alert the public to the destination of storm water and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain. Template ordering information is available from the Department of Public Works.
d. All process equipment, oil fuels, solvents, coolants, fertilizers, pesticides, and similar chemical products, as well as petroleum-based wastes, tallow, and grease planned for storage outdoors shall be stored in covered containers at al times.

Adherence with Provision C.3 of the MRP, the City’s Municipal Code, and the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan would ensure that stormwater pollution is minimized, 656 of 786
47 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com treated, and filtered prior to entering the storm drain system. Accordingly, operation of the project would not result in
(e) The site can be adequately serviced by all required utilities and public services.

Utilities
Utility services to the proposed project would be provided by the City of San Mateo (storm drain, sanitary sewer), the Cal Water Bayshore District (water service), and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) (electricity). The project proposes to construct new laterals and electrical connections that would tie into existing utility lines located in 6th Avenue.

The City of San Mateo Public Works Department has confirmed, based on storm drain and sanitary sewer capacity studies, that the existing storm drain and sanitary sewer infrastructure can accommodate increases in flows generated by the proposed project. The proposed project falls below the 500-dwelling unit and 500,000 square foot thresholds for preparation of a water supply assessment by a local provider19, and the Cal Water Bayshore District determined in its most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) that the City will meet projected water demand through 2045 during normal, single-, and multiple-dry years. In addition, the City prepared a Sewer Capacity Study for the project (refer to Appendix I) that determined the city’s sewer system has capacity to convey the project’s flow to the treatment plant.

Therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to the project. The project would coordinate with PG&E on connections between the existing power grid lines and the proposed building, and as discussed in Section 15300.2 – Exceptions above, the project’s energy consumption would be minimal in comparison with county demand and would be accommodated by existing energy supplies. Accordingly, the project can be adequately serviced by all required utilities.

Public Services
The proposed project would intensify use of the site and may result in an increase in demand for fire and police protection services. However, the proposed project is consistent with the assumptions of the San Mateo 2040 General Plan EIR, which concluded that new development would have a less than significant impact on fire and police protection services with payment of building permit fees (as mandated by the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code) that would help provide additional fire and police protection resources to the City as needed. Additionally, the project would be constructed in compliance with the most recent California Building Code and California Fire code to ensure the building is fire-safe, and with Implementation Program LU-4.29 and the City’s Building Security Code, which requires proposed developments to be reviewed by the San Mateo Police Department to ensure appropriate safety features that minimize criminal activity 19 Pursuant to Senate Bill 610 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15155. 657 of 786
48 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com are incorporated into the project design. For these reasons, fire and police protection services are adequate to service the proposed project.

Based on the San Mateo-Foster City School District’s student generation rates of 0.04 student per multi-family residential unit for elementary schools and middle schools, the project’s 94 residential units would generate approximately four new students at Sunnybrae Elementary School and Borel Middle School. Using the San Mateo Union High School District’s student generation rate of 0.10 high school students per multi-family residential unit, the project would generate approximately ten new students at San Mateo High School. Enrollment at Sunnybrae Elementary is 368 students20 with a capacity of 832 students, enrollment at Borel Middle is 863 students21 with a capacity of 1,134 students, and enrollment at San Mateo High is 1,532 students22 with a capacity of 1,941 students. Accordingly, Sunnybrae Elementary, Borel Middle, and San Mateo High can accommodate an additional 464, 271, and 409 students, respectively. Therefore, adequate capacity exists at the school facilities that serve the project site. The project would be required to pay statutory school impact fees to offset increased demands on school facilities resulting from the project.

Future residents and employees are expected to marginally increase demand on other public facilities, such as libraries and community centers. Additionally, the City is in process of updating its library services through the San Mateo Public Library Strategic Plan, which will build and expand existing library facilities and employ resources in new ways to ensure equitable access. Accordingly, libraries and community centers in San Mateo would be equipped to provide services to new residents of the proposed project. The project would also pay in-lieu fees under the Quimby Act to offset the demand generated by new residents and employees on parks and recreational facilities.

For these reasons, the project would not result in a significant effect on public facilities such as libraries, community centers, parks, and recreation facilities.

VI. Conclusion
As documented under Section V Environmental Review, none of the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the project, and the project is eligible for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, since it a) meets the definition of an in-fill development project; b) would occur within San Mateo city limits on a project site no more than five acres that is surrounded by urban uses; c) has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; d) would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and e) can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
20 California Department of Education. “School Profile: Sunnybrae Elementary.” Accessed April 27, 2026. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sdprofile/details.aspx?cds=41690396045017. 21 California Department of Education. “School Profile: Borel Middle.” Accessed April 27, 2026. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sdprofile/details.aspx?cds=41690396044853. 22 California Department of Education. “School Profile: San Mateo High.” Accessed April 27, 2026. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sdprofile/details.aspx?cds=41690474136370. 658 of 786
49 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Geotechnical Report
Appendix B: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 616 South B. Street Appendix C: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 606 South B. Street Appendix D: Historic Resource Evaluation Report
Appendix E: Transportation Analysis
Appendix F: Noise and Vibration Report
Appendix G: Addendum to Noise and Vibration Report
Appendix H: Air Quality Report
Appendix I: Sewer Capacity Study
659 of 786
660 of 786
661 of 786
662 of 786
663 of 786
664 of 786
665 of 786
666 of 786
667 of 786
668 of 786
669 of 786
Hi Norman,
Thanks for sending over these comments. I can relay your concerns to the developer, though I will note that we cannot guarantee that they will make the requested changes.

If you have specific comments/concerns on aspects of the project design, it may be more productive at this phase to reach out to the developer directly as well to discuss these items (especially given that the City has not yet received a formal Planning Application for the changes proposed). The developer contact for this project is Evan Sockalosky of Arc Tec, Inc.: 408-496-0676; [email protected].

Best,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Barbara Cohen < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 4:09 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Cc: Somer Smith <[email protected]>;
< >
Subject: Re: video question meet
Hi Liz, Thank you very much for such a prompt response on that question.

Regarding that last additional written question that I wrote you earlier this afternoon about proactively requesting (or suggesting) to the developer a small change in floor plans to allow a 7th Ave. loading dock, I would like to make two points:

1. It should not be very difficult at all to accomplish this.

2. Since they are requesting a waiver (that is apparently often not granted), there should be a way at some point in this process to easily design a floor plan that causes the least disruption in the neighborhood and makes the most sense.

Basically, our primary hope is that the city will consider not merely the meeting of objective written building criteria but will also weigh the effects on health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of both nearby residents and, indeed, anyone entering downtown San Mateo.

You have been exceptionally understanding and patient, and I expect to refrain from bothering you further in the reasonably near future. If you should ever feel Davida and I can assist you in any way in communicating to the residents of our respective buildings please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you again. 670 of 786
Best regards,
Norman
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 3:12 PM Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Norman,
Thank you for the kind words and for organizing the questions ahead of our meeting this morning.

I also wanted to follow up on your question regarding the base densities for mixed use projects. I will note that the item that was brough the the City Council on June 16, 2025 for this was a first reading of the proposed ordinance changes, so it will need to go back to City Council for formal adoption (likely in July) and would become effective 30 days after formal adoption. The attached Agenda Report includes a summary of the proposed changes. Additional attachments related to this item can be downloaded from the Agenda (this item was #38 under "Public Hearings"). You can click the "download" button next to the item to view or download the complete list of attachments.

As it relates to 616 S. B St., this site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed Use Medium II, and the site is within ½ mile of a Caltrain Stop. Therefore, the recommended minimum density for mixed-use projects at this site would be 50 dwelling units/acre (note that this has not yet been adopted, but was introduced for first review to the City Council this past Monday 6/16). For 616 S. B St. that would calculate out to 32 dwelling units as the minimum number required in a mixed-use project for this 0.64-acre site. To your question posed in our discussion, the 48 units proposed in the previously approved application (PA-2022-037) would already have exceed this minimum.

Thanks,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Barbara Cohen <n >
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 10:23 AM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]>; Somer Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: video question meet
Hi Liz and Somer,
671 of 786
I just want to thank you both so much for taking the time to answer our questions.

You not only perform an important public service job, but it is quite obvious that you do so very conscientiously. Thank you.

If, in the future, you should receive a number of separate individual queries from residents of the Gramercy or Stratford please feel free to let us know so that we can minimize the intrusion on your time. We can then remind all of our residents to direct their questions through us so as to consolidate them and minimize taking up more of your time.

Thanks again.

Yours truly,
Norman
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.
672 of 786
673 of 786
674 of 786
675 of 786
676 of 786
about 1 2 months for staff to prepare and review an Agenda Report for Public Hearing, schedule the application for public hearing, and get public noticing sent out. For context, the previous Nazareth Vista application (PA 2022 037) took just over a year from initial submittal to get to public hearing. Timelines can vary depending on how complete the application is at first submittal, though I would say 6-12 months is the typical range for most projects. When the project is scheduled for public hearing, the agenda report and other public hearing documents will be made available on the City's Agendas & Minutes Public Meeting Portal
d. approximately when the planning commission meeting(s) may be held? i. See answer to 2c above
e. will the planning commission recommendation or decision be final or would this matter also need to then appear before the city council? i. Under current regulations, this project will be heard at Planning Commission for recommendation, then will go before City Council for a final decision (currently required for buildings over 55 feet in height).

3. Is it possible for me and the other four people ( Larry Mehl, Phee Boon Kang, Ben Chang, and Davida Rabbino) with these cc'd email addresses receive future notification for all new documents, updates, and hearings regarding this project? a. Absolutely, I have added all included to the interested parties list to receive future noticing. I will note that the interested parties list only includes formal noticing for public hearing (we do not send out formal notification to individuals for all new documents and updates).
b. Interested folks can also check back to the What's Happening in Development Page here. This page is updated more frequently and will be where any resubmittal plans and project updates are posted so this is a great place to stay up to date if you are interested in project updates ahead of the formal notice for public hearing.

Thank you,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Barbara Cohen
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 8:55 AM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]>; Larry Mehl < ; Phee Boon Kang ; bcfh424 >; Davida Rabbino
Subject:

Hi Liz, I hope you had a wonderful holiday weekend. I see that the formal application for 616 S. B St. has been submitted and that the city has apparently begun the process of looking into it. I hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions at this stage:
677 of 786

1. Where can we find and view the details of the now completed and fully fleshed out final Nazareth proposal?

2. Could you very roughly estimate a tentative timeline for:
a. when the city studies will likely be completed?
b. if and when public outreach and neighborhood meetings might be held? c. when final staff reports may be completed and available? d. approximately when the planning commission meeting(s) may be held? e. will the planning commission recommendation or decision be final or would this matter also need to then appear before the city council?

Best regards,
Norman
678 of 786
679 of 786
10 below-market-rate units
Above-ground parking
As residents of downtown San Mateo we are vehemently opposed to and urge you to disapprove Nazaeth's revised plan. We still find the original proposal acceptable.

Respectfully,
Robert and Sharron OPezio
680 of 786
Vista Project Preliminary Proposal Feedback APN: 034-194-030, 034-194-140 Initially, these concerns were put forward as possible talking points. They are what we’ll call “plain vanilla” arguments that the Planning Commission is aware of and most likely will not be received with any sympathy for us.

I have decided to leave these items for others to dwell upon. • Markedly increased traffic and decreased pedestrian safety that affects all of downtown San Mateo, primarily those in our immediate neighborhood.
• Overall increased congestion, noise and pollution plus undue stress on current infrastructure. • Wind tunnel effects between large buildings resulting in strong winds affecting pedestrians, especially on 6th Avenue.
• Decreased neighborhood aesthetics by having a much taller, larger building (eight stories compared to the originally proposed five-story structure). • Unknown environmental effects, including those regarding groundwater. • Severely diminished or totally absent morning sunlight (with an adverse effect on plants and trees, as well as internal lighting, temperature and even mood). • Noise from trash and delivery trucks would be an issue for local residents no matter where it is all relocated, so it is not a good item to pursue.
• Studio apartments (42 were added) vs. property values is not a good argument even though it is valid. The state and the city want residences and studio units serve that end.

I believe the way that has the best chance of forcing changes to this proposal is in pursuing the items below.

Note that the best-case scenario would be the changes below as most change requests are not going to be considered, let alone be acted upon. We must live the “city life” we have chosen and work to minimize the impacts to our property values and life style as we go.
• Misleading and mismarked photos in Preliminary Application Page A0.03 Marked as “View from 6th Avenue looking towards S. B Street but it is actually “View from 7th Avenue looking towards S. B Street.”
Page A0.05 Marked as “View from S. B Street looking towards 7th Avenue but is actually “View from S. B Street looking towards 6
th Avenue” although 7th Avenue is a block away and cannot be seen in the photo.

Page A0.06 Marked as “View from 7th Avenue looking towards S. B Street” but it is actually “View from 6
th Avenue looking toward S. B Street.”
It is almost like the mislabeling of the photographs is an attempt to NOT highlight the 6 th Avenue
version of this project. Why is this concerning? Let’s look at a short list:

1. 6
th Avenue is a narrower street than either 7th Avenue or S. B Street. 681 of 786
682 of 786
The original proposal offered to have building parking open to the public (retail and visitor parking) after business hours. That seems to have been removed from this proposal. That means those 21 spaces will not be available even to residents for extra vehicles.

Since this latest proposal has now packed the building with almost double the apartments as well as downsizing the units considerably, the proposed parking is a serious issue. With 94 apartments, having 96 spaces for residents conservatively means that approximately 34 vehicles will have no place to park. That also means our street parking, currently challenging to say the least, will be further taxed to handle the newly present vehicles. (See the attached sheet on parking formulas used by most planning agencies.) This number of vehicles without parking is based on a very conservative assumption of building occupancy with only 50 units having 2 adults. In reality, the number will probably be quite a bit higher. Also, be aware of the parking situation at the surrounding buildings: The Gramercy on the Park condominium across 6 th
Avenue has 144 living units ranging from 1 to 4 bedrooms and has 245 spaces (195 for residents plus 50 for staff, visitors, and extras for residents). **Similar stats for The Stratford and Stradbally would be helpful here. Even the other Nazareth property at 6th & B would help our cause.**
683 of 786
1 Holeva Finau
From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 4:44 PM
To: Holeva Finau
Cc: Sung H. Kwon; Steve Golden; Joanna Winter; Zachary Dahl Subject: Fw: Public Hearing-Proposed 616 S. B Street-Tuesday, June 9 at 6:00 p.m.

Hi Holeva,
Forwarding over the below public comment for Nazareth Vista. Can you please redact & include this as a post-packet public comment for the June 9th hearing & share with the commissioners? I've responded to the applicant to confirm receipt.

Thank you!
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 4:26 PM
To:

Subject: Re: Public Hearing-Proposed 616 S. B Street-Tuesday, June 9 at 6:00 p.m.

Good afternoon Robert & Sharron,
Thank you for providing your comments. Confirming that this has been received, and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and included as a post-agenda public comment.

Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Bob O'Pezio
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 2:05 PM
684 of 786
2 To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Hearing-Proposed 616 S. B Street-Tuesday, June 9 at 6:00 p.m.

We remain vehemently opposed to size and location of this project as it will overwhelm the infrastructure and traffic patterns of downtown San Mateo while exacerbating the safety issues listed below.

1.The intersection at 5th Ave. and Laurel is a major concern for pedestrian safety and needs to be addressed.

2. Even more so with the intersection of 5th Ave. and Ellsworth, which has woefully inadequate protections for pedestrians.

3. We would like written assurances that tenant moving vans will assess the new building from 7th Avenue (rather than the commercial loading zone on 6th). 6th Ave. already has Recology trucks, large food delivery trucks to The Stratford, many more residents, and is much narrower than 7th Ave. Plus the building elevators are very near 7th Ave.

4. With the increase in cars, pedestrians, and cyclists from the new building (and other planned nearby developments) it is crucial to generally make our neighborhood, and all of downtown, far safer than presently exists for local residents.

We urge you require that these concerns be addressed or to reject the proposal as written.

Robert & Sharron O’Pezio
San Mateo, CA 94401

685 of 786
1 From: Cengiz Boga
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 1:30 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: Nazareth Vista Project

Dear Ms. Gagliardi,
As a local business owner operating across the street from the proposed Nazareth Vista project, I am writing to express my strong support for the development.

San Mateo continues to experience significant commercial and office growth, yet many businesses struggle to attract and retain employees due to the limited housing supply in the area. The addition of 94 residential units in a highly walkable location near transit, shopping, restaurants, and services will benefit both residents and the local economy.

This project is located near Caltrain, Central Park, and downtown amenities, making it an ideal Location for new housing. It will help create a vibrant community where residents can live, work, and shop without relying heavily on automobiles.

I respectfully encourage the Planning Commission to approve this important project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cengiz Boga
Anatolian Market
686 of 786
687 of 786
2 We request written assurances that tenant move in and move out vehicles will access the new building via 7th avenue rather than the commercial loading zone on 6th avenue. Sixth Avenue already accommodates Recology trucks, large food service delivery, while also being considerable narrower than 7th Avenue. In addition, the buildings elevators are located much closer to 7th avenue making it a more appropriate and less disruptive access route.

Given the anticipated increase in vehicle traffic, pedestrian activity, bicycle use associated with this development and other planned protects nearby, it is essential that the City Planning Commission take proactive steps to improve safety throughout the neighborhood and downtown area. Investments in pedestrian, bicycle and traffic- calming infrastructure should be prioritized to ensure that growth does not come at the expense of resident safety and quality of life.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Davida Rabbino

688 of 786
1 Holeva Finau
From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 3:41 PM
To:

Cc: Zachary Dahl; Joanna Winter
Subject: Re: A-2025-039 — Written Public Comment — South Downtown RPPP — Notification Reform
Attachments: 65._Reso_65
_-_Update_Preliminary_Application_Review_and_Design_Review_Requirements_for_New_ Developme (1) 2.pdf
Good afternoon Doug,
Following up to provide answers to your specific questions provided below:

1. Is the Planning Department's Notification System Actually Designed to Notify? a. The Planning Department follows noticing procedures as outlined in the Municipal Code, Section 27.08.050, as adopted by City Council (adopted Noticing Resolution is attached for reference). In this case, mailed notice was sent to owners and tenants (based on the most recent list provided by the County Assessor's Office) within a 1,000 foot radius of the project site. In addition, notice for this item was included in the San Mateo Daily Journal on May 29, 2026 and posted at City facilities.
b. In addition to the above-described required noticing, the City also sends out project notices to subscribers of our eNewsletter. If you would like to sign up to receive these updates, you can subscribe here: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4707/Email-AlertsNews. After entering your contact info, select "Planning Commission Meetings & eNewsletter" to be added to this list, then scroll down to click "Sign up!".

2. If the South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program exists to protect neighborhoods from parking impacts generated by businesses and other traffic generators, why did the City's Traffic Analysis Guidelines not require any evaluation of the South Downtown RPPP as part of this project's traffic review? The transportation study followed the City's Traffic Analysis Guidelines. Was there a project-specific reason the South Downtown RPPP was overlooked? If so, I would appreciate knowing where that decision is documented. a. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for this Project was prepared in accordance with the City's adopted TIA Guidelines. Please note that Transportation Impact Analysis specifically does not evaluate parking.

Thank you,
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
689 of 786
2 650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 9:40 AM
To:

Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Joanna Winter <[email protected]> Subject: Re: A-2025-039 — Written Public Comment — South Downtown RPPP — Notification Reform Good morning Doug,
Thank you for providing these public comments. Confirming that your email has been received and will be added as a post-agenda public comment for the Planning Commission.

Thank you,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:23 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>
Subject: A-2025-039 — Written Public Comment — South Downtown RPPP — Notification Reform

Members of the Planning Commission:

My name is Doug D'Anna. I am a South Downtown Residential Parking Permit holder — the parking district where the proposed 94-unit density bonus project at 616 S. B Street is going to be built.

I did not receive notification of tonight's hearing through the city's process. A friend forwarded it to me on May 29.

My public comment — Is the Planning Department's Notification System Actually Designed to Notify? — documents multiple policy gaps in the city's process.

It does not oppose the project.

The first gap is in notification.
690 of 786
3 The second is in the traffic study commissioned for this project.

The city created the RPPP to protect neighborhoods from the impacts of traffic generators. Yet its notification system is not designed to notify all of the residents those parking districts were created to protect.

What's more, the city's own traffic study did not take the RPPP into consideration.

Two independent city processes. The South Downtown RPPP was not part of either one.

The City of San Mateo defines Parking Impact Generators under the RPPP as: "a school, business, commercial district, or commercial use." This project includes 7,286 square feet of commercial space. By the city's own definition, it qualifies.

The attached document proposes seven specific policy amendments to close these gaps.

I am asking the Planning Commission to direct staff to respond on the record tonight — or in writing within 24 hours — to two questions.

My first question is this:

If the South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program exists to protect neighborhoods from parking impacts generated by businesses and other traffic generators, why did the City's Traffic Analysis Guidelines not require any evaluation of the South Downtown RPPP as part of this project's traffic review? The transportation study followed the City's Traffic Analysis Guidelines. Was there a project-specific reason the South Downtown RPPP was overlooked? If so, I would appreciate knowing where that decision is documented.

My second question is this:

Will this Commission direct staff to evaluate and amend the notification tier table so that residents within an affected RPPP district receive notice before the next density bonus project comes forward?
I am asking this commission to put both gaps on the record tonight so they cannot be overlooked when the next density bonus project comes forward that affects all San Mateo RPPP parking districts.

I am documenting this today so that next time, I receive the notice in the mail — and do not have to depend on a friend forwarding it to me.

Attached: — PA-2025-039 — Written Public Comment — D'Anna 691 of 786
4 Respectfully submitted,
Doug D'Anna South Downtown RPPP Permit Holder
CC: — Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney — Alex Khojikian, City Manager — Zachary Dahl, Director of Community Development — City Clerk

692 of 786

SUBMITTED TO
City of San Mateo Planning Commission
330 West 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403

SUBMITTED BY
Doug D'Anna
RE: PLANNING APPLICATION
PA-2025-039
616 S. B Street, San Mateo, CA 94401

DATE OF SUBMISSION
June 9, 2026
TYPE
Written Public Comment — Submitted pursuant to California Government Code §65804 and City of San Mateo Municipal Code.

P U B L IC C OM M E N T · NOT I F IC AT ION R E F OR M · SA N M AT E O, C A L I F OR N I A · J U N E 9, 2 0 2 6 Is the Planning Department's Notification System
Actually Designed to Notify?
This comment does not oppose the project before you tonight.

The applicant followed every applicable regulation. This public comment addresses the city's current notification system — and how it can be improved. PA-2025-039 is the exhibit. The notification system is the case. The Planning Department follows the code as written. That is precisely the problem.

Members of the Planning Commission:

I am raising two policy gaps in the city's notification system.

The first is in the code.

The second is in how the code fails to account for a program the city itself created. 693 of 786
Both failures are documented. Both have fixes. And I have two questions I am asking the commission to answer on the record tonight.

This argument is NOT directed at this project. It is directed at the system. PA-2025-039 is the exhibit. The next project is the reason.

So Why Am I Bringing This Up Now?
Three reasons.

1. The hearing notice was forwarded to me by a third party on May 29, 2026. It was not delivered to .

2. Upon checking, I found out why. My home falls outside the notification radius for Tier III and Tier IV projects. But inside the South Downtown RPPP boundary.

3. I spent the eleven days between May 29 and tonight reviewing every publicly available document relevant to this project:

San Mateo Municipal Code §27.08.050 — Notice of Application City of San Mateo Planning Application Guide (April 3, 2026) South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program documents 616 South B Street Local Transportation Analysis — Hexagon Transportation Consultants (April 23, 2026) City of San Mateo 2023–2031 Housing Element Amendments — Planning Commission Clean Version (January 2026)
City of San Mateo 2023–2031 Housing Element Amended — All Markup PA-2025-039 Third Resubmittal Project Plans — Arc Tec Inc. for Nazareth Vista LLC (December 2025, revised March 2026)
The Housing Element documents were reviewed to understand the state density bonus law framework within which this project was approved.

By the time I understood why I wouldn't have received a preliminary notice, the comment period had closed. 694 of 786
The gaps in the process lie at the feet of the system — not the applicant.

Here's where I started.

I read the Municipal Code. NOTICE OF APPLICATION. §27.08.050 — the city's notification ordinance. Every project. Every notice. Especially this part:
"Defects in such information, or the failure to give notice as fully as described, or the failure of any or all of the addressees to receive the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided that the noticing has occurred in good faith."
— SAN MATEO MUNICIPAL CODE §27.08.050 (NOTICE OF APPLICATION)1 As I read it:

1. The city can send a defective notice that nobody receives — and the hearing still stands.

2. Even if the information is wrong, the fact that we sent it is good faith.

3. Even if the recipient can't read English — the fact that we sent it is good faith.

The city doesn't know what language your neighbor reads. It doesn't have to. It just has to send the postcard.

One notice. A postcard. No return receipt. No confirmation of delivery. No follow-up. The city acknowledges it may send out information that is factually incorrect — and the hearing still stands. That is the notification system.

The city sends one postcard. In one language. No liability. That is good faith under §27.08.050.

When the postcard arrives with the grocery circular, residents may not recognize it as official government notice. It gets recycled before the hearing date is read.

Then construction begins. The neighbors are upset. The city says it sent notice. Both are right. That is a policy gap.

Then I turned my attention to my parking district.
695 of 786
The Notification System Did Not Account for the South Downtown RPPP.

PA- 2 0 2 5 - 0 3 9 — G A P 1 : T H E R P P P B O U N DA RY I S N O T C O N N E C T E D T O T H E N O T I F I C AT I O N T I E R

TA B L E
The city created the Residential Parking Permit Program for one reason. Overflow parking. Businesses that bring customers, deliveries, and employees onto residential streets. Traffic generators. "Residential parking permits are issued for residents of neighborhoods whose parking is impacted by local traffic generators such as hospitals, businesses, and schools. The program aims at discouraging overflow parking on to residential streets."3
The City of San Mateo defines Parking Impact Generators under the RPPP as: "a school, business, commercial district, or commercial use."6 This project includes 7,286 square feet of commercial space. By the city's own definition, it qualifies.

If the South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program exists to protect neighborhoods from parking impacts generated by businesses and other traffic generators, why did the City's Traffic Analysis Guidelines not require any evaluation of the South Downtown RPPP as part of this project's traffic review?
PA- 2 0 2 5 - 0 3 9 — G A P 2 : T H E G O O D FA I T H S TA N DA R D P RO T E C T S T H E P RO C E S S , N O T T H E

R E S I D E N T
The city created the RPPP to protect neighborhoods from the impacts of traffic generators. Yet its notification system is not designed to notify all of the residents those districts were created to protect.
696 of 786
697 of 786
This is why the notification system was blind to the South Downtown Parking District. It draws a fixed geometric radius around the project site — including 616 S. B Street and my home at — instead of recognizing the neighborhood boundary the city itself already defined through the RPPP.

The city may argue it has no obligation to notify every RPPP permit holder beyond the required radius. But shouldn't the City's guidelines require study of how a traffic generator affects the parking district the city created specifically to manage that traffic? The city built the notification system. The city built the RPPP. The two programs were never connected. The Planning Application Guide was revised April 3, 2026 — sixty-seven days ago. This Commission can make that connection now.2
Here is what both gaps have in common.

Here is what those two gaps have in common — laid out simply:

1. The notification radius did not reach all of the permit holders of the South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program. These homes fall outside the Tier III and Tier IV notification radius. But they sit on the streets the RPPP was created to protect.

2. Under city requirements, one postcard is mailed. One language. No return receipt. No confirmation of delivery. If it gets recycled before the hearing date is read — or if the recipient can't read English — the hearing still stands.

3. The RPPP exists to mitigate overflow traffic from generators like this project — including, by the RPPP's own definition, this project. If the South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program exists to protect neighborhoods from parking impacts generated by businesses and other traffic generators, why did the City's Traffic Analysis Guidelines not require any evaluation of the South Downtown RPPP as part of this project's traffic review?
Two independent city processes — notification and traffic analysis. The South Downtown RPPP was not part of either one. Both gaps are fixable.
698 of 786
699 of 786
700 of 786
Before this item is concluded I respectfully ask the Planning Commission to respond to the following on the record tonight:

Question 1: Will the Planning Commission direct staff to amend the Planning Application Guide tier table to require notification of all RPPP permit holders when a density bonus project falls within any RPPP boundary in the City of San Mateo — before the next such application is accepted for review? Logging the gap is not enough. This commission has the authority to close it — and I am asking it to do so. The city already has every address in every RPPP district. The Planning Application Guide was revised 67 days ago. The only thing missing is the directive.

Question 2: Was there a project-specific reason the South Downtown RPPP was overlooked as part of this project's traffic study?
If so, I would appreciate knowing where that decision is documented.

I have submitted this argument in writing. It has been provided to the City Attorney, City Manager, and Planning Commission as part of the public record for PA-2025-039.

The city's notification system has a structural blind spot — it draws a geometric circle around the project and ignores the neighborhood boundary the city itself created.

When the city takes the extra step to reach the community — all affected parties — fewer people can say they didn't know. That is good for the city. Fair to the neighbors. And fair to the developer.

I am documenting this today so that next time, I receive the notice in the mail — and do not have to depend on a friend forwarding it to me.

Respectfully submitted,
Doug D'Anna
701 of 786
1 San Mateo Municipal Code §27.08.050 (Notice of Application). Available at: law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code/27.08.050 2 City of San Mateo Planning Application Guide, Page 1 (April 3, 2026): PA-2025-039 — at 94 residential units with ground-floor commercial space — falls under Tier III or Tier IV depending on whether the project meets objective design standards. Tier III covers up to 99 units meeting objective design standards (500-foot radius); Tier IV covers 6 or more units not meeting objective design standards (1,000-foot radius). Either way, the notification radius excluded South Downtown RPPP permit holders who live beyond it. The applicant is required to purchase the mailing list from the city and mail approved notices to all addresses within that radius. cityofsanmateo.org 3 City of San Mateo Public Works Department, Residential Parking Permit Program (adopted September 16, 2019). Available at:
cityofsanmateo.org/2105
4 City of San Mateo Public Works Department, Residential Parking Permit Program. Permit renewal notices are issued to program participants on a recurring basis. Available at: cityofsanmateo.org/2105
5 Hayward Park is a recognized neighborhood in the City of San Mateo. B Street between 9th and 10th Avenue falls within the Hayward Park neighborhood as generally recognized by the City of San Mateo. See: cityofsanmateo.org/neighborhoods 6 City of San Mateo Administrative Report, File ID: 2018-282, Public Works Commission, April 11, 2018. Prepared by Sue-Ellen Atkinson, Parking Manager. "Parking Impact Generator (PIG) Determination — Current accepted Parking Impact Generators under the RPPP program include a school, business, commercial district, or commercial use."
All additional sources cited in this document are fully documented in the accompanying Addendum Source References.

Submitted as Public Comment to the San Mateo Planning Commission, PA-2025-039 · [email protected] 702 of 786

SUBMITTED TO
City of San Mateo Planning Commission
330 West 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403

SUBMITTED BY
RE: PLANNING APPLICATION
PA-2025-039
616 S. B Street, San Mateo, CA 94401

DATE OF SUBMISSION
June 9, 2026
TYPE
Addendum — Source References · Submitted with Written Public Comment pursuant to California Government Code §65804.

P U B L IC C OM M E N T · NOT I F IC AT ION R E F OR M · SA N M AT E O, C A L I F OR N I A · J U N E 9, 2 0 2 6 Addendum — Source References
Sources cited in the accompanying written public comment for PA-2025-039. Sources below correspond to footnotes 1 9 in the accompanying written comment. The translations of §27.08.050 have been removed from the final submission; the Municipal Code citation remains in footnote 3.

City of San Mateo Municipal Code
§27.08.050 — Notice of Application
The notification ordinance governing all planning applications. Cited for the "good faith" clause that immunizes defective notice from invalidating proceedings.

Available at: law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code/27.08.050 "Defects in such information, or the failure to give notice as fully as described, or the failure of any or all of the addressees to receive the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided that the noticing has occurred in good faith." 703 of 786
— San Mateo Municipal Code §27.08.050 (Notice of Application)3 City of San Mateo Planning Division
Planning Application Guide (Publication Date: April 3, 2026) The city's official guide governing notification tiers, neighborhood meeting requirements, and application procedures. Cited for the four-tier notification system: Tier III (500-foot radius, up to 99 units meeting objective design standards); Tier IV (1,000-foot radius, 6 or more units not meeting objective design standards, or 100 or more units meeting objective design standards). PA-2025-039 at 94 units falls under Tier III or Tier IV depending on objective design standards determination. Either way, the notification radius excluded South Downtown RPPP permit holders. Cited for the applicant's obligation to purchase the mailing list from the city and mail approved notices.

Available at: cityofsanmateo.org
Tier III: Notice Radius — 500 feet. Approval Body: Zoning Administrator. Applicants send out notice and hold neighborhood meeting prior to formal planning application submittal. Project type includes: Up to ninety-nine (99) dwelling units that meet objective design standards.

Tier IV: Notice Radius — 1,000 feet. Approval Bodies: Planning Commission and/or City Council. Applicants send out neighborhood notice and hold neighborhood meeting prior to formal planning application submittal. Project type includes: One hundred (100) or more dwelling units that meet objective design standards; six (6) or more units that do not meet objective design standards. — City of San Mateo Planning Application Guide, April 3, 2026, Page 1 City of San Mateo Public Works Department
Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP)
Adopted by City Council, September 16, 2019. Cited for the program's stated purpose: "Residential parking permits are issued for residents of neighborhoods whose parking is impacted by local traffic generators such as hospitals, 704 of 786
businesses, and schools. The program aims at discouraging overflow parking on to residential streets." The South Downtown RPPP boundary encompasses the project site at 616 S. B Street.

Available at: cityofsanmateo.org/2105
"Residential parking permits are issued for residents of neighborhoods whose parking is impacted by local traffic generators such as hospitals, businesses, and schools. The program aims at discouraging overflow parking on to residential streets."4 — City of San Mateo Public Works Department, Residential Parking Permit Program (adopted September 16, 2019) South Downtown RPPP Boundary Map
City of San Mateo official map showing the South Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program boundary.

Reproduced in the accompanying public comment. Confirms that the project site at 616 S. B Street is located within the South Downtown RPPP boundary.

Available at: cityofsanmateo.org/4751/RPPP-Map
PA-2025-039 Project Documents
Third Resubmittal Project Plans
Prepared by Arc Tec Inc. for Nazareth Vista LLC. Created December 22, 2025; revised March 26, 2026. 84-page architectural and engineering submission. Cited for: 94 residential units; 7,286 square feet of ground-floor commercial space (Level 1); 114 total parking spaces (93 residential, 21 retail/visitor); citation of California Assembly Bill AB 2097 to reduce minimum parking requirements; project description referencing "activation of commercial tenants."
616 South B Street — Local Transportation Analysis (Final) Prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Job No. 25OZ11), San Jose, CA. Dated April 23, 2026. 155-page transportation impact analysis prepared for Nazareth Vista LLC. Cited for: six study intersections (6th Avenue & B Street; 6th Avenue & Laurel Avenue; 7th Avenue & B Street; 5th Avenue & B Street; Project Driveway at 6th Avenue; Project Driveway at 7th Avenue) — all within one block of the project site. No study intersections on interior residential streets of the South Downtown RPPP district (Palm Avenue, Rosewood Drive, 9th Avenue, 10th Avenue, Hayward Avenue). Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis conducted per City of San Mateo adopted 705 of 786
VMT guidelines and CEQA requirements. The study states on page 3: "The VMT for the project is analyzed according to the City of San Mateo adopted VMT guidelines." "This study includes an analysis of the weekday peak-hour traffic conditions of six intersections, as listed below, in accordance with the City's TA guidelines."
Study Intersections:

1. 6th Avenue & B Street (unsignalized)

2. 6th Avenue & Laurel Avenue (unsignalized)

3. th Avenue & B Street (unsignalized)

4. 5th Avenue & B Street (signalized)

5. Project Driveway at 6th Avenue (unsignalized)

6. Project Driveway at 7th Avenue (unsignalized)
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 616 South B Street Local Transportation Analysis (Final), April 23, 2026, Page 4 Exhibit A — PA-2025-039 Hearing Notice
This notice was not received at , San Mateo, CA 94401 — a property located within the South Downtown RPPP boundary but outside the Tier III and Tier IV notification radius. A copy was forwarded to the author by a third party.

The reverse side of this notice contains no hearing date, no project name, and no project description. It reads only:
"There's a project proposed in your neighborhood at this location." Front (Notice of Public Hearing):
706 of 786
707 of 786
708 of 786
709 of 786
710 of 786
711 of 786
712 of 786
713 of 786

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. 65 (2024)
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 69 (2020) AND ADOPTING AN EARLY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo considers community engagement an important component of the development review process and seeks to balance the benefits of early community outreach and engagement without imposing unnecessary cost and time burdens on an applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 69 (2020) regarding the pre-application process for new development; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2024, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City Council adopted the Sixth Cycle Housing Element, which includes Policy H 1.6 (Streamline Housing Application Review), an implementation action to “Update the City Council resolutions that establish the pre-application and development review processes to eliminate the pre-application requirement for housing projects and eliminate the third-party design review requirement for housing projects that meet objective standards;” and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City of San Mateo Planning Commission received and considered written and oral public comments, and unanimously recommended that the City Council repeal Resolution No. 69 (2020) and adopt the proposed Early Community Engagement Process, with a change to the noticing for homeowner associations, with the recommendation incorporated into Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2024, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City Council considered the proposed modifications to the pre-application process for planning applications as recommended by the Planning Commission, at which time all interested parties were provided opportunities to provide input; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed updates to the City’s development review process and associated community engagement are consistent with the San Mateo General Plan by implementing housing goals, programs, and strategies in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

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

1. Amending the City’s pre-application process is an administrative activity and not a project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2).

2. Resolution No. 69 (2020) is hereby repealed.

3. The Revised Early Community Engagement Process, attached in Exhibit A to this resolution, is adopted.

4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

Docusign Envelope ID: 4CB82E73-5473-4688-AB32-80228F4FBA0B 714 of 786
Resolution No. 65 (2024) Page 2 of 4
Update Preliminary Application Review and Design Review Requirements for New Development Projects - Repeal Resolution No. 69 (2020) and adopt an Early Community Engagement Process for Development Projects RESOLUTION NO. 65 (2024) adopted by the City Council of the City of San Mateo, California, at a regular meeting held on July 15, 2024, by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES: Council Members Diaz Nash, Newsom, Loraine, Hedges and Lee NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:

Martin McTaggart, City Clerk Lisa Diaz Nash, Mayor
Docusign Envelope ID: 4CB82E73-5473-4688-AB32-80228F4FBA0B 715 of 786
Resolution No. 65 (2024) Page 3 of 4
Update Preliminary Application Review and Design Review Requirements for New Development Projects - Repeal Resolution No. 69 (2020) and adopt an Early Community Engagement Process for Development Projects

EXHIBIT A

EARLY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
The purpose of the Early Community Engagement Process is to provide opportunities for early public outreach and engagement on planning applications by an applicant to foster early community awareness, share project details and receive public input while facilitating a standardized and streamlined process. The Early Community Engagement Process may require noticing, an applicant-run neighborhood meeting, and an optional Planning Commission study session, depending on the type of project.

1. Noticing: The following notices shall be provided based on the type of project. Noticing for projects not defined below shall be subject to Zoning Administrator interpretation, based on community interest, project impacts, and similarities with other listed projects:
a. Adjacent Properties: Notice of project submission shall be provided to all owners and tenants of adjacent properties for the following projects:
i. New one-story single-family residence;
ii. Second story addition of 200 square feet of floor area or greater to a single-family residence; iii. Fence exception and fences over seven (7) feet in height; and iv. Minor projects as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

Adjacent property means any property that adjoins the subject property through a shared property line or corner; or is separated from the subject property at any point only by a public right-of-way, ingress-egress easement, or public or private easement. b. Radius of 500 feet: For planning applications not included in Section 1 (a) and (c), including modifications to previously approved projects, the following noticing procedures for the neighborhood meetings and the optional Planning Commission Study Sessions shall be completed a minimum of ten calendar days prior to the meetings:
i. Mailing notice shall be provided to all owners and tenants of property within 500 feet of the subject property; and
ii. Email notice shall be provided to the City maintained interested party email list. c. Radius of 1,000 feet: For the projects identified in this subsection, including modifications to previously approved projects, the following noticing procedures for the neighborhood meetings and the optional Planning Commission Study Sessions shall be completed a minimum of ten calendar days prior to the meetings:
i. Mailing notice shall be provided to all owners and tenants of property within 1,000 feet of the subject property; and
ii. Email notice shall be provided to the City maintained interested party email list.

The projects requiring above noticing include:
i. New residential projects that require Planning Commission or City Council discretionary review and approval; and
ii. New nonresidential projects or additions over 10,000 sq. ft. or subject to a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report; and
iii. Projects involving zoning reclassification, planned development, or general plan amendments.

Docusign Envelope ID: 4CB82E73-5473-4688-AB32-80228F4FBA0B 716 of 786
Resolution No. 65 (2024) Page 4 of 4
Update Preliminary Application Review and Design Review Requirements for New Development Projects - Repeal Resolution No. 69 (2020) and adopt an Early Community Engagement Process for Development Projects

2. Neighborhood Meetings
a. Applicability. The neighborhood meeting process shall apply to planning applications identified in Sections 1(b) and (c). Minor modifications to previously approved projects and Cellular Telephone Antennae and Public Convenience and Necessity planning applications, including small cell applications, shall be exempt from the neighborhood meeting process but must adhere to the 500- foot noticing radius for application submission notice. b. Timing. Neighborhood meetings shall occur prior to the submittal of a planning application.

3. Planning Commission Study Session
a. Applicability. An applicant may request a Planning Commission Study Session for projects outlined in Section 1(c). However, should the applicant choose not to schedule the meeting, the Zoning Administrator retains the authority to determine if the project necessitates a Planning Commission Study Session based on the proposed development. Housing projects, as defined by the California Housing Accountability Act, and projects that do not require a public hearing are exempt from a Planning Commission Study Session at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator. b. Additional Noticing Requirements: The applicant must post placards on the project site at least ten (10) calendar days before the meeting.
c. Timing. The applicant may request the Planning Commission Study Session before or after the formal planning application submission. Conceptual-level plans are acceptable if the meeting is requested before the formal planning application submission as part of the noticing and neighborhood meeting process. Staff will target scheduling the Planning Commission study session within 90 days upon the applicant’s request or the Zoning Administrator’s determination for said meeting.
d. Format. Meetings shall comply with the applicable City of San Mateo Municipal Code and Planning Commission adopted by-laws and procedures. No motion shall be made at the conclusion of the discussion on the subject planning application.

Docusign Envelope ID: 4CB82E73-5473-4688-AB32-80228F4FBA0B 717 of 786
1 org>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:47 PM

From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:48 PM
To: Doug D'Anna
Cc: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Recorded Affordability Instrument — One more Question Before tomorrow's hearing

Hi Doug,
718 of 786
2 A project entitlement and its associated conditions of approval (COA), run with the land, not the owner, so whoever ultimately builds the project, they are subject to the same requirements. It is not uncommon for one entity to get a project entitled and then sell to a new owner/developer to actually build the project. Just because you have a new owner doesn't mean you can be selective with what aspects of a project entitlement you do or do not comply with. COA #1 also supports this.

Thanks.

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development

From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 2:50 PM
To: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Cc: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Recorded Affordability Instrument — One more Question Before tomorrow's hearing

Thank you, Zach, for getting back to me so quickly.

Now that I have read Condition #2, I can see that San Mateo does require the BMR Agreement to be recorded. Which is why I didn't see it in the Housing Element.

This led me to another question.

While the BMR is recorded when the building permits are pulled, what happens in the meantime?
It could be years before construction starts. Entitlements in California can sit for years before permits are pulled.

Condition #2 does not address what happens if this property is sold after approval tonight but before permits are pulled.

I'm not against the project.

The density bonus is very generous, and I want to make sure that the promises are kept if this project is sold before the permits are taken out. I'm not saying it will be. But there is always a possibility. To me, it makes sense to close the potential gap.

So my question for the record is simply this: is the new owner legally bound by the affordability requirement — and if so, where is that documented? If the new owner is not legally required to honor the agreement, it makes sense for San Mateo — and for affordable housing — to close the potential gap.

Respectfully,
Doug D'Anna

On Jun 8, 2026, at 12:19 PM, Zachary Dahl <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Doug,
Yes, the City absolutely has the appropriate conditions of approval to ensure compliance with the City's affordable housing (below market rate or BMR) and density bonus requirements, including 719 of 786
3 the execution of an BMR Agreement before issuance of a building permit. For the project going to Planning Commission tomorrow evening (616 S. B St), you can find this information discussed in the agenda report (pgs 4-5) and then supported by applicable conditions of approval (Att 1 Exhibit B), most notably Condition #2 (Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement).

Moving all those included in CC to BCC.

Thank you.

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development

From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 10:59 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Recorded Affordability Instrument — One Question Before tomorrow's hearing Members of the Planning Commission,
I have one additional question before tomorrow night's hearing.

Does San Mateo require a recorded affordability instrument as a condition of approval for density bonus projects?
I could not find that requirement in the Housing Element.

But I did find that Redwood City, Fremont, San Francisco, and Beverly Hills do.

If it exists, I'd like to know where to find it.”
Respectfully,
Doug D'Anna
CC: — Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney — Alex Khojikian, City Manager — Zachary Dahl, Director of Community Development — City Clerk * PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.
720 of 786
1 Holeva Finau
From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:29 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Zachary Dahl; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Joanna Winter; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi Subject: Additional Public Question — PA-2025-039
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Members of the Planning Commission:

One more thing.

As you know from my earlier public comment, I spent the last eleven days trying to understand why my home was not included in the notification for this hearing. As I worked through the documents trying to answer that question, one other thing jumped out at me.

My street was actually mentioned in the Transportation Impact Analysis as Study Intersection Number 2. So I kept reading.

Then I compared it to the City's own Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. (Yes, I read those too. As you can read from my earlier public comment, I have a passion for research.)
They require an estimate for each neighborhood street segment that carries project trips when a project has direct access to a neighborhood street.

I would love to read it.

We get a lot of traffic on Laurel. But I could not find it anywhere in the report.

The guidelines call it a Neighborhood Traffic Assessment. I searched the report for those words. I checked the table of contents. I checked the section headings. Nothing. I did find project trip count charts — but nothing specific to Laurel Avenue.

Could someone point me to it? I'm curious where in the study that assessment appears — if, by chance, I missed it.

If it is not there — I would appreciate knowing that too.

Again, I am not opposed to the project.
721 of 786
2 I just want to see the big picture as it applies to the South Downtown RPPP and Laurel Avenue.

Respectfully submitted,
Doug D'Anna
722 of 786
1 From: Lior Tamir
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:40 AM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: Strong Support for Nazareth Vista Mixed-Use Development at 616 B Street

Dear Ms. Gagliardi,
I am the owner of Bloom Dental Group, located at in San Mateo. My office is approximately one block from the proposed Nazareth Vista development. I have operated my practice in this area for over 17 years and have been a tenant of Nazareth Enterprises for over a decade.

I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Nazareth Vista project. Throughout our tenancy, Nazareth Enterprises has consistently demonstrated exceptional property management, maintenance and long term stewardship of its properties. Their buildings are well-maintained, professionally managed and contribute positively to the neighborhood.

The proposed development is ideally located within walking distance of downtown San Mateo, Caltrain, Central Park, restaurants, retail and employment centers. Adding new housing in this location is exactly the type of smart growth our community needs.

I believe Nazareth Vista will enhance the neighborhood, support local businesses and provide much needed housing while complementing the surrounding area.

Please include this letter in the public record and accept my full support for the project, 723 of 786
2 Sincerely,
--
Dr. Lior Tamir, DDS
724 of 786
1 Holeva Finau
From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 6:07 PM
To: mshami gmsicc.com
Cc: Holeva Finau
Subject: Re: 616 S. B Street Mix Use development
Good afternoon Mike,
Confirming receipt of your comments - this will be shared with the Planning Commission as a postpacket public comment.

Thank you,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From:

Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:31 AM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: 616 S. B Street Mix Use development

Good morning Ms. Gagliardi
My name is Maher (Mike) Shami and I am an owner of the mixed-use property located at in downtown San Mateo.

I am writing to you and the planning commission and staff to express my strong support for the proposed mixeduse development project at 616 S. B Street in downtown San Mateo.

As an owner, I believe this project represents a positive investment in the future of our city. This development will contribute to the continued revitalization of the downtown by creating an environment that combines retail commercial and residential usage as this is needed desperately for the growing office community in the downtown.

Mixed-use development helps support local businesses by increasing food traffic and providing new customers for downtown merchants. More importantly, the inclusion of new residential housing will allow downtown employees the ability to walk to work rather than traveling long distances.

In conclusion, this proposed project aligns with smart-growth principles by promoting efficient land use, reducing reliance of automobiles, and enhancing the vitality of our downtown core community. Thus, I respectfully 725 of 786
2 encourage the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve this project and support its timely development.

Thank you for your consideration and for your continued efforts to enhance the quality of life in our city.

Sincerely,
Mike J. Shami
Managing Member
Shami Investments, LLC
This message from Shami Investments, LLC. (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

726 of 786
1 Holeva Finau
From: norman cohen
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 10:39 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi; Planning Commission; Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission; Ryan Brunmeier; Matt Fabry
Subject: 616 S. B Street project
Hello, I am a resident of the Gramercy at . and represent one of the over 200 signatures on the petition sent to the City last summer by fellow residents of my building and The Stratford. Though we all have some misgivings about the significant increase in size of this project (especially, in my view, the very unfortunate loss of sunlight for many residents), we completely understand the need for more downtown housing . We also recognize the fact that new state regulations very much constrain the city's options regarding approvals.

Consequently, we are focused on what most of us feel is the most worrisome aspect of this development---pedestrian and bicyclist safety in our immediate neighborhood. We already have a disproportionate number of car-pedestrian accidents in the city. The last statistic I saw( 2023) showed 44 in one year. Frankly, I am surprised it is not even more frequent than these numbers reveal, as I myself have almost been run over on five separate occasions in the downtown area the past two years. Heavy traffic causing driver impatience appeared to be the cause of most of these incidents, which involved one right turn and four left turns. During the latter instances I was caught unprotected in the middle of the intersection and had to literally run to avoid collision. Fortunately, though a senior, I am able bodied.

Unfortunately, not everyone is. Of course besides these episodes, I have witnessed other near misses (including one with a baby carriage) and know people with similar experiences. I, and many others, feel present conditions, despite the best of intentions, are nowhere near as safe as they should be.

The problem here is that conditions will soon certainly get worse and make pedestrian safety even more precarious. With the expansion and construction of this project (as well as near future ones in the immediate area), there will be more people, bikes, cars, and other vehicles. If more of the foregoing is added, it is our firm view that the city MUST do more to further enhance safety.

Clearly, general safety enhancements should be made in the immediate vicinity of the new development(s), some of which were listed in our prior petition amendment. More police presence for enforcement would also help. If we just look at some especially troublesome spots, I would specifically mention:

1. The dangerous T intersection at 5th Ave. and Laurel. There is a flashing light for pedestrians crossing 5th Ave. (not for crossing Laurel), but cars intermittently ignore this. Ideally, stop lights should be there, but that is probably impractical due to proximity to San Mateo Ave. Stop signs, in my opinion, should also be there, or at the very least, a stop sign for west bound traffic at Laurel because of the often blinding sun during afternoons and the fact that it is much further from the light at B Street. Added to this mess is the fact that there are frustrated and impatient drivers trying to turn left from Laurel onto 5th Ave. while watching for moving traffic from both directions along with pedestrians crossing 5th Ave. Additionally, those crossing Laurel there are also at risk of impatient, speeding, or distracted drivers turning Left or right from 5th Ave. I would think flashing pedestrian lights there would also be indicated. 727 of 786
2 2. The crossing at Delaware and 5th Ave. It has a small mid street sign that is often ignored by drivers and is, in my opinion, also a potential tragedy waiting to happen. There should be stop signs there, but at the very minimum flashing lights. Pedestrians are woefully unprotected there.

I should also add that 6th Ave. is a very important conduit for many young families walking to the park, and many seniors also regularly cross either 6th Ave. or Laurel there. 6th Ave. already has much more traffic than desired, and much of this is from Recology trucks, moving trucks (for both Stratford and Gramercy) and very large food delivery trucks (Sysco and others), all of which sometimes partially block the street. With this new building, commercial garage entrance and commercial deliveries (plus Recology) will also use 6th Ave. for access. We would, at least, like to ensure that tenant vans for moving in and out take place via the much wider and less populated 7th Ave. Indeed, we would ask that all tenant agreements require all tenants/residents to move in and move out on 7th Ave. (not 6th). We sincerely request that this requirement be added to conditions of approval for the project.

Let me also reiterate that virtually everyone I know appreciates the dedicated public service you provide to our city and do not, in any way, mean to criticize city officials. It's just that we really want to emphasize the importance of enhancing our neighborhood safety, and we hope that you will do all that you can to accomplish this. I apologize for the length of this correspondence and expect to deliver a much abbreviated summary in person at the 6/9 public hearing. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Yours truly,
Norman E. Cohen
728 of 786
1 Holeva Finau
From: norman cohen
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2026 9:50 AM
To: Planning Commission; Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi; Ryan Brunmeier; Matt Fabry
Subject: correction
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hello, In my recent email to you regarding the 616 S. B St. project I specifically mentioned two especially problematic locations. One was 5th Ave. and Laurel. The second was 5th Ave. and 'Delaware'. However, the latter was an inexplicable mistake on my part. Instead of Delaware, that dangerous T intersection is really 5th Ave. and 'Ellsworth'. I apologize for any confusion that I caused. Thank you.

Yours truly,
Norman Cohen
729 of 786
1 Holeva Finau
From: Clerk
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 3:13 PM
To: Holeva Finau
Cc: Joanna Winter; Zachary Dahl; Sung H. Kwon
Subject: FW: Email to the planning commission
Hi Holeva,
Kindly see the below public comment, if this hasn’t already been distributed to commissioners, kindly coordinate forwarding and including this as public comment if there is an agenda item related to this topic.

Best wishes,
Martin
From: Penny Nixon
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 3:10 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Marlyn Bussey
Subject: Email to the planning commission
Dear planning commissioners,
We are writing to respectfully request your approval of the proposal coming before you that would waive impact fees for deeply affordable housing. This would make a huge difference in our the St James CDC housing project as well as the affordable housing projects that follow.

While the commission may be familiar with this project, we thought a brief reminder of what we are doing would be helpful.

Our organization is developing a five-unit residential project in North Central dedicated to providing safe, stable housing for young adults aged 18-24 who are transitioning out of foster care, homelessness, or other vulnerable situations. This modest project will provide critical housing security and supportive services to help these young people achieve self-suŬciency and become contributing members of our community. Transitional Age Youth represent one of the most vulnerable populations in San Mateo County, facing disproportionately high rates of homelessness and housing instability, and currently, 60% of youth move out of the county due to high housing costs, which is particularly traumatic for these young people who have never really known real belonging in their lives. This project directly addresses the city's affordable housing goals and serves a population with urgent, unmet needs.

Impact fees, while serving important municipal purposes, represent a significant financial burden for small-scale affordable housing projects like ours. These fees can comprise a 730 of 786
2 substantial portion of our development budget—resources that could otherwise be directed toward:
 Enhanced supportive services for residents
 Property improvements and maintenance reserves
 Extended affordability covenants
 Even deeper affordability levels
We know that a couple of jurisdictions in the Bay Area, like the city of Santa Rosa, have voted to suspend impact fees for very low and extremely low affordable housing. You may know of other cities doing this as well. In a recent paper on building “cottage communities/residential villages” on faith land, impact fees were mentioned a number of times as an additional hurdle to financing a project. It was strongly suggested that cities “ensure development impact fees levied on cottage communities are proportional to their small footprint, following State ADU law as an example. When projects are 100% affordable housing, jurisdictions should consider additional fee relief to achieve housing goals, implement programs in their Housing Elements, and gain points in Pro-housing Designation applications.” In that spirit many California jurisdictions have established policies to reduce or waive impact fees for affordable housing projects, recognizing that:

1. Affordable housing projects generate proportionally lower impacts on infrastructure and services

2. Fee reductions directly support jurisdictions' housing element goals

3. Such projects provide essential community benefits that justify public investment

4. Small projects serving vulnerable populations require creative financing solutions A fee reduction or waiver would align with San Mateo's commitment to addressing the housing crisis and supporting our most vulnerable community members.

Thank you for your service to our community, and for your consideration of the proposal this evening. We truly are counting on you to support it.

With gratitude,
Rev. Penny Nixon, Project Manager
Rev. Marlyn Bussey, SJCDC Executive Director
Rev. Dr. G. Penny Nixon
Faith Communities Housing Liaison
731 of 786
732 of 786
1 Holeva Finau
From: James Lloyd
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 3:35 PM
To: Planning Commission; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Cc: City Attorney's Office; Clerk; Community Development Distribution; City Mgr Subject: public comment re item 1 for tonight's Planning Commission meeting Attachments: San Mateo - 616 S. B St - HAA.pdf
Dear San Mateo Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits the attached public comment letter regarding item 1 for tonight's Planning Commission meeting, the proposed 94-unit housing development project at 616 S. B Street, which includes 10 very low-income units.

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

733 of 786
Jun 9, 2026
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 616 S. B Street To: [email protected], [email protected]; Cc: [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 94-unit housing development project at 616 S. B Street, which includes 10 very low-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines.

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 render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)) or reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j)) 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).)
734 of 786
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 building height, setback requirements, loading zone, architectural features, shadows, vertical wall breaks, and architectural style. 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 exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is also eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66.)
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 2 of 3
735 of 786
736 of 786
1 Holeva Finau
From: David Messerschmitt
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 4:00 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Davida Rabbino; Adrian Bellamy
Subject: Comments for meeting tonight 616 S. B St
Planning Commission:

I am an 81-year-old resident of , a senior living community behind the proposed building. I am generally concerned about pedestrian safety in the region of our building, which includes numerous other senior residents of mine and nearby buildings as well as families with children heading to Central Park. This proposed building and future developments in the area will increase the number of pedestrians, not to mention cars, magnifying the safety issues. I have specific suggestions on how safety can be substantially improved.

A. Sixth Ave pedestrian crossing Laurel Ave into Central Park.  Problem: Autos frequently fail to stop or merely slow down in spite of a stop sign. Stop signs are off to the side and not very visible.
 Action: Place a “stop” sign in the center of the street (ground level or overhead) in both directions.

Add a flashing light triggered by pedestrians.

B. Intersection of Laurel Avenue and Fifth Ave.
 Problem: Although there is a flashing light, pedestrians have to contend with cars turning left off of Laurel Ave who cannot see the flashing light, in addition to lot of traffic in both directions. This is scary for the elderly. A left turn from Laurel Ave. is also challenging for elderly drivers because of the heavy traffic on Fifth Ave.
 Action: Add a traffic signal synchronized with the signal at N San Mateo Drive. Make sure it allocates time for pedestrians exclusively, without having to contend with traffic from any direction. Include two crosswalks, one on each side of Laurel Ave, in anticipation of C.

C. Crosswalk from N. Ellsworth Ave terminus across Fifth Ave.  Problem: A “yield to pedestrians” only; no stop sign. Auto compliance is poor and this is a scary crossing for elderly persons.
 Action: Coupled with B., this crossing is unnecessary. Eliminate it. Pedestrians wishing to go up N. Elllsworth would have the option to cross at Laurel Ave or B street intersections, which they would pass anyway.

Thank you so much.
737 of 786
2 David Messerschmitt
738 of 786
739 of 786

2. The scoping document showing when and why 6th Avenue, 7th Avenue, and Laurel Avenue were excluded from the neighborhood traffic assessment. The TIA Guidelines say this kind of discretion is exercised at application time, so I'd expect a record of it.

These two items trace directly back to my original June 11 letter. The parking and fair share items were resolved by Liz's citations — these are the ones that remain open.

If either doesn't exist, that's a fine answer too — I'd just like to know, and understand how a determination gets made, or discretion gets exercised, without anything written behind it.

I've had one confirmed estimate from you so far — end of the week, given in your July 7 letter — and that date has passed. I'd appreciate a specific date.

Separately: could you confirm when this project actually goes to Council? The City's project page currently shows no future meetings scheduled, so I want to make sure I'm not working off an outdated timeline.

Two last items. First, please keep the full recipient list on future replies — this is public record, and July 7's email moved most of it to BCC. I've added everyone back below. Second, my PRA request (#W012963-062926) is running on its own separate track, not part of this.

Thank you for your patience with me on this, Steve.

Respectfully submitted,
Doug D'Anna South Downtown RPPP Permit Holder
cc: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi, Joanna Winter, Alex Khojikian, Prasanna Rasiah, Zachary Dahl, Sung H. Kwon, Ryan Brunmeier, Jason Hallare
On Jul 9, 2026, at 12:53 PM, Steve Golden <[email protected]> wrote:

Doug,
I was informed that additional members of the development review team are unexpectedly out of the office for the rest of the week, so the City response is going to be delayed. As of right now, my understanding is that they intend to provide a response at the beginning of next week. Also, I am aware that you made a public information request (PRA#W012963-062926) which was a more extensive document and records request than the comment/question asked in the email below. That records request response is being conducted independently from answering your question below.

Regards,
Steve Golden
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7215 | [email protected]
From: Steve Golden
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 10:16 AM
To:

Cc: Jason Hallare <[email protected]>; Ryan Brunmeier <[email protected]>; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PA-2025-039 — Five Things I Cannot Find in the Hexagon Report Doug,
As I believe you already know, Liz, who is the project planner for this project is out of office, so apologies for the delayed response (I responded earlier to your other inquiry as well). Your inquiry has been received, and our Public Works staff is working on a response. I believe there are also members on that team who are out of office, but they intend to provide a response by the end of the week.

FYI, for efficiency purposes, I have moved some recipients to BCC since a response to your inquiry will be handled by staff on my response. If you have any other questions, you can reach out to this recipient list.

Thanks,
Steve Golden
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
740 of 786
650-522-7215 | [email protected]
From: Doug D'Anna < >
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2026 8:53 AM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Cc: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Sung H. Kwon <[email protected]>; Ryan Brunmeier <[email protected]>; Jason Hallare <[email protected]> Subject: Re: PA-2025-039 — Five Things I Cannot Find in the Hexagon Report June 30, 2026
Dear Liz:

Thank you for your detailed June 26 response. I could tell a lot of work went into it.

I had started going through all the policies you cited — AB 2097, SB 330, AB 130, GP 2040 — specifically thinking about how they applied to this project on Laurel Avenue, where I live.

After spending a few hours diving into them and how they related to your response, I noticed you had written “the City has determined” three times — once regarding pedestrian facilities, once regarding bicycle facilities, and once regarding what SB 330 allows the city to require of developers.

So I trashed my 7-page letter and decided it’s best to just ask for the letters of determination.

That would probably answer all the questions I raised in my June 11 letter.

In fact, on June 21 I asked the same thing a different way — “if no, what part of the TIA Guidelines says it was not required.” The letters of determination would answer that question.

Could you send me those determinations? A copy of each one would do.

I also have one other request.

You mentioned that staff used the discretion allowed in the TIA Guidelines Introduction to reduce the neighborhood traffic assessment. I read in the Guidelines that discretion is supposed to be exercised at the time of the review application.

Is there a scoping document that shows when that decision was made and why? Specifically, why 6th Avenue, 7th Avenue, and Laurel Avenue were excluded from the neighborhood traffic assessment? That’s probably all I need.

I started with five questions. In my 7-page letter — the one I trashed — I ended up with about fifteen. But the letters of determination and the scoping document should answer everyone why our street did not get the traffic analysis.

The project is scheduled to go before the City Council next month. I’d like to have these documents before that hearing.

I’m sure my neighbors and the Council would want to see them too — so everyone has the same understanding of the traffic analysis and why our street was excluded from it before the hearing.

Respectfully submitted,
Doug D’Anna
South Downtown RPPP Permit Holder
On Jun 26, 2026, at 11:26 AM, Elizabeth Liz Gagliardi <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning Doug,
741 of 786
Thank you again for your patience as we reviewed these questions together with the Transportation team.

Regarding your questions related to the report, all items that you have mentioned were considered and internally reviewed, but were ultimately either not included in the TIA or were limited in their analysis. When an initial analysis does not find impacts that meet certain thresholds, additional analysis is not conducted. In addition, the existing TIA guidelines were adopted in 2020 and many of their requirements have been superseded by either State law or local policy, including but not limited to AB330, AB130, AB2097 and Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040. State laws restrict what cities can and cannot require for housing projects, and both state and local policies have shifted their focus away from regulating traffic level of service impacts to instead focus on addressing vehicle miles traveled and safety concerns (depending on the particular development scenario and which laws it is bound by). Regardless, all items were considered by staff during the entitlement process.

Please see additional detail related to each of the specific items you had noted below in green:

1. A Neighborhood Traffic Assessment for 6th and 7th Avenues. Section 3.9 requires one when a project has direct access to a neighborhood street. Both project driveways access local streets. I cannot find it.
a. This item was not included in the TIA.

Additional Background - This requirement in the TIA Guidelines (adopted in June 2020) was based on the prior (now superseded) General Plan 2030 Policy 1.3, which required developers “minimize the impact of new development on local streets” and “when warranted, construct improvements on local streets.” However, the new General Plan 2040 no longer contains a similar requirement for developers. As such, staff used discretion allowed per the Introduction section of the TIA Guidelines to reduce the overall evaluation necessary to assess this requirement.

That said, in alignment with portions of this section, the traffic impact analysis reviewed peak hour project trips onto the local streets, referenced as Intersection No. 5 and Intersection No. 6 in the analysis. Because no adverse effects were identified in this analysis, no additional traffic calming measures were found to be necessary.

2. A pedestrian facilities analysis within a quarter mile of the project site. Section 3.9 requires it. I cannot find it.
a. This item is included in the TIA on Page 39-40.

Additional Background - The City has determined that we are only able to require development projects to improve or repair pedestrian facilities adjacent to the site; so, the scope of the TIA’s pedestrian analysis has been limited accordingly. Discussion of the adequacy of pedestrian facilities begins on Page 39 of the TIA in a section titled “Pedestrians.” The TIA did not identify any concerns related to pedestrian facilities or access related to the project.

3. A bicycle facilities analysis within a quarter mile of the project site. Section 3.9 requires it. I cannot find it.
a. This item is included in the TIA on Page 40.

Additional Background - The City has determined that we are only able to require development projects to address off-site issues adjacent to the project site; so, the scope of the TIA’s bicycle analysis has been limited accordingly. Furthermore, the City determined that under SB330 we cannot require developers to implement bicycle facility improvements recommended by the City’s Bicycle Master Plan. Therefore, the City primarily seeks to ensure that development projects will not preclude future implementation of such improvements by the City. A discussion of the adequacy of bicycle facilities is on Page 40 of the TIA in a section titled “Bicycles.” The TIA did not identify any concerns related to bicycle facilities or access related to the project.

4. A parking assessment comparing proposed supply against ITE peak demand rates. Section

3.9 requires it. I cannot find it.
a. This item is included in the TIA on Page 39.

Additional Background - The project’s parking supply is discussed in the section titled “Parking,” which begins on Page 39 of the TIA. You are correct that the project did not compare supply against peak demand calculated using the ITA method. The calculation was omitted because it would have no value in evaluating the approvabi ity of this project because the project is exempt from parking requirements due to AB 2097. However, the project is still required to meet all other objective design and access standards in the Zoning Code.

5. A fair share calculation for B Street and 5th Avenue. Section 3.10 requires one when adverse conditions are identified. Table 8 of the Hexagon report documents a queuing deficiency at that intersection. I cannot find the calculation.
a. This item was not included in the TIA.

Additional Background - The TIA identified queue storage deficiencies in the cumulative traffic conditionswithout the project. The TIA determined that the project would add just one car length to one of those queues. The project is not the cause of an adverse condition, and no improvements were recommended as a result. Therefore, no fair share calculation or contribution is required. The project 742 of 786
is still anticipated to pay a Transportation Impact Fee of approximately $210,000, which will fund City traffic improvement projects.

Thank you,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 9:08 AM
To: Doug D'Anna <
Cc: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Sung H. Kwon <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PA-2025-039 — Five Things I Cannot Find in the Hexagon Report Hi Doug,
Unfortunately it’s actually not a simple response. As Liz mentioned, we’re working with our Transportation team – which includes external consultants – to get you more information this week, which should help explain why it’s more complicated than one might assume. Thanks for your patience.

Joanna
<Outlookgf3k0pcs.png>Joanna Winter (she/her)
Planning Manager | Community Development Dept.
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7211 | [email protected]
From: Doug D'Anna < >
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2026 8:59 PM
To: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Cc: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: PA-2025-039 — Five Things I Cannot Find in the Hexagon Report Dear Liz,
Thank you for the update — I really do appreciate you staying on this.

I've gone through the Hexagon report and the city's TIA Guidelines three times now, so I don't think I'm missing something obvious here — unless it's buried in planning speak I'm not familiar with.

I'm still stuck on why this is taking as long as it has. 743 of 786
I'd assumed you could just email me back the page numbers where the five items appear, or let me know if something I'm asking about is already written down somewhere.

I don't really understand why Public Works needed to get involved either. To me this read like checking whether something is in a document, not new analysis. You could just send me whatever answers this.

Maybe you can help me understand.

Here's what I'm trying to find in the Hexagon report. The city's TIA Guidelines seem to call for these five things that I could not find:

1. A Neighborhood Traffic Assessment for 6th and 7th Avenues.

2. A pedestrian facilities analysis within a quarter mile of the site. Pages 39-40 mention pedestrians briefly, but I couldn't find this.

3. A bicycle facilities analysis within a quarter mile of the site. Same issue.

4. A parking assessment comparing supply to ITE peak demand.

5. A fair share calculation for B Street and 5th Avenue. Table 8 on page 31 shows a deficiency there, but I couldn't find the calculation.

For each one, could you please just tell me:
- is it in the report, yes or no
- if yes, what page it appears on
- if no, what part of the TIA Guidelines says it was not required I live on Laurel Avenue — which is one of the named study intersections in this report — and I walk and drive on these streets every day, so the analysis matters to me. That's why I flagged it in the first place.

You mentioned you'd get back to me by the end of the week, which I think means this Friday, the 26th — that would be fifteen days since my first letter.

I'm hoping we can get this wrapped up by then.

Thank you again for your patience with me on this, Liz.

I'm adding Alex, Zachary, Prasanna, and the Planning Commission back in, since they were on my original email.

Respectfully submitted,
Doug D'Anna
South Downtown RPPP Permit Holder
cc: [email protected] · [email protected] · [email protected] · Planni [email protected]
On Jun 18, 2026, at 10:35 AM, Elizabeth Liz Gagliardi <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Doug,
Following up on the below email, I wanted to let you know that we are still reviewing together with Public Works, though we will need a bit more time to finalize the review & response to your questions below. I will follow up with further details by the end of next week.

Thank you,
744 of 786
-Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 4:55 PM
To:

Cc: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: PA-2025-039 — Five Things I Cannot Find in the Hexagon Report Good afternoon Doug,
Thanks for providing these questions. I wanted to let you know that Joanna has forwarded this email my way, as I am the project Planner for PA-2025-039.

I have received and am working on a response to your questions. As these items deal with some of the technical analysis aspects of the TIA report, I would like to discuss with our Public Works team since they are technical experts on this subject matter and will be better able to provide background information related to the questions you have posed. Unfortunately, the Public Works reviewer for this project is currently out of the office, but I will be following up upon his return with more detailed response - likely early next week.

Thanks for your patience as I review this further.
-Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 9:09 AM
To: Joanna Winter <[email protected]>
Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: PA-2025-039 — Five Things I Cannot Find in the Hexagon Report Dear Ms. Winter:
745 of 786
After my June 8 letter, your response, and the June 9 hearing, I went back and read both documents again.

I have now read the Hexagon Transportation Analysis and the City's adopted TIA Guidelines side by side. I cannot find five things the Guidelines appear to require. I am hoping someone can point me to them.
· A Neighborhood Traffic Assessment for 6th and 7th Avenues. Section

3.9 requires one when a project has direct access to a neighborhood street.

Both project driveways access local streets. I cannot find it. · A pedestrian facilities analysis within a quarter mile of the project site. Section 3.9 requires it. I cannot find it.
· A bicycle facilities analysis within a quarter mile of the project site. Section 3.9 requires it. I cannot find it.
· A parking assessment comparing proposed supply against ITE peak demand rates. Section 3.9 requires it. I cannot find it. · A fair share calculation for B Street and 5th Avenue. Section 3.10 requires one when adverse conditions are identified. Table 8 of the Hexagon report documents a queuing deficiency at that intersection. I cannot find the calculation.

If these analyses exist and I missed them, I would genuinely appreciate being directed to the relevant pages.

If they are not there, I would appreciate knowing that too.

Respectfully submitted,
Doug D'Anna
South Downtown RPPP Permit Holder
cc: [email protected] · [email protected] · [email protected] g
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. * PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. * PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 746 of 786
1 From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 11:08 AM
To: Chantal Eaton
Subject: Fw: Notice of Upcoming Public Hearing - 616 S. B Street "Nazareth Vista" Mixed-Use Development
Hi Chantal,
Forwarding over this public comment received for PA-2025-039. Can you please include with the agenda attachments for Council consideration?
Thanks,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Mary Robblee < >
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2026 6:20 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Notice of Upcoming Public Hearing - 616 S. B Street "Nazareth Vista" Mixed-Use Development

San Mateo is losing its charm and easy-going quiet neighborhoods.

Construction is too much on every corner in downtown area. All anyone cares about is money. What about the people that live here? City management could care less.

Very very sad for us as we age. Stores closing and the shopping center will be gone.

What's left..nothing but more buildings, more people and more traffic.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2026, 3:34 PM Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Interested Parties and Planning Project Subscription List, Please see attached notice for Planning Application number PA-2025-039. The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures and the construction of a new eight-story mixed-use building with a total floor area of 162,119 square feet. The proposed building consists of 7,286 square feet of ground floor commercial, 94 residential (rental) units on floors three through eight, and 114 off street parking 747 of 786
2 spaces. 10 units (15% of the base density) will be allocated as affordable to the very low-income category. The project includes several waivers and one concession under State Density Bonus Law.

The City Council will hold a public hearing on this project on Monday, August 17, 2026 at 7:00 PM (see attached notice for further details).

Project plans, and other information related to this Project are available on the City's Current Development page at the following link: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4862/616-S-B-St-Mixed-UseDevelopment Liz Gagliardi (She/Her)
Associate Planner | Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 748 of 786
City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting

POST PACKET

PUBLIC COMMENT
As of August 17, 2026 at 4:00 PM
749 of 786
1 Alby Calles
From: Chantal Eaton
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 7:15 AM
To: Martin McTaggart
Cc: Alby Calles; Erin Fellers
Subject: FW: pedestrian safety concerns
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Public comment
From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 3:28 PM
To: Chantal Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: pedestrian safety concerns
Hi Chantal,
I just received an additional comment (email below) for PA-2025-039 which never made it to my inbox.

Can you include this with the post-packet public comments? Thanks,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Mike Kato <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 3:20 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: FW: pedestrian safety concerns

Hi Liz,
Here is my response to the email Norman Cohen sent, and his reply to that. I did not send any further response to his reply.

Regards,
Mike
750 of 786
2 From: norman cohen
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 1:39 PM
To: Mike Kato <[email protected]>
Cc: Tyrone Bailey <[email protected]>; Bethany Lopez <[email protected]>; Jay Yu <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: pedestrian safety concerns

Mike, Thank you very much for your note and explanations. I appreciate the feedback and confirmation of plans. Just a couple of additional points:

1. The 5th Ave. and Laurel T intersection is relatively quiet much of the time. But there are certain times when I believe (and have witnessed) that it can be difficult and hazardous.

2. The 5th Ave. and Ellsworth crossing will be far more utilized when the development at the Drager's site is completed.

3. All of the intersections will become much more problematic with the multiple imminent nearby construction projects, and I hope the City will be proactive here without waiting until all of these developments are completed.

4. Besides the specific intersections mentioned, I assume and hope the City will undertake more general traffic and safety measures in the whole downtown area.

Thanks again for keeping me informed.

Yours truly,
Norman

On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 11:50 AM Mike Kato <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Norman,
I am writing to let you know that your July 6th email to the City was forwarded to our Traffic Engineering team in Public Works. We are initiating evaluations for the following items you requested:

1. “Stop” signs for the intersection of 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave.

2. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at the intersection of 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave.

3. Traffic signal or “Stop” signs are the intersection of 5th Ave & Laurel Ave.

There were also a number of things you requested that we will not pursue, primarily because they do not align with State and Federal engineering guidance. These are addressed below.  You requested RRFBs for the crosswalk across Laurel Ave at the intersection of 5th Ave & Laurel Ave to alert drivers making turn movements from 5th Ave. State and Federal guidance does not allow RRFBs to be used this way.
 You requested adding a “Stop” sign in the middle of the road at the intersection of 6th Ave and Laurel Ave.

State and Federal guidance does not allow “Stop” signs to be placed in that manner. 751 of 786
3  You requested RRFBs at the intersection of 6th Ave and Laurel Ave. That intersection is all-way stop controlled. State and Federal guidance does not allow use of RRFBs at stop-controlled approaches.

That said, your concerns that prompted those requests are noted and will be considered in the evaluations that we will carry out.

Lastly, you mentioned that the in-street “Yield to Pedestrians” sign at the intersection of 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave was removed. The sign was removed during the recent paving project. It will be replaced.

Staff will contact you again when the evaluations are complete. Note that work on these evaluations is paused for the summer because we collect the needed traffic data while school is in session. Also note that staff is working through a backlog of requests and yours are now in the queue.

Regards,
Michael “Mike” Kato (He/Him)
Associate Engineer | Public Works
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7377 | [email protected]

* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 752 of 786
1 Alby Calles
From: Clerk
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 1:51 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Cc: Martin McTaggart; Alby Calles
Subject: RE: 616 s B st.

Received, thank you.

Best,
Alby Calles, MBA
Assistant to the City Clerk
City Clerk’s OƯice
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7043 | [email protected]
From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 1:47 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Alby Calles <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: 616 s B st.

Hi Clerk's Office,
One additional Public Comment, I believe I forwarded over the initial email on this thread but received the below response that I wanted to ensure was included. See updated thread below for the 616 S. B Street item. Can you please add as a post-packet comment? Thanks!
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: Barbara Cohen
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 11:11 AM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 616 s B st.

753 of 786
2 Thank you. The potential excess noise is the concern, with open windows, balconies, patios, common outdoor spaces ( Gramercy and Stratford) and even indoor spaces potentially adversely impacted by 60 decibels.

Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 17, 2026, at 10:57 AM, Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Norman,

Thank you for providing public comment on this Project. Your comments have been forwarded to the City Clerk to be included as "Post Packet Public Comments" for the City Council item on 8/17.

Regarding the renderings referenced, these are conceptual in terms of the furnishings (including any TV screens), which should be further detailed during the building permit review phase of the project. This item was raised during the Planning Commission hearing during the Commissioner discussion, during which the Applicant clarified that any screens would be turned off when not in use, and that they are open to providing additional screening or alternative locations to minimize the visibility of any TVs to adjacent properties. As far as the City's regulations, we do not have specific requirements for TV screen locations, but would require that all elements of the Project abide by the requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance that addresses excessive noise.

There is a General Plan Policy to address noise that has been added standard Conditions of Approval requiring for Exterior Acoustical Analysis, which must be satisfied prior to issuance of the building permit for superstructure for the Project to ensure that the common open space area meets General Plan requirements:

 "EXTERIOR ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS - In compliance with General Plan Policy N1.3, the applicant shall provide an acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for new multifamily common open space for residents that have an exterior noise level of 60 dBA (Ldn) or above, as shown in Figure N-2 of the General Plan. The applicant shall incorporate necessary mitigation measures into residential project design to minimize common open space noise levels. Maximum exterior noise levels should not exceed 65 dBA (Ldn) for residential uses." However, be aware that this analysis generally applies to exterior off-site noise impacts on the project (e.g., road noise, train noise, etc), not impacts from the project onto surrounding properties.

Thank you,
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
754 of 786
3 330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: norman cohen
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 5:06 PM
To: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: 616 s B st.

Hi Liz, I know this project is on Monday's agenda, and we do not oppose or wish to delay it. We need the housing, and we think it will make the area more attractive than it is presently. But we now were shocked to notice on page 8 of the plans a conceptualized drawing of a big screen TV on the 4th floor terrace. That is a huge concern. Probably 100- 200 neighbors could be adversely affected by terrace entertainment and excess noise. In addition, we thought that this type of project required an acoustical study (with mitigation recommendations) prior to approval, as per the General Plan Noise Policy. But I could not find that anywhere. Thank you.

Best regards,
Norman Cohen
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.

It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 755 of 786
1 Alby Calles
From: Davida Rabbino
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 11:14 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Adam Loraine; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Rob Newsom; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi; Planning Commission; City Mgr; Clerk; Rabbino N. Davida
Cc: Stratford.ED (Janie Woo)
Subject: Noise from outdoor TV at 616 B Street project
Attachments: Letter to City Council about 616 Bst outdoor TV.docx Here is the request from the HOA at the Stratford regarding the building plans for 616 B Street to be discussed tonight at your meeting. Please consider this when you make your rulings.

Best regards,
Davida Rabbino
756 of 786
Letter to the City Council of San Mateo about noise from fourth floor TV at 616 B. Street.

The project proposal for 616 B Street has changed substantially from the 48-unit proposal. The current proposal is now an eight story, 94 unit residential building with retail and a fourth floor podium-top outside deck. The Planning Commission documents identify 616 S. B. St as a pending project, confirming that the newer proposal is the relevant one now. This rendering did not appear on the original proposal. The newly published project information specifically describes a fourth floor podium top deck which is the terrace we are concerned about.

Our biggest concern regards the outdoor TV, and so we request that a ban on terrace TV installation be a condition of approval from the City Council. The projected noise and light will greatly influence the quality of life on the outdoor gathering spaces at the three adjacent buildings, The Stratford, The Stradbally Court, and the Grammercy. The neighboring buildings with open windows, balconies, and indoor spaces will be affected by the flickering lights and the noise.

The outdoor patio and garden rooms at the Stratford are quiet areas in downtown San Mateo that affords a quiet respite from the noisy streets. This use of outdoor space needs to be rethought to achieve necessary protection from the sound intrusion into adjacent residences.

We feel it is important to be proactive here to ensure we are protecting nearby residents from unnecessary disruption and noise pollution. Please support this request to limit the new building’s intrusion into our neighborhood by removing the outdoor television on your proposal. We are requesting a ban on any TV be a condition for approval.

Sincerely,
HOA of the Stratford.
757 of 786
1 Alby Calles
From: Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 2:55 PM
To: Clerk; Alby Calles; Martin McTaggart
Cc: Zachary Dahl; Sung H. Kwon; Steve Golden; Joanna Winter Subject: Fw: public comment re item 21 for tonight's Council meeting Attachments: San Mateo - 616 South B Street - HAA.pdf
Hi Clerk's Office,
Received another post-packet public comment letter for Item 21 - can you please add this to the list? Thanks!
Liz
Liz Gagliardi (she/her)
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7206 | [email protected]
From: James Lloyd
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 2:52 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]> Cc: City Attorney's Office <[email protected]>; Community Development Distribution <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi <[email protected]> Subject: public comment re item 21 for tonight's Council meeting

Dear San Mateo City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits the attached public comment re item 21 for tonight's Council meeting, the proposed 94-unit housing development project at 616 South B Street, which includes 10 very low-income units.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
758 of 786
Aug 17, 2026
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 616 South B Street 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 94-unit housing development project at 616 South B Street, which includes 10 very low-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), the Density Bonus Law (DBL), and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.

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 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
759 of 786
thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
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 architectural style, residential density, floor area ratio, building height, setback requirements, loading zone, architectural features, shadows, and vertical wall plane breaks. 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 exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is also 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 2 of 3
760 of 786
761 of 786
1 Alby Calles
From: David Hunt
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 3:59 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Support for 616 S. B Street (PA-2025-039, Item 21) with Conditions on Parking Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
As a Hayward Park resident that lives a ~15 minute walk from this project I am writing in support of the Nazareth Vista project at 616 S. B Street (PA-2025-039, Agenda Item 21). Ninety-four homes, including ten units affordable to very-low-income households, plus ground-floor retail, roughly a third of a mile from the Downtown Caltrain station, is the right kind of housing in the right place. I urge you to approve it.

In brief: I support approval, and I ask for two conditions.

1. Unbundle residential parking. Price parking separately from rent so tenants who do not own a car are not forced to pay for a space they will not use.

2. Allow overnight parking at the Kiku Crossing garage. Amend the downtown monthly permit rules (currently valid only Monday to Saturday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., no overnight) so residents of this project and nearby blocks can use an underused public garage at night instead of parking on neighborhood streets.

The rest of this letter lays out the reasoning behind each.

1. Require the developer to unbundle residential parking.

AB 2097 already means this project is not required to build a single parking space, yet it includes 93 resident spaces. General Plan Action C 2.8 specifically recommends unbundling parking from housing costs, and this is the moment to apply it.

Unbundling means pricing parking separately from the lease, so residents who want a space pay for it explicitly and residents who do not are not forced to subsidize it. The research on what follows is consistent: bundled parking adds an average of about 17% to a unit's rent, households with bundled parking are roughly 60% more likely to own a car, and buildings that pair unbundled parking with carshare see about 25% lower vehicle ownership. These are not four separate arguments. They are one chain of cause and effect (lower rents, less car ownership, fewer trips, more transit use) that serves goals this Council has already adopted.

This also speaks directly to what neighbors raised at the Planning Commission and the neighborhood meeting. Their top concerns were traffic and parking. Unbundling is the most direct response available, because it stops baking a parking space, and the car trips that come with it, into every lease regardless of whether the tenant drives. AB 2097 says the city cannot force developers to overbuild parking. It does not stop the city from ensuring that the parking a developer chooses to build is priced transparently.

2. Open the Kiku Crossing garage to overnight permit parking. 762 of 786
2 The most common objection to unbundling is that residents without a paid on-site space will simply crowd neighborhood streets. The answer is already nearby and already built. The Kiku Crossing garage sat below 35% utilization at every hour measured in the city's recent occupancy study. That is substantial public capacity going unused around the clock.

That capacity cannot absorb overnight demand today because of the permit rules. The city's monthly downtown permits, which are the permits sold at Kiku, are valid only Monday through Saturday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and cannot be used for overnight parking. This is not a quirk specific to Kiku. It is a feature of the citywide downtown permit program, which the Council can amend. I ask you to extend those permits to allow overnight parking so residents of this project and the surrounding blocks can use a garage that is mostly empty at night.

The price makes this especially compelling. Kiku's public monthly permit is $65, or $40 for eligible lowincome residents. That is a fraction of what an unbundled on-site space is likely to cost, since unbundled spaces in the Bay Area routinely run $200 or more per month. An affordable permit in an underused public garage a few blocks away is exactly the kind of option that lets a household choose to own fewer cars, which is the outcome unbundling is meant to encourage. Putting an existing, underused public garage to work is also far cheaper and greener than requiring anyone to overbuild on-site structured parking that will sit vacant.

Taken together, these two conditions make Nazareth Vista more affordable to its renters, hold down the traffic it adds to an already busy area, and put publicly owned parking capacity to use instead of leaving it idle overnight. I respectfully urge you to approve the project with these conditions.

Thank you for your consideration.
- Dave
763 of 786
1 Alby Calles
From: Gramercy Manager
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 9:21 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Adam Loraine; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Rob Newsom; Elizabeth "Liz" Gagliardi; Planning Commission; City Mgr; Clerk
Cc: Rick Bonilla
Subject: 616 S B Street-Terrace Concerns
Attachments: 616 S B Street Terrace Letter to City Council 8.17.26.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
August 17, 2026

To: City Council Members,

Hello, We at The Gramercy have, candidly, had some concerns about this project, including street parking, loss of sunlight for many residents, and especially pedestrian safety due to the markedly increased traffic. Nevertheless, we are not opposed --primarily because we recognize the need for more housing. In addition, we believe the new structure will make that location much more aesthetically attractive than the current status. At the 6/9 Planning Commission hearing a handful of our residents emphasized pedestrian safety. Neither they nor our prior petition mentioned the issue of excess noise emanating from the planned fourth floor outdoor terrace. This is because we only very recently noticed an artistic drawing on page eight of the plans showing a large screen TV on the terrace. Of course, this may just represent a conceptualized rendering that will never be adopted. But it has led us to the realization that excess noise from this elevated terrace runs the potential risk of disrupting the quality of life for many established nearby residents.

We do not wish to cause unnecessary problems or undue delays, and we endeavor to be cooperative and amiable neighbors. We also realize that this terrace design is likely an ongoing process, with specific plans not yet decided and that the developer and his personnel are conscientious and wish to also be good neighbors. But we feel it is still important to be proactive here so as to ensure we are protecting nearby residents from unnecessary disruption.
764 of 786
2 While we, of course, defer to you on the best way to proceed, we would like to suggest some possibilities that we hope you seriously consider.

Our biggest concern regards the TV, and so we request that a ban on terrace TV installation be a condition of approval. (The fallback position would be to require any future TV to either be on mute or require listeners to wear earbuds or headphones; plus make the light not intrusive for others). We likewise would like to see no sound amplification devices to also be a condition of approval.

Other points to consider (whether conditions of approval or prior understandings):

Maximal noise mitigation, with sufficient sound dampening methods and barriers. 9:00 pm curfew or, at minimum, further noise restriction at that hour.

Obtaining the required acoustical analysis before approval (rather than just prior to permit) to allow any recommended design changes first.

Again, we support the project and hope progress is expedited, and our intention is to be cooperative and good neighbors. We just want to protect a large number of our (and other) residents from unwanted noise intrusion that could easily adversely affect them.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,
The Gramercy on the Park Homeowners Association
Michael Penner-CMCA
General Manager
Gramercy on the Park Homeowners Association

765 of 786
August 17, 2026
To: City Council Members,
Hello, We at The Gramercy have, candidly, had some concerns about this project, including street parking, loss of sunlight for many residents, and especially pedestrian safety due to the markedly increased traffic. Nevertheless, we are not opposed --primarily because we recognize the need for more housing. In addition, we believe the new structure will make that location much more aesthetically attractive than the current status. At the 6/9 Planning Commission hearing a handful of our residents emphasized pedestrian safety. Neither they nor our prior petition mentioned the issue of excess noise emanating from the planned fourth floor outdoor terrace. This is because we only very recently noticed an artistic drawing on page eight of the plans showing a large screen TV on the terrace. Of course, this may just represent a conceptualized rendering that will never be adopted. But it has led us to the realization that excess noise from this elevated terrace runs the potential risk of disrupting the quality of life for many established nearby residents.

While we, of course, defer to you on the best way to proceed, we would like to suggest some possibilities that we hope you seriously consider.

Other points to consider (whether conditions of approval or prior understandings):

Maximal noise mitigation, with sufficient sound dampening methods and barriers. 9:00 pm curfew or, at minimum, further noise restriction at that hour.

Obtaining the required acoustical analysis before approval (rather than just prior to permit) to allow any recommended design changes first.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,
The Gramercy on the Park Homeowners Association
766 of 786

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: PUBLIC HEARING Account Number: 26-4662 File ID: 25-10647 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: August 17, 2026
SUBJECT:

Municipal Code Amendments – Ordinance Introduction
RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Titles 17, 23, and 26 to address General Plan Policies and development review procedures, adopt California Department of Transportation Standards by reference, authorize the Director of Public Works to administratively update minor revisions to the Public Works Engineering Standards, and repeal Section 23.16.020.

BACKGROUND:

The Public Works Department is in the process of a multi-phase update of San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) sections.

This first phase includes amendments to the SMMC per policies within the adopted General Plan 2040. Later phases will incorporate a comprehensive review and rewrite of the Subdivision Code (Title 26) and a collation of public works codes into a new Public Improvements Code (Title 21).

SMMC Amendments
SMMC amendments are proposed to implement General Plan policies, address California Senate Bill 330 (SB-330) changes to development reviews and streamline updates to Public Works Standards. SB-330 projects in particular have stresstested the objectivity of the minimum improvement requirements identified in the City’s Subdivision Code and shown the need to clarify and amplify the language requiring minimum improvements.

Multiple sections of the SMMC have been reviewed by City engineering staff and are proposed for amendment. The Proposed Ordinance and amendments are provided in Attachment 1. Redlines of the amendments are provided in Attachment 2.

Substantial Code revisions are summarized as follows:

1. SMMC 17.16.010 – Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) conversions of garages will be exempt from the requirement to replace driveways with standard curb and gutter to align with State Laws and San Mateo Zoning Code related to ADUs.

2. SMMC 23.16.020 – Repeal this section to align with current City practices since a cleanout is not required by Public Works at the property line and private cleanout requirements are already addressed in the adopted Plumbing Code.

3. SMMC 23.48 – The Public Works Director will be authorized to approve minor revisions to the Public Works engineering standards, which includes standard drawings, specifications, and design criteria related to public infrastructure. This will streamline the process for future updates and align the City with most other agencies within San Mateo County on this process. Clarifying the California Department of Transportation Standards will be 767 of 786

CITY OF SAN MATEO
adopted as an additional reference.

4. SMMC 26.32.020 – Development projects will be required to underground overhead lines along the project frontage as directed by General Plan Policy PSF 4.14.

5. SMMC 26.60.020 – Additional language added to clarify and improve objectivity of the minimum improvements required on subdivision development projects. Pedestrian and bike improvements, green infrastructure, and undergrounding requirements are included to conform to General Plan Policies C3.2, C3.3, C4.5, CD3.6, PSF 3.9, PSF 3.18, and PSF 4.14.

Outreach
On June 16, 2026, staff informed the developer community of the proposed revisions at the standing Developer Roundtable meeting hosted by the San Mateo Chamber of Commerce. Then, staff began an email notice campaign to the developer community informing them of the proposed Ordinance and inviting them to a second outreach meeting. On August 11, 2026, staff hosted the second outreach meeting for the development community. At both meetings, the developers asked clarifying questions about how the new subdivision minimum improvements would be applied, such as how undergrounding limits would be determined and how projects with portions of a block incorporate these improvements; however, they did not raise any significant concerns with the proposed changes.

Next Steps
Following introduction, the Ordinance will be brought back for a second reading and adoption at the next available City Council meeting, and the Ordinance will go into effect 30 days afterwards. .

BUDGET IMPACT:

Adoption of these amendments will not have an impact on the City’s budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This project 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 plan supports the Infrastructure initiative.

NOTICE PROVIDED
In accordance with California Government Code section 6066, a public notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation on July 7 and July 14.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Ordinance
Att 2 – Redlines of Proposed SMMC Amendments

STAFF CONTACT
Jason Hallare, Engineering Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7316
768 of 786

CITY OF SAN MATEO

DRAFT ORDINANCE

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 17.16, 23.16, 23.48, 26.32, AND 26.60 OF SAN MATEO MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66322(b) and San Mateo Municipal Code Section

27.19.060(A) preempt the Department of Public Works from requiring existing driveways to be replaced to standard sidewalk for accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) projects that convert garages or carports for ADU area; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works, as a matter of practice since the City does not own or maintain any portion of a private sewer lateral, has not required properties to install additional sewer lateral clean outs at property lines; and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process for updating or revising the City’s engineering standards for public improvements, staff proposes to authorize the Director of Public Works to administratively approve minor changes; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works’ current best practice related to construction standards and specifications refer to California Department of Transportation for any standard or specification not addressed by the City’s Engineering Standard; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2024, the City Council adopted the comprehensive General Plan update, “Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040” (“General Plan”) which included goals, policies, and actions providing direction for staff; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Policy C 3.3 requires new developments to improve the pedestrian experience adjacent to their sites; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Policy PSF 3.9 and Action PSF 3.18 require private development projects to incorporate and implement stormwater treatment and green infrastructure in the projects; and WHEREAS, General Plan Policy PSF 4.10 and Action PSF 4.14 require private development projects to underground project service utilities and existing overhead adjacent to the projects; and WHEREAS, staff has drafted amendments to the San Mateo Municipal Code to align with state law, engineering and permitting practices, and the General Plan policies listed above.

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

Section 1. Section 17.16.010 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
769 of 786

17.16.010 Conformance with Chapter Required
No building or structure or open paved area designed or used for a garage or for the storing of automobiles, and which is reached by a driveway crossing the sidewalk or public property in front of such building structure or area, shall hereafter be used for such purposes, unless the driveway crossing the sidewalk or public property leading to such building structure or area and the curb in front thereof is built or constructed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.

Except for the conversion to an accessory dwelling unit, if, at any time, the driveway so constructed is no longer necessary because the building structure or area ceases to be used for the storage of automobiles, is removed or destroyed or access thereto is reoriented, the driveway crossing the sidewalk or public place shall be removed and the curb, gutter, sidewalk and parkway restored in line and to the grade of adjacent curb, gutter, sidewalk and parkway.

When a new driveway is to be constructed upon the same property, the permit required by Section

17.16.030 shall include the removal of any existing driveways no longer necessary.

Section 2. Section 23.16.020 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is repealed.

Section 3. The title of Chapter 23.48 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

Chapter 23.48
Engineering Standards For Public Improvements
Section 4. Section 23.48.010 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

23.48.010 Engineering Standards
The following standards, details, specifications and/or policies are requirements for improvements and activities occurring within the public right-of-way or for publicly-owned infrastructure and are in effect in the City of San Mateo:
(a) The City of San Mateo Engineering Standards. That certain document on file with the Director of Public Works, known and designated as “City of San Mateo Engineering Standards” and as adopted by the City Council. The Director of Public Works is delegated the authority to administratively update and/or revise the City of San Mateo Engineering Standards provided the update and/or revisions are limited to making minor clarifications, corrections, or technical changes to the text and diagrams. A copy of these standards shall be available for review by members of the public in the office of the Director of Public Works and also on the City’s website.
(b) Standard Plans and Specifications, California Department of Transportation, latest edition. That certain document on file with the Director of Public Works, known and designated as the “California Department of Transportation Standard Plans and Specifications, latest edition” is hereby adopted by reference and made a part hereof, provided, however, in the event that there is any conflict between the City of San Mateo 770 of 786
Engineering Standards and the California Department of Transportation Standard Plans and Specifications, those of the City of San Mateo Engineering Standards shall control.

Section 5. Section 23.48.020 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

23.48.020 Special Provisions—Defined—Authorized
"Special provisions" means any provisions which supplement or modify the San Mateo Engineering Standards set forth in the publications referred to in this chapter. When included in plans and specifications for a public works construction project, such provisions shall have precedence over the San Mateo Engineering Standards. The Director of Public Works shall make and include special provisions in any public works construction project when circumstances and conditions warrant.

Section 6. Section 23.48.030 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is repealed.

Section 7. Section 23.48.040 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is repealed.

Section 8. Section 26.32.020 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

26.32.020 Undergrounding Requires – Exceptions
All utility distribution facilities (including but not limited to electric, communication and cable television lines) existing along a subdivision frontage and those installed in and for the purpose of supplying service to any residential or commercial subdivision shall be placed underground, except as follows:
(a) Equipment appurtenant to underground facilities, such as pedestal mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets, and concealed ducts. This does not include transformers; (b) Metal poles supporting only high voltage wires, switches, transformers and street lights.

For the purposes of this chapter, utility distribution facilities for electrical power shall mean facilities carrying nominal voltages of less than thirty-four thousand five hundred volts, and the subdivider shall be responsible for all utility facilities’ underground placement up to the nearest feasible points of connection beyond the subdivision frontage.

Section 9. Section 26.60.010 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

26.60.010 General Requirements
(a) The subdivider shall improve, or shall execute an agreement in writing to improve all public and private streets, pathways and easements, and to install such other improvements as are required by this title as are necessary for the general use of lot owners in the subdivision, local neighborhood traffic, drainage needs, and utility services.
771 of 786
(b) The subdivider shall submit a complete set of plans, profiles, cross sections and specifications for improvements in conformity to the City’s current Engineering Standards for Public Improvements on 772 of 786
reproducible material or electronic media acceptable to the Director of Public Works for their check and approval. The scale of the plans and the size of the sheets shall be subject to approval by the Director of Public Works. If the Director of Public Works approves same, they shall certify their approval on the face of the tracings and/or other reproducible material.
(c) The Director of Public Works, or such other representatives as may be authorized by the Council, shall have the right to enter upon the site of said improvements for the purpose of inspecting the same. The Director of Public Works shall be furnished with such samples or materials as they may require for making tests to determine the acceptability of such materials. Prior to beginning the work on all or any portion of a subdivision, or prior to filing the final map with the Council, the subdivider shall deposit with the City an amount equal to the estimated actual cost for the inspection of the work and the cost of checking materials for said improvements during the entire period of construction of said subdivision or portion thereof. If the amount so deposited exceeds the actual cost to the City, the subdivider shall be reimbursed the balance of the deposit.

Should the actual cost exceed the deposited amount, the Director of Public Works shall stop all construction until the subdivider shall present a receipt for a deposit with the City of such additional sum as the Director of Public Works may estimate.
(d) No improvement work shall be commenced until improvement plans and specifications have been submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works, the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, the Building Official, or their designees.
(e) Improvements shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications to permanent line and grade to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, or Building Official in the case of private improvements, who shall supervise the work. All work shall be subject to such inspections as they may deem necessary to protect the interest of the City. In no case shall the improvements be less substantial than required by the design standards and specifications and the City standard specifications in effect at the time the plans and specifications are approved, and all grading and major vegetation removal in connection therewith shall conform to all requirements of chapter 23.40.

Section 10. Section 26.60.020 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

26.60.020 Minimum Improvements
The minimum improvements within the subdivision and the subdivision’s public right-of-way frontage which the subdivider shall make, or agree to make, at its expense prior to acceptance and approval of the final map by the City shall be:
(a) All grading, curbs, gutters, paving (including base, subbase, and surface course), drainage pipes, and drainage structures necessary to serve the subdivision and prevent flooding of the subdivision and frontage; and (b) Stormwater treatment measures to treat runoff of the subdivision and the subdivision’s public rightof-way frontage (up to the center of the street), in accordance with State regulatory mandates; and 773 of 786
(c) Street name signs, traffic warning signs, required traffic and crosswalk lines, guard rails, pedestrian crossings, and other traffic and pedestrian control devices, all in accordance with the City Engineering Standards and adopted City plans; and
(d) Sidewalks, pedestrian paths, curb ramps, and similar pedestrian features to provide either: (1) a 10- foot minimum sidewalk width, inclusive of pedestrian through zones and landscape strips and amenity zones (“effective sidewalk”); or (2) the minimum effective sidewalk width for adopted City plans, whichever is greater; and
(e) Bicycle lanes, shared-use paths, and other bicycle facilities as identified in adopted City plans; (f) Fire hydrants with required appurtenances;
(g) A water supply service system;
(h) A sanitary sewer system and appurtenant structures with laterals for each lot intended for residential use, and for lots intended for other uses, such connections as may be required. All sewer laterals shall be indicated on plans giving the location from the closest lot corner and depth of lateral; (i) Street plantings, landscaping, trees, and irrigation pursuant to adopted City plans; (j) Underground communications and electrical distribution facilities; (k) Undergrounding of existing overhead utilities;
(l) A gas distribution system;
(m) Earth retention structures;
(n) Street roadway lighting, and for pedestrian corridors identified in an adopted City Plan, pedestrianscale lighting; (o) Underground ducting and appurtenant structures for traffic signals; and (p) Public sanitary sewer system or storm drain system extensions or capacity improvements to serve new, increased, or intensified flows as identified through technical studies performed by the subdivider.

Section 11. Section 26.60.030 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

26.60.030 Guarantees
(a) The subdivider shall guarantee the workmanship of all improvements specified in this chapter and installed by or under its direction. The subdivider shall make, or agree in writing to make, the necessary repairs or modifications for damage which may result from storm caused erosion or landslides and to correct errors in the design or construction of any facility for a period of one year from the date of completion as described below.
774 of 786
Section 12. Section 26.60.040 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

26.60.040 Completion Plans
The subdivider shall cause the improvement plans to be amended to show the improvements "as built." Said "as built" plans shall be on polyester base film or electronic media.

Upon receipt of said "as built" plans, the Director of Public Works shall recommend formal acceptance by the Council when he or she is fully satisfied that the improvements have been installed in complete conformance with the provisions of this title.

Elevations related to the City datum shall be shown on the "as built" improvement plans as required above for all monuments in the subdivision.

Section 13. Environmental Determination. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, section 15378(b)(5), this project 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.

Section 14. Severability. In the event any section, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section, clause or provision shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 15. 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 16. Legislative History and Effective Date. This ordinance was introduced on Clerk to complete., and adopted on Clerk to complete., and shall be effective 30 days after its adoption.

Place attachments here
775 of 786

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
SMMC Section 17.16.010
776 of 786

17.16.010 CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER REQUIRED.

No building or structure or open paved area designed or used for a garage or for the storing of automobiles, and which is reached by a driveway crossing the sidewalk or public property in front of such building structure or area, shall hereafter be used for such purposes, unless the driveway crossing the sidewalk or public property leading to such building structure or area and the curb in front thereof is built or constructed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.

IfExcept for the conversion to an accessory dwelling unit, if, at any time, the driveway so constructed is no longer necessary because the building structure or area ceases to be used for the storage of automobiles, is removed or destroyed or access thereto is reoriented, the driveway crossing the sidewalk or public place shall be removed and the curb, gutter, sidewalk and parkway restored in line and to the grade of adjacent curb, gutter, sidewalk and parkway.

When a new driveway is to be constructed upon the same property, the permit required by Section 17.16.030 shall include the removal of any existing driveways no longer necessary.
777 of 786

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
SMMC Chapter 23.48
778 of 786
Chapter 23.48

ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION

23.48.010 ENGINEERING STANDARDSADOPTION.

The following standards, details, specifications and/or policies are requirements for improvements and activities occurring within the public right-of-way or for publicly-owned infrastructure and are in effect in the City of San Mateo:
(a) The City of San Mateo Engineering Standards. That certain document on file with the Director of Public Works, known and designated as “City of San Mateo Engineering Standards” and as adopted by the City Council. The Director of Public Works is delegated the authority to administratively update and/or revise the City of San Mateo Engineering Standards provided the update and/or revisions are limited to making minor clarifications, corrections, or technical changes to the text and diagrams. A copy of these standards shall be available for review by members of the public in the office of the Director of Public Works and also on the City’s website. (b) Standard Plans and Specifications, California Department of Transportation, latest edition. That certain document on file with the Director of Public Works, known and designated as the “California Department of Transportation Standard Plans and Specifications, latest edition” is hereby adopted by reference and made a part hereof, provided, however, in the event that there is any conflict between the City of San Mateo Engineering Standards and the California Department of Transportation Standard Plans and Specifications, those of the City of San Mateo Engineering Standards shall control.

The rules, regulations and standards printed in one volume and prepared and promulgated by the Southern California Chapter, American Public Works Association, and the Southern California District. Associated General Contractors of California Joint Cooperative Committee (APWA-AGC), under the title of "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 1979 Edition," are adopted as and for the rules, regulations and standards to be applied to public works construction within this city as to all matters therein contained, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, by addition of special provisions or as modified by council resolution adopted pursuant to this chapter. A copy of said standard specifications shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk at all times hereafter.

23.48.020 SECTION 307 DELETED—SECTION 86, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS ADDED.

Section 307 of said standard specifications, entitled, "Street Lighting and Traffic Signals," shall not be a part of this code. In lieu of section 307, section 86 of the state of 779 of 786
California Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Transportation Standard Specifications, January 1978 Edition, is added as a part of this code.

23.48.030020 SPECIAL PROVISIONS—DEFINED—AUTHORIZED.
"Special provisions" means any provisions which supplement or modify the standard specificationsSan Mateo Engineering Standards set forth in the publications referred to in this chapter. When included in plans and specifications for a public works construction project, such provisions shall have precedence over standard specificationsthe San Mateo Engineering Standards. The public works directorDirector of Public Works shall make and include special provisions in any public works construction project when circumstances and conditions warrant.

23.48.040 ADOPTION AND AMENDMENTS BY RESOLUTION—AUTHORIZED.

All future enactments, amendments, modifications or revisions of the standard specifications for public works construction may be made by resolution of the Council. 780 of 786

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
SMMC Chapter 26.32
781 of 786
Chapter 26.32

PUBLIC UTILITIES

26.32.010 EASEMENTS.

Where required for public utilities purposes, utility easements shall be provided within the subdivision, generally in the vicinity of the street frontage, including the public utility easement designed solely for underground electrical and communications distribution services. The detailed specifications in the design standards and specifications and/or State of California, Public Utility Commission General Orders shall govern all utility installations.

26.32.020 UNDERGROUNDING REQUIRED—EXCEPTIONS.

All utility distribution facilities (including but not limited to electric, communication and cable television lines) existing along a subdivision frontage and those installed in and for the purpose of supplying service to any residential or commercial subdivision shall be placed underground, except as follows:
(a) Equipment appurtenant to underground facilities, such as pedestal mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets, and concealed ducts. This does not include transformers; (b) Metal poles supporting only high voltage wires, switches, transformers and street lights.

26.32.030 SUBDIVIDER RESPONSIBILITY.

The subdivider shall be responsible for compliance with the requirements of this chapter; and shall make all necessary arrangements with utility companies or agencies involved for installation of said facilities.
782 of 786

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
SMMC Chapter 26.60
783 of 786
Chapter 26.60

IMPROVEMENTS

26.60.010 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.
(a) The subdivider shall improve, or shall execute an agreement in writing to improve all public orand private streets, pathways and easements, and to install such other improvements as are required by this title as are necessary for the general use of lot owners in the subdivision, local neighborhood traƯic and, drainage needs, and utility services. (b) The subdivider shall submit a complete set of plans, profiles, cross sections and specifications for improvements in conformity to the City’s current design standards and specifications and the City standard specificationsEngineering Standards for Public Improvements on reproducible material or electronic media acceptable to the Director of Public Works for his or hertheir check and approval. The scale of the plans and the size of the sheets shall be subject to approval by the Director of Public Works. If the Director of Public Works approves same, he or shethey shall certify his or hertheir approval on the face of the tracings and/or other reproducible material.
(c) The Director of Public Works, or such other representatives as may be authorized by the Council, shall have the right to enter upon the site of said improvements for the purpose of inspecting the same. The Director of Public Works shall be furnished with such samples or materials as he or shethey may require for making tests to determine the acceptability of such materials. Prior to beginning the work on all or any portion of a subdivision, or prior to filing the final map with the Council, the subdivider shall deposit with the City an amount equal to the estimated actual cost for the inspection of the work and the cost of checking materials for said improvements during the entire period of construction of said subdivision or portion thereof. If the amount so deposited exceeds the actual cost to the City, the subdivider shall be reimbursed the balance of the deposit. Should the actual cost exceed the deposited amount, the Director of Public Works shall stop all construction until the subdivider shall present a receipt for a deposit with the City of such additional sum as the Director of Public Works may estimate. (d) No improvement work shall be commenced until improvement plans and specifications have been submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works, the fire chief, and the assistant city manager, or his or her representativeSan Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, the Building OƯicial, or their designees.
(e) Improvements shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications to permanent line and grade to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, or Building OƯicial in the case of private improvements, who shall supervise the work. All work shall be subject to such inspections as he or shethey may deem necessary to protect the interest of the City. In no case shall the improvements be less substantial than required by the design standards 784 of 786
and specifications and the City standard specifications in eƯect at the time the plans and specifications are approved, and all grading and major vegetation removal in connection therewith shall conform to all requirements of chapter 23.40.

26.60.020 MINIMUM IMPROVEMENTS.

The minimum improvements within the subdivision and the subdivision’s public right-ofway frontage which the subdivider shall make, or agree to make, at his or herits expense prior to acceptance and approval of the final map by the City shall be:
(a) GradingAll grading, curbs and, gutters, paving, (including base, subbase, and surface course), drainage pipes, and drainage structures; necessary to serve the subdivision and prevent flooding of the subdivision and frontage; and
(b) Stormwater treatment measures to treat runoƯ of the subdivision and the subdivision’s public right-of-way frontage (up to the center of the street), in accordance with State regulatory mandates; and
(1)(c) Street name signs, traƯic warning signs, required traƯic and crosswalk lines, guard rails, and the likepedestrian crossings, and other traƯic and pedestrian control devices, all in accordance with the City standard specifications;Engineering Standards and adopted City plans; and
(d) Sidewalks, pedestrian paths, curb ramps, and similar pedestrian features to provide either: (1) a 10-foot minimum sidewalk width, inclusive of pedestrian through zones and landscape strips and amenity zones (“eƯective sidewalk”); or (2) the minimum eƯective sidewalk width for adopted City plans, whichever is greater; and
(2)(e) Bicycle lanes, shared-use paths, and other bicycle facilities as identified in adopted City plans;
(3)(f) Fire hydrants with required appurtenances;
(4)(g) A water supply service system;
(5)(h) A sanitary sewer system and appurtenant structures with laterals for each lot intended for residential use, and for lots intended for other uses, such connections as may be required. All sewer laterals shall be indicated on plans giving the location from the closest lot corner and depth of lateral;
(6)(i) Street plantings, landscaping, trees, and irrigation pursuant to adopted City plans; (7)(j) AllUnderground communications and electrical distribution facilities; 785 of 786
(k) Undergrounding of existing overhead utilities;
(8)(l) A gas distribution system;
(9)(m) Earth retention structures as may be required;
(10)(n) Street roadway lighting, and for pedestrian corridors identified in an adopted City Plan, pedestrian-scale lighting;
(11)(o) Underground ducting and appurtenant structures for traƯic signals, where required.; and
(p) Public sanitary sewer system or storm drain system extensions or capacity improvements to serve new, increased, or intensified flows as identified through technical studies performed by the subdivider.

26.60.030 GUARANTEES.

The subdivider shall guarantee the workmanship of all improvements specified hereinabovein this chapter and installed by him or her or under his or herits direction, and. The subdivider shall make, or agree in writing to make, the necessary repairs or modifications for damage which may result from storm caused erosion or landslides and to correct errors in the design or construction of any facility for a period of one year from the date of completion as described below.

26.60.040 COMPLETION PLANS.

The subdivider shall cause the improvement plans to be amended to show the improvements "as built." Said "as built" plans shall be on polyester base film or electronic media.

Elevations related to the City datum shall be shown on the "as built" improvement plans as required above for all monuments in the subdivision.
786 of 786

San Mateo City CouncilAugust 17, 2026

San Mateo City Council
August 17, 2026