The project’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory and the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis guidelines. Per the VMT analysis in the DEIR, this project is found to have a less than significant VMT impact, therefore working towards meeting the State’s VMT reduction goals.
GOV2-4
GOV2-5
obstruct the transit-related goals and policies in Plan Bay Area as it supports transit facilities and transit-oriented development”. Please consider strengthening the language as the General Plan Update could be reinforced with stronger language to advance the stated transportation goals of Plan Bay Area and the State.
Caltrans encourages policies and programs related to land use and circulation that increase density, improve regional accessibility, and reduce VMT. The City may also consider the following strategies to reduce VMT, in addition to the priority strategies identified in Table 4.7-3:
-
-
-
Real-time transit information system
Transit subsidies
Unbundled parking requirement from housing developments GOV2-6
For additional TDM options, please refer to the Federal Highway Administration’s Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference, Chapter 8 (link).
Multimodal Transportation Planning
Please review and include the reference to the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2021) and the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018) in the DEIR. These two plans studied existing conditions for walking and biking along and across the State Transportation Network (STN) in the nine-county Bay Area and developed a list of location-based and prioritized needs.
GOV2-7
Please note that any Complete Streets reference should be updated to reflect Caltrans Director’s Policy 37 (link) that highlights the importance of addressing the needs of non-motorists and prioritizing space-efficient forms of mobility, while also facilitating goods movement in a manner with the least environmental and social impacts. This supersedes Deputy Directive 64-R1, and further builds upon its goals of focusing on the movement of people and goods.
GOV2-8
GOV2-9
Integrated Transportation and Land Use Planning
Please review and include the reference to the current California Transportation Plan (CTP) in the DEIR.
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”
762 of 922
Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
September 25, 2023
CTP 2050 envisions that the majority of new housing located near existing housing, jobs, and transit, and in close proximity to one another will reduce vehicle travel and greenhouse gas emissions, and be accessible and affordable for all Californians, including disadvantaged and low-income communities. The location, density, and affordability of future housing will dictate much of our future travel patterns, and our ability to achieve the vision outlined in CTP 2050. Caltrans encourages the City to consider and explore the potential of excess state-owned property for affordable housing development, per Executive Order N-06-19.
GOV2-9
Cont.
Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.
GOV2-10
Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Marley Mathews, Transportation Planner, via [email protected]. GOV2-11
For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please contact LDR- [email protected].
Sincerely,
YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”
763 of 922
Comment Letter #ORG1
September 25, 2023
Ms. Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
City of San Mateo, Community Development Department
330 20th Ave.
San Mateo, CA 94403
Dear Ms. Sandhir:
Congratulations on completing the Draft EIR for the San Mateo Draft 2040 General Plan. It is a well written, visually appealing document.
The San Mateo Heritage Alliance appreciates that you have incorporated many of our comments on the General Plan policies to identify historic resources more broadly in San Mateo and use more appropriate terminology for the definition of historic resources.
ORG1-1
ORG1-2
The Draft EIR Cultural Resources section, however, is incomplete. The section is therefore inadequate and must be revised and recirculated for public comment for these substantial reasons:
1. 4.4.1.2, Existing Conditions section is missing a description of at least two National Register of Historic Places eligible historic districts—Baywood and Yoshiko Yamanouchi House.
2. The impact discussion is missing an analysis of the project effects on historic districts.
3. The impact conclusion is not supported by the impact analysis.
ORG1-3
ORG1-4
4. General Plan policies are not reliable mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the significant adverse impacts that may be caused by the project. The City of San Mateo has failed to comply with its General Plan policies regarding historic resources for the past 25+ years.
5. CEQA is not a reliable mitigation measure for the significant adverse impacts that may be caused by the project. The City of San Mateo’s compliance with CEQA has been selective, and most often used to justify demolition and not protection of historic resources.
ORG1-5
ORG1-6
We offer the following comments on the Draft EIR.
4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4.1.2 Existing Conditions
p. 4.4‐9, para. 2: The existing conditions section is not complete because it does not include two documented historic districts:
1. The Baywood Historic District is bounded by Alameda de las Pulgas, Crystal Springs Road, Eaton Road, Virginia Avenue, Edinburgh Street, and Notre Dame.
ORG1-7
2. The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District is at 1007 East 5th Avenue.
The City received the Baywood Historic Asset Analysis (Brandi 2022) in April 2022. This report identifies the historic context of the Baywood neighborhood, the boundary of the Baywood Historic District, and the criteria under which the Historic District is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This report should be referenced in the EIR. In addition, San Mateo Heritage Alliance is submitting an P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
764 of 922
Ms. Manira Sandhir
September 25, 2023
additional report on the Baywood Historic District that identifies the district boundaries, provides information on each property in the district, and identifies the contributors to the district and the properties that are not contributors.
ORG1-7
cont.The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District has 9 resources on the property including 3 buildings, 3 sites, and 3 structures. This information should be included in the Draft EIR and the effects on the districts from increased adjacent traffic should be analyzed. The effects on the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District is potentially significant due to the increased levels of traffic and pollution.
4.4.4.1 Regulatory Framework
The discussions of cultural resource regulations does not include the regulatory framework for historic districts. The treatment of historic districts may be different than the treatment of individual historic properties. It is important to understand the regulatory framework for districts because the City has four historic districts; two identified as part of the 1989 Historic Building Survey, the Baywood Historic District, and the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District.
ORG1-8
ORG1-9
CULT 1:
Thank you for acknowledging the potential impact of incompatible new buildings adjacent to historic buildings or districts. The City’s practice has been to only address the direct effects of the project on historic resources. The impact of new development on the Downtown Historic District has not been analyzed or mitigated (e.g., Prometheus building at the former Trag’s site). p. 4.4‐11, para. 2 states:
“properties in the EIR Study Area that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National and California Registers would be categorized as historic resources even if they are not formally landmarked by the City.”
This statement cannot be relied upon because the City has not followed these procedures. The City did not include the Baywood or Yamanouchi districts in this EIR. The City disregarded the Baywood historic district report (Brandi 2022) that outlined the boundaries of the district and identified Baywood as an eligible historic district, as well as a memo that indicated the property was a contributor to the district. The City did not treat the property as a historic resource and permitted demolition of the property without conducting the appropriate CEQA review.
ORG1-10
p. 4.4‐11:
Policy CD 5.3: Historic Resources Definition. Define historic resources as buildings, structures, sites, and districts that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources, designated resources in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, and resources found to be eligible through documentation in a historic resources report.
ORG1-11The City currently treats contributors to the Downtown Historic District as historic resources. This definition of historic resources only include districts. The City Historic Resources Code, which only applies to the Downtown Historic District currently states:
27.66.040 CONFORMANCE WITH STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES.
2 765 of 922
Ms. Manira Sandhir
September 25, 2023
(a) City-wide. All exterior modifications of individually eligible and contributor buildings (e.g., exterior building additions and alterations) shall conform with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures, 1990 Edition.
This code implies contributors are treated as historic resources. Will contributors in new districts be required to follow the Secretary of Interior’s guidelines for exterior modifications? ORG1-11
cont.Please add “contributors to eligible historic districts” to the definition of historic resources in Policy CD
5.3, to be consistent with how Downtown historic resources are treated. Contributors to historic districts must be protected in order to protect the integrity of the district.
Please provide a reference or more information about the requirements of a historic resources report.
Impacts to Historic Districts
The impact analysis should address the potential for direct and indirect significant effects on eligible historic districts and their contexts, especially for areas that have not yet been fully surveyed. The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District could be adversely affected by the proposed project, including increased traffic and the reconstruction of the 3rd/4th Avenue Interchange. Please revise the analysis to include an analysis of the impacts on the historic district.
ORG1-12
The Aragon and San Mateo Park neighborhoods border El Camino Real development areas. Hayward Park borders the railroad development corridor and El Camino Real development corridor. The analysis is incomplete because it does not consider the potential for direct and indirect impacts on unsurveyed potential historic districts identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey. The impact analysis should be revised to address this new impact.
General Plan policies are not a reliable means of mitigating potential significant adverse impacts to historic resources because the City fails to comply with its own policies.
The City of San Mateo has for 13 years disregarded its adopted General Plan policies regarding historic resources.
The City has failed to comply with current General Plan policy C/OS 8.2 Historic Districts.
The policy requires the City to “Consider the protections of concentrations of buildings which convey the flavor of local historical periods or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, after additional study.” and “In consideration of future historic districts, specific regulations to maintain historic character shall be developed.” The City continues to disregard this policy by refusing to acknowledge identified eligible historic districts and permitting demolition of historic resources to occur unabated and unaffected by its General Plan policies.
ORG1-13
The City has failed to comply with current General Plan policy C/OS 8.4 Inventory Maintenance. This policy directs the City to “Establish and maintain and inventory architecturally, culturally and historically significant structures and sites.” It also warns that “without maintenance, the inventory becomes unreliable and unusable.” For 34 years the City has failed to maintain or update the 1989 Historic Building Survey resulting in the continual and unabated loss of historic resources.
3 766 of 922
Ms. Manira Sandhir
September 25, 2023
Policy CD 5.7: Demolition Alternatives
Please add the requirement to identify demolition alternatives for contributors to a historic district.
ORG1-14
ORG1-15
Action CD 5.8: Historic Resources Context Statements, Action CD 5.9: Historic Resources Survey, and Action CD 5.10: Historic Preservation Ordinance
These actions imply they will be conducted sequentially (Prepare neighborhood‐specific historic context statements prior to updating the historic resources survey.) Please update the Historic Preservation Ordinance first to address the two new eligible historic districts (the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District and Baywood Historic District). p. 4.4‐13 Significance without mitigation: Less than significant Conclusion.
The conclusion that the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse impact on historical resources is contrary to the discussion of the many ways the proposed project could have significant adverse impacts on historical resources:
“Implementation of the proposed project could have the potential to directly impact cultural resources by altering land use regulations that govern these properties or surrounding sites.” “Potential impacts from future development on, or adjacent to, historical resources could lead to demolition…inappropriate modification…inappropriate new construction… incompatible new buildings.” ORG1-16
“Development activities under the proposed project therefore have the potential to be incompatible with historical resources, which could be a significant impact.” “If new development were to directly impact existing resources, impacts on historical resources could be significant.”
Based on the above statements from the impact discussion, the conclusion should be amended to read “the proposed project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change to historical resources.”
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not a reliable means of mitigating potential significant adverse impacts to historic resources.
CEQA does not prevent demolition of historic resources. The City can make overriding considerations that housing is more important than historic resources. The impact analysis does not support the conclusion of no significant impact with no mitigation. The Draft EIR (p. 4.4‐13)states:
“Under CEQA, conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties would normally mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because the proposed General Plan is a program level document, it is not possible to determine whether individual projects under the proposed project would be able to conform with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. … The requirement for subsequent CEQA review, pursuant to state law, would minimize the potential for new development to indirectly affect the significance of existing historical resources to the maximum extent practicable.”
ORG1-17
This statement suggests that some significant impacts may not be mitigated through compliance with the Secretary of Interiorʹs Standards or through CEQA review. If no additional mitigation is imposed the project could result in significant unavoidable adverse effects. Additional mitigation measures should be presented.
4 767 of 922
Ms. Manira Sandhir
September 25, 2023
Recirculation is Necessary
The Draft EIR should be recirculated in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5. Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification because the impact analysis is incomplete and new mitigation measures are necessary. The lack of the impact analysis and mitigation measures deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment.
ORG1-18
CULT-4
The proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative cultural resources impacts in the area.
The discussion under this impact does not describe the specific or even a general discussion of the number of historic resources lost through development to date. It is not possible to credibly assess cumulative impacts with no discussion of impacts to date.
The Downtown Historic District has been eroded on all sides:
The entrance at Third Avenue and El Camino Real
Prometheus building on Baldwin
Redevelopment of Donut Delite and Talbots
The 6‐7 story buildings on 3rd and 4th east of the railroad.
ORG1-19
Please provide the number of downtown historic buildings and contributors modified or demolished to date. What is the cumulative impact threshold for losses of historic buildings in the historic districts, especially the Downtown Historic District? Mitigation is necessary for the potentially significant cumulative effects.
I look forward to reviewing the revised Draft EIR with the missing analyses and mitigation measures. ORG1-20 Sincerely,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
5 768 of 922
Comment Letter #ORG2
ORG2-1
ORG2-2
769 of 922
ORG2-2
cont.
770 of 922
ORG2-2
cont.
771 of 922
ORG2-2
cont.
ORG2-3
772 of 922
ORG2-3
cont.
ORG2-4
ORG2-5
773 of 922
Comment Letter #ORG3
November 1, 2023
City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave.
San Mateo, CA 94403
SUBJECT: General Plan Policies Regarding Historic Resources, Historic Districts and Contributors Dear City Council Members:
In previous submittals and meetings, the San Mateo Heritage Alliance has stressed the importance of continuing to treat buildings that contribute to historic districts (contributors) as historic resources. The current General Plan and Historic Resources Code includes contributors in the definition of historic resources.
We are concerned that subtle words changes in the 2040 General Plan are significantly changing City policy:
1. Changing the definition of historic resources to remove contributors to historic districts.
2. The word contributor in Chapter 10 Glossary has no bearing on policy
3. Changing preservation of historic districts from protecting concentrations of important buildings to protecting concentrations of historic buildings (meaning those buildings already evaluated and designated historic) ORG3-1
We request that the Council revisit the policies in the Community Design and Historic Resources Element and make the following changes:
Policy CD 5.1: Historic Preservation. Actively identify and preserve historic resources and concentrations of historic resources and concentrations of buildings which convey the flavor of local historical periods, are culturally significant, or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, when they meet national, State, or local criteria. Historic resources include individual properties, districts, and sites that maintain San Mateo’s sense of place and special identity, and enrich our understanding of the city’s history and continuity with the past.
Policy CD 5-3: Historic Resources Definition. Define historic resources as buildings, structures, sites, and districts, and contributors to districts that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources, designated resources in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, and resources found to be eligible through documentation in a historic resources report.
These changes will ensure continued protection of historic districts and the buildings that make the districts special. Additional discussion is included in the attachment. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
President
P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
774 of 922
ATTACHMENT
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES POLICIES
Definition of Historic Resources Should Include Contributors to Historic Districts One of the goals of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance is to preserve and protect historic resources and the contributor buildings in historic districts. The City of Redwood City, San Francisco, Portland, and many other cities protect contributors in historic districts. The City’s current policies support protection of contributors in the Downtown and Glazenwood Historic Districts. The General Plan should be clear on this policy.
Only the historic district is the historic resource subject to CEQA. Contributors do not qualify as historic resources or the consideration provided historic resources. The City has latitude to designate any important properties as historic resources. The Cityʹs policies in the current General Plan and the Historic Resources Preservation Code currently support the protection of contributors as historic resources, as do many cities.
The wording changes in the combined Policy CD 5.1 restrict the definition of historic resources and protection to only those resources that are individually eligible for listing on the State or National Register, which is a very high bar to achieve protection. There is no protection at all (even the minimal consideration of a CEQA analysis) for contributor buildings in a district until the point where so many buildings in the district are altered that the historic integrity is lost. ORG3-2 The current 2030 General Plan defines historic resources as:
C/OS 8.1: Historic Preservation. Preserve, where feasible, historic buildings as follows:
d. Historic building shall mean buildings which are on or individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or Downtown Historic District contributor buildings as designated in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, or as determined to be eligible through documentation contained in a historic resources report.
The 2040 General Plan revised the definition of historic resources to remove the word “contributor:” Policy CD 5-3: Historic Resources Definition. Define historic resources as buildings, structures, sites, and districts that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources, designated resources in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, and resources found to be eligible through documentation in a historic resources report.
Deciding to treat contributors as historic resources is a policy decision. The language changes in the 2040 General Plan change the level of protection of buildings in historic districts, which is a significant impact not addressed in the Draft EIR. A new significant impact is cause for recirculation of the Draft EIR.
November 1, 2023 2
775 of 922
The goal to protect contributors to historic districts is consistent with the 2030 General Plan policy O/S 8.2:
C/OS 8.2: Historic Districts. Consider the protection of concentrations of buildings which convey the flavor of local historical periods or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, after additional study.
ORG3-2
cont.
Definition of Historic District Changes
The Draft 2040 General Plan revised the policy to remove the word “districts,” and substituted “concentrations of historic resources” for “concentrations of buildings.” The policy now has a totally different meaning. The 2030 General Plan policy is to protect a group of important buildings. The new language in Policy CD 5.1/2 only protects groups of buildings that meet the definition of historic resources:
those that are on or individually eligible for listing on the State or National Register. 2030 C/OS 8.1: Historic Preservation. Preserve, where feasible, historic buildings as follows:
d. Historic building shall mean buildings which are on or individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or Downtown Historic District contributor buildings as designated in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, or as determined to be eligible through documentation contained in a historic resources report. 2040 Policy CD 5.2 Historic Resources Preservation. Actively identify and preserve concentrations of historic resources, which convey the flavor of local historical periods, are culturally significant, or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, when they meet national, State, or local criteria.
The definition of Historic Resources in the 2040 General Plan Chapter 10 includes contributors only in Downtown and Glazenwood, and is a narrow definition of historic resources. As stated by Joanna Jansen (Placeworks) at the October 30 City Council meeting, the definitions in the Glossary do not represent the policies. ORG3-3
2040 Chapter 10 Glossary: Historic Resource. A historic resource is a building, structure, site, or district that has one or more of the following characteristics:
Listed in or determined to be on or individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources.
Identified as a Downtown Historic District or Glazenwood Historic District contributor building as designated in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report.
Determined to be eligible through documentation contained in a historic resources report.
Zoning Code includes Contributors
The City of San Mateo Zoning Code sections 27.66.020 Applicability, 27.66.040 Conformance with Standards and Guidelines and 27.66.060 Demolition all treat contributors as historic resources and in the same way as individually eligible properties.
27.66.020 APPLICABILITY.
(a) Historic Buildings and Downtown Historic District. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all individually eligible buildings in the City, all individually eligible and contributor buildings within the November 1, 2023 3
776 of 922
Downtown Specific Plan area, and all structures located in the Downtown Historic District, as adopted by resoluꢀon of the City Council.
(b) The City Council by resoluꢀon may add to the provisions of this chapter any building which it finds meets the criteria of contribuꢀng to the historic importance of downtown and the City. Such an acꢀon shall be based on Naꢀonal Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources criteria and documented in a form consistent with the City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey. (c) Individually Eligible and Contributor Buildings. For the purposes of this chapter, the terms "individually eligible building" shall mean those buildings as idenꢀfied in the City of San Mateo General Plan. "Contributor building" shall mean those buildings idenꢀfied as such and located within the Downtown Historic District as adopted by resoluꢀon of the City Council and idenꢀfied in the City of San Mateo General Plan. (d) For the purposes of this chapter, the terms "individually eligible building" and "contributor building" and "Downtown Historic District" shall mean those buildings and district idenꢀfied as such by resoluꢀon of the City Council or idenꢀfied in the City of San Mateo Downtown Specific Plan.
Discussion at 10/2 City Council Meeting
At the City Council Meeting on 10/2 the Council members expressed a lack of understanding about what contributors meant. It was stated that it does not matter if it is in the General Plan or in the implementation language to be addressed later in the ordinance. I strongly disagree. The City currently has a policy to treat contributors as historic resources. The new General Plan dilutes and changes the policy (see above).
ORG3-3
cont.We were disappointed staff did not describe what contributors mean and that they have no protection under the current language. That discussion would have allowed the City Council to make an informed decision at the time. We request the City Council revisit these policies.
Updating the Historic Preservation Ordinance
I understand that the City will be updating the Historic Preservation Ordinance next year but I believe the conversation of historic preservation policy in the General Plan 2040 is very relevant right now and should not be delayed to the implementation phase. The General Plan is the place to define policies.
Updating the City Website Regarding Historic Districts
We understand staff will be updating the City Website with more information about what a historic district contributor is and the ramifications of a property being designated. That is good news for the Baywood community. Many people are looking to the City for clarification of what it means to be in a Historic District. Why can’t the City tell us now? Either contributors are protected or they are not. The current plan protects them. The slight changes in the wording in the 2040 General Plan removes the protection.
Demolition Policies
Policy CD 5.7 Demolition Alternatives. Require an applicant to submit alternatives to preserve a historic resource as part of any planning application that proposes full demolition. Implement preservation methods unless health and safety requirements cannot be met or the City Council makes a finding explaining the specific reasons why the social, economic, legal, technical, or other beneficial aspects of the proposed demolition outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts to the historic resource. If a designated historic resource cannot be preserved, require City approval before the demolition of a historic resource.
November 1, 2023 4
777 of 922
What is the definition of demolition for this policy? Leaving one wall is near total demolition. Requiring an alternatives analysis is a good idea. The staff should be empowered to evaluate the alternatives provided by the applicant for veracity, feasibility, and adequacy. There should also be a requirement for mitigation measures. The language should be clarified to add contributors to the definition of historic resources.
ORG3-3
cont.
November 1, 2023 5
778 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB1
From: Rowan Paul <
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 7:33 AM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject: Height limits in San Mateo
Dear City of San Mateo,
I am very concerned about the changed building height limits for new construction.
PUB1-1
PUB1-2
Already for our East 5th avenue house. We have lost sunlight due to the new affordable housing building that came up with more floors than was in the original design that was approved. This is very concerning for the town if this continues.
For the 4th Street building that is coming up and others in the future, I am very concerned about the increased density resulting increased traffic. Increased crime increase noise, decrease sunlight for neighborhoods, and generally a lack of correspondingly increasing infrastructure such as parking, policing, file education, electricity, plumbing, etc. That typically does not keep up with the density increase.
San Mateo is not San Francisco or San Jose. I do not want it to turn into Redwood City which has turned into a personality deficient overcrowded downtown with significantly more crime than San Mateo.
Please keep the buildings below five floors, preferably one to three floors. PUB1-3 I am welcome to discussion.
Thank you
Rowan Paul, M.D.
Regenerative Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine
Rowan V Paul M.D., INC
RegenCore Method
Head Team Physician San Francisco Ballet
Assistant Professor Geisel Dartmouth School of Medicine
CHINESE PROVERB
The inferior physician treats the disease once it occurs.
The mediocre physician prevents the disease from coming back.
The superior physician prevents the disease from ever occurring.
779 of 922
HIPAA: The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information, including patient information protected by federal and state privacy laws. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
780 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB2
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 12:01 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: [Konveio Inquiry] Land Use map & densities
Frances Souza sent a message using the contact form at
https://strivesanmateo.konveio.com/contact.
As a resident of Central San Mateo, I am requesting "RESIDENTIAL LOW I" be used on the south side of E. 4th Avenue, both sides of E. 5th Avenue from S. Delaware to S. Amphlett and on the West side of S. Delaware from E. 5th - 9th Avenue. This is more compatible with our current neighborhood and will help protect and preserve our neighborhood and reduce demolition of our single family homes and small duplexes. This will also support the General Plan's vision to "Enhance San Mateo's Neighborhood Fabric and Quality of Life." It will also address the Plan's goal of preservation of historic areas, as these streets are predominantly beautiful pre-war homes and duplexes which include Craftsmen, Spanish Revival, Tudor Revival and Victorian styles of architecture.
PUB2-1
781 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB3
From: Jerry Davis
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:54 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Do not reclassify 5th and 9th Avenues to Arterials There are 10,210 vehicles a day on 5th Avenue that’s just too much traffic.
Whatsmore, the Nelson Nygaard Central Neighborhood Long Term Strategy January 2006, recommended traffic circles on 5th and 9th Avenues. 5th Avenue is currently a narrow Local street and 9th Avenue is a Collector. We need to keep 5th Avenue as a local street from S Delaware to S Amphlett and keep 9th Avenue as a Collector from S Delaware to S Amphlett. It would also be a good idea to reclassify S Humboldt as a local street from 4th Avenue to 9th Avenue. 5th Avenue is a proposed Bike route which conflicts with the new re- classification. It is currently impossible for me to find parking on my own street South Eldorado. I mostly need to park on 5th Ave. Traffic has already been generated, especially along 4th and 5th Avenues due to the new development in downtown San Mateo. Traffic and trucks west of the Railroad should be route through El Camino Real, 92 and 101 the State Highways, not through 4th, 5th, and 9th Avenues.
PUB3-1
Residential parking is already a nightmare.
We have requested traffic calming since 1991.
How can 5th Avenue, a proposed bicycle route exist without traffic calming from S Delaware to S Amphlett? This new classification to Arterial is simply a conflict to the General Plan.
Jerry Davis
782 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB4
From: Francie Souza
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 6:58 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; General Plan <[email protected]> Subject: Comments on General Plan
I am a resident of San Mateo and have additional comments on the General Plan, as outlined below: PUB4-1
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
My comments relate to POLICE under Public Services in the General Plan.
It was noted that the SMPD staffing ratios of 1.07 sworn officers to 1,000 residents is below the national staffing average of 2.0 sworn personnel per 1,000 residents and expansion of SMPD facilities may be needed to accommodate increases in staffing to maintain response times. It was noted that the “proposed project” would increase demand on police protection services, but growth would occur incrementally, therefore minimizing the impact.
The EIR states…Payment of police protection impact fees and special taxes, consistency with the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions and compliance with the regulations would ensure that the SMPD is involved as future development is allowed under the proposed project. Though SMPD has indicated that existing stations would be inadequate to accommodate future needs, it has not yet developed any specific plans to construct new facilities. Therefore, it would be speculative to assess the physical effects of those future construction projects and the project’s potential contribution to those effects. Pursuant to Section 15145 of the State CEQA Guidelines, if a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, no further evaluation is required. This doesn’t seem wise.
PUB4-2
With additional comments, it was concluded that the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to police protection services and cumulative impacts would be less than significant and no further evaluation is required.
My request is that we do evaluate our police services more carefully now and determine how we can move toward proactively planning for this increase in demand that will naturally happen with the growth outlined in our state mandated housing plan. The approach in the General Plan seems to “kick the can down the road”. Already, police are stretched when it comes to proactively monitoring firework displays and other safety issues that have to be prioritized “out” for more serious issues.
Transportation, section 4.15-8
It appears on the map that 5th Avenue and 9th Avenue are designated as “Arterials”. As defined, Arterial streets are ‘signalized’ with higher capacity to accommodate traffic volumes offering continuous movement with coordinated and interconnected signal systems.
PUB4-3
5th Avenue and 9th Avenue are neighborhood streets, with traffic circles on 5th to slow traffic and both streets serve as local streets in the Central Neighborhood, which include primarily single family/duplex homes. 5 th Avenue is also proposed as a bicycle boulevard with traffic calming from S. Delaware to S.
783 of 922
Amphlett, so the Arterial designation is a conflict with the General Plan.
Delaware is also designated as an Arterial street in the Draft EIR, but also runs through the Sunnybrae neighborhood, including the area around Sunnybrae Elementary School which has a 15mph speed zone. PUB4-3 cont.
These Arterial street designations need to be reconsidered in order to protect our neighborhoods, the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and children in school zones. The reclassification will also increase pollution in the Central Neighborhood which conflicts with our goal of neighborhoods free of environmental health hazards. Please do not reclassify 5th and 9th Avenues to Arterials.
Thank you for considering,
Frances Souza
784 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB5
From: David Light
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:13 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on San Mateo General Plan Draft EIR
Dear San Mateo Planning Commission,
PUB5-1
I would like to comment on sections of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Draft General Plan 2040.
There is a seismic hazard map in Section 4.6 on Geology and Soils showing the risk of soil liquefaction during a major earthquake. In this map of San Mateo the liquefaction risk is divided into two regions, a moderate risk region roughly from the downtown to Hwy 101 and a high risk region from Hwy 101 to the Bay. I am concerned that developers will certainly prefer to locate new multi-story projects on lower risk areas rather than on historic landfill areas that are at higher risk. However, many of our single family and duplex home neighborhoods are currently located on the desirable moderate risk liquefaction areas. These single family home neighborhoods should not be displaced by large developments. San Mateo needs to protect and preserve our charming older homes in single family and duplex neighborhoods that make San Mateo a desirable place to live.
PUB5-2
Section 4.7 on Greenhouse Gas Emissions discusses the need to reduce carbon dioxide from home appliances, cars and trucks. New developments located near Caltrain or SamTrans public transportation stops are routinely allowed to provide less parking spaces in their plans. However, there is a continued lack of cooperation between Caltrain and BART and there is low ridership on SamTrans and Caltrain, so our city planners need to be realistic about the use of public transportation by workers and residents in San Mateo. New building projects must provide adequate parking spaces and include parking with chargers for electric cars as a more realistic solution to greenhouse gas emissions.
PUB5-3
Thank you for considering my comments!
- David Light
785 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB6
September 12, 2023
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Comments on San Mateo General Plan Draft EIR
4.1 AESTHETICS
1. San Mateo deserves the best Objective Design Standards since there are many distinct neighborhood zones. Each neighborhood has its own visual and physical character and deserves respect. (Action CD 7.6: Objective Design Standards) PUB6-1
PUB6-2
2. Commercial development adjacent to residential. New infill building designs need to respect existing community character, using established building designs found in San Mateo. Encourage new developments to be compatible and harmonious with building types and architectural styles prevalent in San Mateo especially with the surrounding residential neighborhoods and Downtown Historic District. (Action CD 8.7)
3. Project Design Review for proposed projects in the Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods by a qualified historic preservation architect/consultant. Aesthetics of new illuminated contemporary glass buildings will have an impact on existing older neighborhoods and the Historic Downtown.
PUB6-3
PUB6-4
4. Street lighting standards - More green street lamps are needed at dark residential intersections and longer residential blocks. This impacts safety for pedestrians and bicyclists in Equity Priority and underserved neighborhood areas in the Central Neighborhood and North Central Neighborhood.
5. Title 25 Signs - protect the character of older residential neighborhoods, and prohibit neon commercial signs on new tall buildings facing towards surrounding residential neighborhoods at night. Housing is at the upper levels in new buildings.
Prohibit older lighted outdoor billboards advertising alcohol in Equity Priority Neighborhoods along 101 which generate blight. (Policy CD 6.5: US 101 Frontage, Policy CD 6.6: Signage, Policy CD 6.10 Nighttime Lighting) PUB6-5
PUB6-6
6. Neighborhood Beautification - Encourage drought tolerant green landscaping in residential neighborhoods and commercial projects and expand the tree canopies in front yards and plant more street trees through street tree plan. Especially in Equity Priority Neighborhoods.
1 786 of 922
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Neighborhood preservation and protections are needed. We need updated surveys in Central, North Central Neighborhoods, and other older neighborhoods as possible Historic Districts. We need protection of pre-war homes and small duplexes for middle and low-income families in Equity Priority Neighborhoods.
PUB6-7
2. Avoid demolition of homes in older neighborhoods. Preserve the visible exteriors from the street of existing Craftsmen, Spanish and Tudor Revival, and Victorian homes in older neighborhoods. Follow the existing patterns in the neighborhoods. The home need to be compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Historic Resources - Page 189
PUB6-8
PUB6-9
3. New infill building designs need to respect existing community character, using established building designs found in San Mateo. Encourage new developments to be compatible and harmonious with building types and architectural styles prevalent in San Mateo. Policy LU 4.2 - Quality of Downtown Development.
4. There will be a new Historic District called the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House at 1007 East 5th Avenue. There are 9 resources on the property which include: 3 buildings, 3 sites, and 3 structures. Documentation will be provided for the Draft EIR, for protection from adverse environmental impacts.
PUB6-10
PUB6-115. Demolition permits should be issued at the same time as building permits, and not before.
4.11 NOISE - The impact of the build-out results in the unacceptable cumulative traffic noise within the EIR study areas. No mitigation measures are available according to the EIR.
PUB6-12
PUB6-13
1. Existing noise contours - the areas along S Amphett/Idaho are in the 65-70 dab range. Since higher sound walls haven’t been constructed along Highway 101, can the City plant more trees along the sound wall between Poplar and 3rd Avenue and 5th Avenue and Folkstone. North Central, Central, and Sunnybrae would benefit.
Italian Cypress trees will grow to 30 feet and will require little maintenance. Ryland Bay in Bay Meadows has trees planted trees along the sound wall. Page 403. 2 787 of 922
2. Temporary construction noise - stagger the projects so the noise, GHG, truck impacts, vibration impacts are not so severe. There will be 17 new projects in Area 4.
Five projects have been completed in the Downtown. Can you take the trucks out through state highways through El Camino Real, 92, to 101 to reduce the dust and toxic pollution. There can be up to 90 trucks a day from Windy Hill’s Block 21 project.
We need to reduce construction impacts in Equity Priority Neighborhoods. Page 408 PUB6-14
3. Place more receptacles and monitors for noise, construction vibrations and water down dust impacts between 3rd, 4th and 5th Avenues in Central and North Central Neighborhoods to monitor adverse environmental impacts with multiple new construction projects. Noise monitors are lacking on the map on page 394.
PUB6-
15 4. Reduce the heights to 3 stories in land-use map especially 4th & 5th Avenues and west side of S Delaware in the Central Neighborhood - (Residential Low II). By reducing heights in (Mixed Use High I and Mixed Use High II) in the Downtown, this will reduce the cut-through traffic volumes and the noise impacts in the Central and North Central Neighborhoods.
PUB6-
16 4.15
TRANSPORTATION
1. What does the reconstruction of the 3rd/4th Avenue Interchange consist of? PUB6- 17 When will this occur? We need better lighting for the pedestrians and bicyclists on the overpass at night. Page 486
2. Bicycle network - Bicycle boulevards include traffic calming and low traffic volumes such as 5th Avenue from S Delaware to S Amphlett. Keep 5th Avenue as a local street versus an Arterial. This is a conflict in the General Plan and needs to addressed in the General Plan EIR. Page 494, Page 491 Proposed Street Classification Fig 4.15-1.
PUB6-
18 3. 42% of GHG emissions in San Mateo originate from vehicular trips generated by San Mateo residents and businesses. Why does San Mateo generate such a high percentage of GHG emissions? We need solutions to increase deficiencies in transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes. Page 495
PUB6-
19 4. The proposed project increases the use of roadway facilities in the EIR study PUB6-
20study. This increases cut-through traffic volumes, GHG emissions, VMT and noise levels. Why are the current TDM strategies not working well? 3 788 of 922
5. Policy C 6.5 states to implement neighborhood traffic calming on residential streets to reduce cut-through traffic volumes to address noise impacts. We need to implement traffic calming on 5th and 9th Avenues from S Delaware to S Amhlett. Do not reclassify these streets to Arterials. Equity Priority Neighborhoods need more traffic calming. Page 500
PUB6-
21 6. Policy C 6.6 - Do not put a truck route on 5th Avenue from S Delaware to S Amphlett on 5th Avenue a proposed bike boulevard. Do not put a truck route on S Humboldt from 4th to 9th Avenue. We need to make the streets safer for the bicyclists on 5th and S Humboldt, to and from the 3rd/4th Avenue overpass.
PUB6-
22 7. Reduce VMT, GHG emissions, traffic volumes, diesel particulates, and noise on 5th and 9th Avenue with traffic circles and keep the 4-way stop signs. San Mateo Glendale Village has traffic circles and 4-way stop signs. Nelson Nygaard suggested long narrow traffic circles on 9th Avenue in the 2006 Central Neighborhood Long Term 23 PUB6-
Strategy report, along with the TAP studies. Page 501 Equity Priority Neighborhoods
8. Action - C 3.9 - Currently the Downtown Mall is on B Street from 2nd to 3rd PUB6-
24Avenues. Please extend this Pedestrian Mall from 3rd Avenue to 5th Avenue to reduce the traffic volumes. Page 502
Other Transportation questions in the Draft EIR:
9. Increase Traffic Demand Measures (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle cut- PUB6- 25through traffic through residential streets at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Avenues and reduce traffic noise.
10. Reduce the heights to 3 stories in land-use map especially 4th & 5th Avenues and west side of S Delaware in the Central Neighborhood - (Residential Low II). By reducing heights in (Mixed Use High I and Mixed Use High II) in the Downtown, this will reduce the cut-through traffic volumes through these streets.
PUB6-
26 11. What are the ADT volumes on Peninsula and Poplar Avenues from Delaware to S Humboldt? Are they included in the Draft EIR? It is difficult to locate current ADT traffic volumes information on streets in the Draft EIR. Traffic volumes needs to be listed in the Table of Contents.
PUB6-
27 12. What is the percentage of Burlingame traffic that use the Poplar Exit in San Mateo?
PUB6
-28
4 789 of 922
13. What is the percentage of traffic from the Poplar Exit will redirect to 3rd, 4th, and 5th Avenues if the Peninsula Interchange is built? Has that traffic volume been included in the ADT numbers for 3rd, 4th, 5th Avenues and S Humboldt in the Draft EIR for 2040?
PUB6
-29
14. We need a separate study for the 6 grade separations. Why do we need these many separations between 1st Avenue and 9th Avenues, if new developments are suppose to use Caltrain? Why doesn’t Peninsula Avenue have a grade separation? Grade separations are designed to move more vehicular traffic and grade separations will increase VMT and diesel particulates in the Equity Priority Neighborhoods. What other mitigations do you propose to reduce these additional adverse environmental impacts?
PUB6-
30 15. Central has been an underserved neighborhood and the Equity Priority boundaries should be extended to 9th Avenue (both sides) and include streets from Delaware to S Amphlett. This Draft EIR for 2040 is proposing 5 arterials in the Central Neighborhood with no residential protections. We do not want any parking removed on 5th Avenue or adding more traffic lanes. We need to reduce the traffic noise and volume, decrease the VMT, and the diesel particulates. In 2006, the TAP studies gave us 2250 to 3390 cars on 5th and now this will increase to 10,210 ADT with existing and new projects. Do not reclassify 5th and 9th Avenues, but keep the current street classifications for these 2 streets.
PUB6-
31 16. What is causing traffic to decrease on 3rd and 4th Avenues between S Humboldt and Delaware and increase on 5th Avenue a local street east of S Delaware in these projections? Traffic has increased on S Delaware between 5th and 9th Avenues since 2015, and construction workers are now parking on S Delaware between 7th and 9th Avenues, and 7th Avenue between Delaware and Eldorado.
Developers need a parking plan for their construction workers, or park on the vacant lot at Block 21. Page 993
PUB6
-32
17. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program is a living document and needs to be updated to better address cut-through traffic volumes. It needs more flexibility to address the traffic impacts on local, collector and arterials in residential neighborhoods.
PUB6
-33
Thank you.
Best,
Laurie Watanuki
5 790 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB7
From: Michael
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3:57 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Killough, Maurine
Francie Souza David Light
Subject: Comments on Draft EIR for Proposed General Plan 2040 Project Commissioners - I'm writing to comment on the draft General Plan 2040 EIR, specifically sections 4-2 Air Quality, 4-3 Biological Resources, 4-5 Energy, 4-10 Land Use and Planning, and 4-13 Population and Housing.
PUB7-1
PUB7-2
Overall, this EIR and the proposed General Plan make a lot of assumptions that people will not drive, and that transportation will be readily available - these are not reasonable current or foreseeable future realities. This EIR and the GP plan for unlikely and extreme levels of growth - 40%! - that will materially worsen air quality, traffic, and other key areas as indicated by "significant and unavoidable" determinations. Why are we planning for such absurd growth levels? This EIR and the proposed General Plan focus a lot on per capita statistics. We cannot lose sight of the absolute numbers here, however. Growth/worsening/increases in population This EIR and the proposed General Plan claim throughout to require balancing jobs and office. Given the massive current imbalance, the focus should be almost entirely on housing. And not luxury, rental-only housing - affordable housing. And existing housing stock should be preserved as it is generally more affordable, and gets replaced (gentrified) by unaffordable housing, of which there is no shortage in San Mateo.
PUB7-3
Furthermore, this report uses a lot of non-committal language - "suggest", "promote", "support", "encourage". These are meaningless without concrete legislation, quantifiable targets that someone is accountable for, and funding to ensure aspirational plans are actually put in place, and impacts are truly understood and mitigated. We've seen way too many examples of pie-in-the-sky desires that never materialize because of language like this. You get your project, developers get rich - what do our neighborhoods get? Blight, noise, pollution, traffic, crime, displacement…the list goes on and on.
PUB7-4
PUB7-5
Calls for "decarbonizing housing stock" are rife in this document. We have very serious doubts about rushing the timelines for electrification, given PG&E's inability to support existing demand, as well as significant costs to property owners for conversion if forced. This should be more of a carrot (incentive- based) than stick approach.
Central will be heavily impacted by the proposed general plan, with distorted zoning categories that effectively eliminate instead of protect our neighborhoods (eg Residential Low I is 1-3 stories and 9 units/acre) - there needs to be a Residential Low 1a - 1-2 stories max category).
PUB7-6Roughly 1/3 of Central is considered an environmental justice/overburdened/equity priority community (Railroad to 101, 4th-5th), 100% is within 4 blocks. Central has a high percentage of rentals, a high concentration of construction projects, lower income residents, higher traffic volumes and accident rates, and is in the 70-80th percentile for air quality. As such, our neighborhood should be considered for any and all mitigation policies and actions tied to those communities listed in this EIR.
791 of 922
Specifically with regard to 4-2 Air Quality:
Placement of AQ receptors and ongoing monitoring and remediation (page 25) - it is important these are funded, implemented, monitored and enforced. Language needs to be stronger, quantifiable, and should have funding and accountability defined.
PUB7-7
Central's Air Quality 70-80th percentile (page 27)
High (50th percentile) incidence of asthma (page 28)
High concentration of "permitted stationary sources" of pollutants (ie gas stations, diesel generators, body shops, dry cleaners, manufacturing/light industrial/car repair) PUB7-8
PUB7-9
2040 regional growth projections for housing by 32 percent and population by 25 percent. Why aren't we scaling this back given population decreases in CA and the Bay Area, coupled with the significant impacts on our neighborhoods?
GD-6: develop and maintain an active urban fabric that reflects San Mateo's unique visual and architectural character. PUB7-10
We need high quality, community-accepted, objective design standards and other mechanisms to ensure this happens beyond lip service.
tress from Block 21 be protected. Some had to be over 25 years old, and were healthy. Instead, they were all cut down, and now we have a dozen+ tree stumps and a dirt lot. We need to do better.
PUB7-11
PUB7-12Page 49 - VMT grows from 2.7m to 3.5 in 2040, an increase of nearly 30%! Regardless of VMT per capita, this will still worsen traffic and air quality.
The proposed General Plan results in ~50% growth in air pollutants, ESP COMPARED TO NO PROJECT where they decrease (below). While we realize no project isn't viable, there is a more moderate growth path that maintains or even improves AQ. PUB7-13
AQ-3-6 are all "significant and unavoidable" impacts. Any way you slice this, air quality gets worse! Specifically with regard to 4-3 Biological Resources:
Again trees are highlighted - preservation, planting, replacement, street tree equity, etc. As per above, we need to do better.
PUB7-14
PUB7-15
Specifically with regard to 4-5 Energy:
The EIR claims decreased usage per capita - but absolute usage will increase dramatically - upwards of 40%.
792 of 922
Again with "decarbonizing housing stock" - We have very serious doubts about rushing the timelines for electrification, given PG&E's inability to support existing demand, as well as significant costs to property owners for conversion if forced. This should be more of a carrot (incentive-based) than stick approach.
PUB7-16
PUB7-17
MTA/ABAG/CCAG etc focus on PDA/TPA - We do not have good transit, and it's not getting better. If anything it's getting worse with BART, CalTrain, and SamTrans ridership woes. Without T - ToD is just "D". Build the T, then let's talk about ToD, otherwise every assumption here is wrong. TDM - great idea in theory but there are numerous developments using TDM already. Where's the data on this - is it really working before we bet heavily on it?
(Page 26) Goal C-5: Make transit a viable transportation option for the community by supporting frequent, reliable, cost-efficient, and connected service.
Policy C 5.1: Increase Transit Ridership. Support SamTrans and Caltrain in their efforts to increase transit ridership. PUB7-18
The above is very aspirational. Again w the "supporting" verbiage - need concrete commitments/requirements
Specifically with regard to 4-10 Land Use and Planning: PUB7-19 PUB7-20
GP 2030 is cited a lot in here - is this a typo? Should be 2040? Measure Y - This paragraph is incomplete, and Y does not allow for off-site development - requires on- site and no in-lieu fees paid. Please fix this so the public is properly and accurately informed.
Proposed zoning categories are distorted and effectively eliminate single family zoning. Furthermore, categories don't mention state density bonus and state laws that grant additional stories and floor area BY RIGHT. This is not what San Mateans want. They support growth along with preservation of neighborhoods and historic assets. That is why Measure Y was passed, and has been renewed in essence, for 25 years. It is also important to realize that Measure Y helps affordable housing ACTUALLY GET BUILT, instead of allowing developers to pay significantly cheaper in-lieu fees to avoid it. Finally Measure Y stipulates that any zoning over the limits specified by Measure Y will require approval of the voters, which absent a good General Plan that is acceptable to a majority of voters, is unlikely to happen.
PUB7-21
Balance (Page 14) - restatement of same goal of balancing housing and office and housing diversity. This EIR and the proposed General Plan claim throughout to require balancing jobs and office. Given the massive current imbalance, the focus should be almost entirely on housing. And not luxury, rental-only housing - affordable housing. And exisiting housing stock should be preserved as it is generally more affordably, and gets replaced (gentrified) by unaffordable housing, of which there is no shortage in San Mateo.
PUB7-22
PUB7-23
Specifically with regard to 4-13 Population and Housing:
under the proposed project would exceed the Plan Bay Area 2040 regional growth projections for housing by 32 percent and population by 25 percent. Why are we building so much given all the negative impacts?
793 of 922
benefit" and get input from community as to what qualifies. "Give to get" from developers.
PUB7-24
Goal LU-13: Maintain Development Review and Building Permit processes that are comprehensive and efficient. § Policy LU 13.1: Development Review Process. Review development proposals and building permit applications in an efficient and timely manner while maintaining quality standards in accordance with City codes, policies, and regulations, and in compliance with State requirements.
PUB7-25
With regard to the above - the planning process should be efficient, but should NOT attempt to short- circuit public input, as this commission has suggest/attempted to do.
This EIR suggests that there wouldn't be displacement. The reality is that development almost always means displacement and gentrification. Existing affordable units being replaced by office and luxury housing doesn't help the affordability crisis or the jobs/housing imbalance.
PUB7-26
PUB7-27It's critical we get this right. Thank you for your consideration, and for considering the needs and desires of ALL San Mateans.
Sincerely, Michael Weinhauer
794 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB8
From: Lisa Taner
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:10 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]> Subject: Failure of Draft General Plan EIR
All,
The enormity of detail in the General Plan Update and process is enough to spin heads, and the average resident would need to play a lot of catch up to understand some of the greater points, much less the finer ones. While staff has done a tremendous amount of work, and there has been an endeavor to work with the community, it is a glaring failure to note the limited options of only 'maximum growth' or 'no growth' as presently reflected in the Draft EIR. PUB8-1 The residents have been clear in their desire to have moderate growth in their city, and if this failure was known more widely, there would be a clamoring of upset folks knocking on your doors. There is time to rectify this. Please return to the drawing board and ensure that more options are fleshed out to incorporate the wishes of your taxpayers.
Sincerely,
Lisa Taner
795 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB9
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:17 AM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo General Plan Draft EIR, Project Alternatives Hi Manira,
Attached please find my letter regarding the San Mateo General Plan Draft EIR. The focus of the letter is the absence of "reasonable" alternatives as required by CEQA.
Although Alex is not directly involved in the EIR process, I have copied him on this email because the lack of reasonable alternatives has a "thumb on the scale" effect regarding Measure Y and the clear preference of voters for moderate growth.
PUB9-1
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR.
Keith Weber
San Mateo
796 of 922
September 19, 2023
TO: Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
CC: Zachary Dahl, Interim Community Development Director Alex Khojikian, City Manager
FROM: Keith Weber
SUBJECT: San Mateo General Plan Draft EIR, Project Alternatives Dear Ms. Sandhir,
The Draft EIR (DEIR) for the 2040 Draft General Plan is inadequate and incomplete because it fails to PUB9-2 PUB9-3
evaluate a “reasonable range” of alternatives as required by CEQA. During the public outreach phase of the General Plan, the City identified four feasible alternatives: the “No Project” alternative plus three others (Alternatives A, B, and C), each with incrementally greater growth potential and impacts. All four alternatives met or exceeded the housing and economic growth objectives of the General Plan revision. The City Council chose the alternative with the maximum development potential as their preferred alternative (the “project”). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the analysis of a “range of reasonable alternatives to the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.”
The Draft EIR evaluates only two alternatives:
1. No Project
2. Reduced Traffic Noise Alternative, which, according to the EIR, “would accommodate the same amount of proposed development as the proposed project.” PUB9-4
CEQA considers alternatives to involve changes to the project’s “scope, design, extent,” and “intensity.” But, the DEIR fails to offer alternatives that address these possible changes. Instead, it gives us the same amount of development as the project - an alternative in name only. By disregarding the less impactful alternatives offered to the public and preferred by much of the citizenry, the DEIR provides an all-or-nothing choice between maximum buildout or no project at all. The clear message voters sent to City Hall with the passage of Measure Y is their wish to accommodate moderate growth - to find a compromise between extreme growth and no growth. The DEIR is a tone deaf failure in this regard, presenting the public with only a choice between two extremes. One of the purposes of an EIR is to identify alternatives to a proposed project and evaluate the comparative merits of feasible alternatives. Instead of providing the public with seriously considered alternatives, the DEIR offers a Sophie’s choice. CEQA requires more and the public deserves better. In order to satisfy the CEQA requirement that “an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project,” the feasible alternatives previously identified publicly as Alternatives A and B, must be evaluated and the Draft EIR recirculated for it to meet the threshold of adequacy demanded by CEQA and expected by the public. The additional alternatives analysis represents significant new information and therefore requires recirculation of the Draft EIR, as explained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
RECIRCULATION OF AN EIR PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION.
PUB9-5
797 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB10
From: <
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 2:15 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject: DEIR Comments
Dear Manira,
Please find my comments on the DEIR below.
Thank you.
Lisa
PUB10-1
PUB10-2
Response to Dra EIR
The Noise Element in the DEIR does not address the harmful effects of low frequency noise or discuss the migaon of such. Besides traffic as a source, HVAC heatpump units are a common source of low frequency noise polluon. San Mateo’s Climate Acon Plan (CAP) requires the installaon of electric appliances or the conversion or of gas appliances to electric appliances. Many heat pumps will be located inside and outside of residences and will not only affect inhabitants but neighboring properes.
The potenal noise problem from the humming of mulples air source heat pumps has prompted an official UK government review (2023) by the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs.
Low Frequency Noise is recognized by the WHO as an environmental problem and states the following in their publicaon on Community Noise:
"It should be noted that low frequency noise, for example, from ventilation systems can disturb rest and sleep even at low sound levels"
"For noise with a large proportion of low frequency sounds a still lower guideline (than 30dBA) is recommended"
"When prominent low frequency components are present, noise measures based on A-weighting are inappropriate"
"Since A-weighting underestimates the sound pressure level of noise with low frequency components, a better assessment of health effects would be to use C-weighting" "It should be noted that a large proportion of low frequency components in a noise may increase considerably the adverse effects on health"
PUB10-3
"The evidence on low frequency noise is sufficiently strong to warrant immediate concern" Europe, ahead of us in terms of heat pump use, is dealing with the noise complaints associated with them:
German Environment Agency guideline information March 2017 Complaints about low-frequency humming noises have become more frequent in recent years – especially in residential areas. The quiet, constant hum of air source heat pumps, air-conditioning systems or district heating stations in otherwise quiet neighbourhoods is often considered disturbing, even if the noise levels comply with statutory limit values. A guide by the German Environment Agency (UBA) advises all the parties of construction projects to consider the noise emissions of such large facilities in the early planning phase of a project. Once systems which hum are in operation, there are virtually no technical means to eliminating low-frequency noise.
The EIR states that the San Mateo Noise Ordinance will protect people from health impacts however this ordinance is nearly 20 years old and does not even address interior noise in single family homes generated outside the property. It falls short in many other areas especially when compared to other newly adopted ordinances of surrounding Cies and the latest medical studies. The ordinance specifically states the regulaons apply to a “reasonable person of normal sensivies” which excludes those with misophonia or hypercusis, both considered a disability by the ADA. The potenal liability of this bias should be reason enough for San Mateo to update their noise ordinance.
PUB10-4
The current ordinance does not account for low frequency/tonal noise or the cumulave impacts from mulple heat pumps. If the EIR contemplates the noise ordinance as a migaon measure to protect the
798 of 922
PUB10-4
cont.health of the community it should consider that the current noise ordinance needs to be updated to address the impacts of the 2040 General Plan.
The EIR states that the “noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of physiological damage” however several studies have shown that community noise is associated with cardiovascular problems. The Internal Journal of Preventive Medicine 2022 article (Foroughharmajda, Asadya, Pereirab, Fuentec), Is enough Attention Paid to the health effects of low-frequency noise in today’s society? It is cited that exposure to lower frequency airborne pressure wave can cause cellular and tissue damage along with widespread vascular involvement.
PUB10-5
799 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB11
From: Erika Gomez <
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 2:25 PM
To: [email protected]; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rob Newsom <[email protected]> Subject: General PlanGP Draft EIR DO NOT reclassify 9th and 5th avenue Dear City of San Mateo GP 2040 leads.
We recognize this can sometimes be a thankless job. So let me first say Thank You for considering our neighborhood concerns. PUB11-1
PUB11-2
We looked at the GP2040 and it appears that 9th. Ave and 5th Ave are being proposed as “Arterials”.
In a city that has worked for decades to keep our streets safe for pedestrians, such as the Traffic Action Plans (TAPs) reclassifying 9th Ave to be able to carry from a max of 10,000 cars up to 50,000 cars goes against all the hours our neighborhood, staff and numerous city council members have invested to prevent additional degradation of local street surfaces and safety of our elderly, kids and general population when residents walk to medical appointments, school or work. Is this long term tradeoff worth whatever short term benefit city administrators anticipate? Has a Health Risk Analysis (HRA) associated with Allowing up to 50,000 cars in our little neighborhood been done? I cannot imagine that it would Not have a long term detrimental effect on our general population’s health.
PUB11-3
This type of drastic change goes against the City’s Vision, Safety and Noise GP goals.
Please let’s stop letting the “car centric” mentality we fought so hard to get away from drive decisions for our community’s future.
I wish you would get the opinions of the mail carriers and package delivery personnel. Recently a car flipped on 7th and El Dorado after nearly hitting people and actually hitting multiple cars, before flipping. I spoke to the delivery personnel at the crash site and they said it is amazing how often they see people speeding and ignoring stop signs in our neighborhood.
PUB11-4
I would like close by sharing a photo of an adult resident riding their electric scooter on 5th and El Dorado. Something we see on 9th and Fremont all the time as well. Why do adults still rides bikes And scooters on the sidewalk during traffic hours? Because they are afraid, even with all the bike lanes in the street.
Thank you,
800 of 922
Erika Powell
PUB11-4
cont.
801 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB12
From: Rowan Paul
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2023 3:20 PM
To: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Naomi Ture ; l
Subject: Regarding Draft EIR, Draft 2040 General Plan
Dear City Council and planning committees,
My wife and I are dismayed to see yet more proposed erosion of our neighborhood at 5th and Delaware with The Draft 2040 General Plan and Draft EIR.
PUB12-1The definition of Arterial is 10,000 - 50,000 vehicles a day. There has been no collaboration on this reclassification. I oppose this reclassification and strongly feel that 5th avenue remain a neighborhood street given that we have families, neighbours with kids and families that have lived here for decades.
How do we address this increased cut-through traffic? We need assurances for traffic calming for both 5th and 9th Avenues.
A class III Bike Boulevard is proposed for 5th Avenue which means we need lower traffic volumes for safer streets for pedestrians and bicyclists. Other cities in San Mateo County plant a tree in the center of the intersection to reduce cut-through traffic and improve air quality. I recommended we do that and add speed bumps or rumble strips. We are thankful for new pavement and repainted bike strips. To reclassify as an arterial would be devastating, contradictory and a move in the wrong direction.
PUB12-2
PUB12-3
In addition, 4th and 5th Avenues are included in the Equity Priority Neighborhoods. We request that the boundaries of the Equity Priority Neighborhoods be extended to 9th Avenue and include streets from S Delaware to S Amphlett for more residential protections.
Our 5th avenue neighborhood is a close one where we all know our neighbors. We do NOT want this to turn into a high density housing project with 7 floor new housing developments as you have been building near the tracks, some without concession or requirement for more parking or significant city infrastructure which is frankly ridiculous. Our neighbourhood is already taking a big hit and we WILL not stand for further erosion.
PUB12-4I have attached an example of the damaging effect of traffic on our neighborhood. This is my neighbor's Porsche that was subject to a hit and run RIGHT OUTSIDE his and our houses. Can you imagine if there was a child playing on the sidewalk?
Again as a reminder, our son got run over by a car at 5th and Clairmont just 2 blocks from our house.
NOTHING was done by the city to increase safety at this intersection or in our neighborhood despite token lip service phone call with Lisa Nash and Eric Rodriguez at the time when it happened.
Needless to say, we are sufficiently energized to fight this proposal.
Please do the right thing for the invested locals.
PUB12-5
802 of 922
Thank you.
Rowan Paul, MD
803 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB13
From: Evan Powell <
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2023 3:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Draft EIR Comments - please do NOT reclassify 9th and 5th avenue Hello
Thank you for your public service.
I am writing to express my opposition to the outrageous proposal that 9th and 5th avenues be reclassified to accept more cut through traffic.
The Central Neighborhood already bears the brunt of the increased development in San Mateo. Countless times we have been reassured that our neighborhood would be protected with Vision Zero and traffic impact funds and so on. And yet we see that noise, pollution, accidents, and so on are all more prevalent in the Central Neighborhood than most other neighborhoods. Last week down the street from our house in Central Neighborhood a family was out walking when they were nearly killed by cut-through traffic, the incident of which is only increasing due to pro-development policies. Please see attached for a photo of the accident - imagine this was your reality, your neighborhood. Would you feel safe?
PUB13-1
804 of 922
In short, if you want support for the sort of increased density that our neighborhood has pioneered, you should prioritize the protection of our neighborhood. You should be prioritizing traffic calming of the sort prevalent in impacted neighborhoods in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City, and elsewhere, not seriously considering prioritizing car traffic over residents by reclassifying 9th and 5th avenue. It's outdated thinking AND it runs counters to the assurances we have received for years.
Thank you for your service and best regards,
Evan
--
Evan Powell
805 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB14
From: Chris & Wayne Rango <
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 3:16 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Draft EIR Comments
I have been a resident of the Central Neighborhood for almost 40 years.
What is being proposed in the General Plan and the Draft EIR is preposterous! PUB14-1
PUB14-2
Specifically, reclassifying 5th Ave, the street I live on, and 9th Ave to become Arterials is not in
any neighborhood's best interest, let alone mine.
To permit between 10,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day on these two neighborhoods' streets will only
ADD an incredible amount of noise that already exists. It will increase greater danger for pedestrians as
well as drivers not to mention decreasing our property value.
This proposal will also allow 8-10 story buildings in my neighborhood! Are you kidding me? I am becoming more and more appalled at the attempts to RUIN our quaint neighborhood.
PUB14-3
PUB14-4Please do not allow this damage to happen.
Respectfully,
Wayne Rango
806 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB15
From: Dave Santos <d
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 6:02 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo General Plan Draft EIR
PUB15-1The EIR is a tremendous amount of information to digest.
I want to acknowledge staff contributions to this effort and while there has been a modest attempt to reach out to the community, the report presents limited growth options. Is there not a middle ground of moderate growth as a viable alternative to maximum growth or no growth options? PUB15-2 PUB15-3
Why hasn't a moderate growth option been explored? I believe that is what Measure Y is all about, moderate growth.
I also wonder why the San Mateo Foster City School District was not consulted for input if the San Mateo Union High School District was. Adding 26,000 people to the population will affect the SMFCSD as well as the high school district.
I think it is wishful thinking to believe that the addition of 26,000 will not have more effect on the environment.
In reviewing the document, input of residents (stakeholders) needs to be considered. PUB15-4
I would like to recommend a rewrite that lists moderate growth options that are supported by the community along with a specific mechanism to solicit residents input.
Sincerely,
Dave Santos
807 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB16
PUB16-1
PUB16-2
PUB16-3
808 of 922
sharing and bicycles. Those tools, and many others, should be an automatic part of our city process. employed right now, aside from any connection to a new General Plan.
Even back before 2000, project approvals included conditions for TDM measures, across properties and area boundaries. How does this kind of already existing approach rise to the level of the basis for a project alternative? It doesn't.
PUB16-3
cont.
Of course the alternatives also make mention of ;the environmentally superior choice.
This is given lip service by saying it aligns with the only alternative "studied", thus skirting any real discussion. It probably would have been omitted altogether if not for the clear requirement in CEQA guidelines.
PUB16-4
PUB16-5
The bottom line for me is that you have a DEIR which does not meet legal requirements and which relies on inadequate studies.
This document needs a major overhaul prior to certification. .
Karen Herrel
West Hillsdale Blvd.
San Mateo
809 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB17
From: Maxine Terner <
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 4:14 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]> Subject: DEIR comments
Dear Ms. Sandhir - The purpose of CEQA is to give decision-makers adequate information upon which to base decisions that minimize negative impacts to the community. The Draft EIR (DEIR) for the 2040 Draft General Plan is so filled with vague statements about future actions as to be useless. Words like “suggest, promote and encourage” are meaningless. This DEIR does not give policy makers the data to evaluate the long-term impacts of their proposed GP Project. It is an insult to the residents and businesses in San Mateo who will have no idea of the true fiscal and environmental impacts of the proposed Project nor of viable alternatives that will lessen these impacts. The consultants can and must do better.
PUB17-1
PUB17-2
Staff knows that the City Council can still approve a project with “significant impacts' by making statements of overriding consideration. But misleading the public and decision-makers by avoiding discussion about the true impacts is unconscionable. This adds to the mistrust of government and threatens our fragile democracy. This DEIR must be rewritten and recirculated.
THE DEIR IS INADEQUATE AND INCOMPLETE BECAUSE IT FAILS TO:
1 - Identify which program level environmental effects City staff intends to utilize as having been addressed as “specifically and comprehensively as is reasonably possible” in this program EIR so that later activities may qualify for a streamlined environmental review process or may be exempt from environmental review. The DEIR does not provide the supporting data for the “no significant impact” conclusions related to land use and zoning, traffic, air quality, noise, infrastructure capacity and water availability, public services and hydrology. If the consultants have given these details to the City this data must be included for public review and the DEIR recirculated.
PUB17-3
2 - Evaluate a “reasonable range” of alternatives as required by CEQA. The GP land use map chosen by the City Council as the “Project” was the highest level of development considered during the public input phase. This high-development project results in Significant and Unavoidable (SU) impacts in Air Quality, Noise, and Wildfire even with mitigations. The DEIR does not adequately evaluate other alternatives that can lessen these and other impacts to less than significant levels. Alternatives A and B were considered during the public input phase of the GP UPDATE with much public support and these should be evaluated for potentially less impacts in the EIR. A highest development level ‘Project’ or no project is not adequate.
PUB17-4
PUB17-5
3 - Note specifically in the Land Use Regulations Measure Y paragraph that General Plan 2030 is Measure Y, approved by the voters in 2020, and a vote of San Mateo residents will be required to approve any changes to Measure Y heights and densities in the Project General Plan 2040. Identify specifically where land use changes increase the heights or densities allowed under Measure Y. The DEIR paragraph on Measure Y is inaccurate, incomplete and missing information on the Strive website and must be rewritten. Measure Y is of vital interest to a majority of the voters in San Mateo and needs to be clearly and accurately described in the DEIR.
810 of 922
Rewrite the Measure Y paragraph to also note that it better supports affordable housing than the state density bonus law. The Measure Y General Plan 2030 requires that 10% of new residential development be for affordable units built on-site at the same time as the market rate units are constructed. Note how many affordable units have been built in San Mateo under Measure Y. It does not allow off-site or in-lieu fee payments that can sit in a pot for years. The state density bonus law only requires 10% affordable units yet gives the developer 2 extra floors of height for doing what is already required in San Mateo. Also note that the Measure Y density allowances result in a larger number of 2-3 bedroom family sized units than the higher density bonus units have resulted in.
PUB17-5
cont.
4- Justify how the conclusion of LU-2 “The proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect” was determined. Clearly, GP 2040 land uses conflict with Measure Y unless a mitigation is added to phase the high- development land use changes in the Project to after Measure Y ends in 2030. Staff notes that the current RHNA cycle housing requirements can be met under Measure Y. Projections for the next RHNA cycle will most likely be reduced. Much impact language throughout the DEIR notes that build-out will not occur all at once so this mitigation will not significantly impact GP 2040 policies.
PUB17-6
5 - Identify the conflicts between the Project’s high-level of development land uses in the Downtown with the goals of pedestrian oriented and preserving historic and cultural resources.
Compare the likely wind and shadow impacts of higher heights, including density bonuses, to existing plan heights on outdoor seating and walking.
PUB17-7
PUB17-86 - Identify the true potential heights with the density bonus increases in heights. Maximum height potential MUST include the density bonus heights. 6 - Identify specifically what increased service needs (fire, police, parks, recreation, and libraries) will be required by the high level of new development and how funding will be provided. These service impacts are one of the “Standards of Significance” that the “no significant impact” was based on. More importantly, identify at what level of new development (population or structures) WHEN new “staffing, facilities and equipment” will be needed. Policy LU 12.1 states: “Retain and grow existing businesses and attract new businesses that can generate and diversify the City’s tax revenue and increase job opportunities to ensure the City has adequate resources for infrastructure improvements and essential City services, such as police, fire, parks, recreation, and libraries.” If new staffing and equipment does not exist to maintain a less than significant impact, will project approvals be delayed until adequate staffing, equipment and facilities are in place? Perhaps this should be added as a mitigation.
PUB17-9
For example, fire services currently closely meet the standard set by the National Fire Protection Association that there be one firefighter for every 1,000 population. At what specific new level of project development and population growth would new facilities, staffing and equipment be required? How tall can buildings be to be served by existing fire trucks? The “no significant impact” conclusion in the DEIR only refers to the construction impacts of new facilities, not the lack of services which negatively impact the community. “PS-1 The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
811 of 922
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services.”
The same is true for police services. “SMPD has identified that its staffing level has decreased since 2020, and an increase in population would result in a need for increased staffing. Physical expansion of SMPD facilities may be needed to accommodate increases in staffing and maintain response times. The SMPD has indicated that existing stations would be inadequate to accommodate future needs; due to this, a new police substation or substantial adjustments, expansions, or renovations to the existing police headquarters facility have been identified as needed.” If new staffing and equipment does not exist to maintain a less than significant impact, will project approvals be delayed until adequate staffing, equipment and facilities are in place? Perhaps this should be added as a mitigation.
PUB17-9
cont.
Current services are adequately funded by existing revenues. The DEIR makes clear that the large increase in population and structures will require more funding for services. There is no data about how much revenue will be lost or gained by the Project land use changes. How much sales tax revenue will be lost by upzoning downtown and El Camino Real small businesses for housing or office? How much property tax increase stays with the city as opposed to sales, hotel, business and other taxes? This is fundamental information needed by decision makers prior to approving the High-Development 2040 General Plan.
PUB17-10
PUB17-11
The DEIR does not provide the public nor decision-makers with the data they need to approve the Project. There is no information about how water will be provided, traffic impacts reduced, the jobs/housing balance maintained, and displacement of affordable housing and small businesses avoided. Every resident, voter and taxpayer in San Mateo understands the Project high-level of development will negatively impact their lives. This DEIR does not meet legal requirements and it must be revised and recirculated.
Thank you,
Maxine Terner
812 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB18
Zachary Dahl, AICP
Interim Director
Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7207 | [email protected]
From: Naomi Ture
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 11:18 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]> Subject: I am your neighbor - Please read - General Plan Draft EIR Comments Dear Manira, Mayor Lisa and Councilmembers Rob, Zachary, Alex, Lisa and Rich, I write with high hopes that our planning manager and city council will listen to the neighborhood voices, over the developer voices.
I write to oppose Draft General Plan and Draft EIR, and to request that you protect the tree-lined neighborhood that we love. My home is at 614 E 5th Avenue. We moved here because it is a friendly, safe, tree-lined street with a bike lane. It’s filled with families and folks who have lived here for decades and are proud of this neighborhood. Many people use our street to live, bike, and to walk to downtown San Mateo and the park.
PUB18-1
PUB18-2
This is my request - Please protect our neighborhood by including the following boundaries in the Equity Priority Neighborhood: 5th to 9th Avenue and S Delaware to S Amphlett and provide us with the following residential protections:
• Please install the traffic calming measures including speed humps on 5th Avenue that you promised us after multiple people have been hit by cars. • Do not allow 5th and 9th to become classified as arterials (this is the opposite of what you promised)
Keep 5th Avenue as a local street and 9th Avenue as a collector Install the proposed class III Bike Boulevard on 5th Avenue Please ensure that height limitations within the boundaries of our neighborhood are 2 stories Please ensure height limitations right outside our neighborhood are 4-6 stories.
Please stop ignoring the citizens and pleasing the developers by allowing them to construct 8-10 story structures.
Please make it harder for developers to construct massive structures near our neighborhood without implementing what the citizens demand - safety, ample parking, and height limitations.
PUB18-3
PUB18-4
•
•
•
•
• PUB18-5
PUB18-6•
The planning commission and city have shown in recent years that you are working against neighborhoods and in collaboration with developers, to create 8-12 story structures next to a neighborhood of single-story single-family homes. You are ignoring our pleas and exacerbating problems such as overcrowding, parking issues, traffic, safety and dangerous roadway conditions.
PUB18-7
PUB18-8
The planning commission and city promised to work with our neighborhood to install traffic calming after cars are repeatedly hitting pedestrians. You have not added even one speed hump to 5th Avenue.
813 of 922
The planning commission and the city promised to work with our neighborhood regarding 8-12 story high rises. Instead, the city is working WITH developers and AGAINST residents to build as many high rises as it can fit near our neighborhood without regard for parking, traffic and safety issues.
PUB18-9
Please listen to the people who live and work here now. Please protect us, your neighbors, over the developers. Please tell me exactly how you will protect my beloved neighborhood. PUB18-10 Thank you,
Naomi Ture
************
Naomi Ture
Filmmaker @ Fanny | Pick of the Litter | Batkid Begins
814 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB19
From: Naomi Ture <
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 11:29 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]> Subject: Protect Central Neighborhood - General Plan Draft EIR Comments I just took this photo yesterday, of a dad riding his 2 kids along our tree-lined 5th Avenue. Please protect our neighborhood. PUB19-1
Picture removed
In order to assure us that you have no intention of altering 5th and 9th, do not reclassifify 5th and 9th Avenues as arterials.
PUB19-2
PUB19-3
In addition, please assure us that you will slow down development, not the opposite (i.e. Kiku Crossing) so that we can prevent increases in air pollution, noise, traffic, safety issues and wildfire risk.
Thank you,
Naomi Ture
815 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB20
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 8:07 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: [Konveio Inquiry] This plan needs to be rewritten and revised SanMateoCinderella sent a message using the contact form at https://strivesanmateo.konveio.com/contact.
The city needs to put a beneficial pause on the General Plan & Draft EIR. We the People of the City of San Mateo have not had an ample opportunity to review and comment on this drastic change to our city. The magnitude of these plans is an assault on our way of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, public health and safety.
PUB20-1
The bulk of these plans have been put through during the unprecedented Covid-19 public health emergency. As many people were distracted by fearing for their lives, safety, family and businesses, we did not have the opportunity to thoroughly analyze and provide input on 1,000-page documents which have major ramifications to the city and its residents.
We the People of the City of San Mateo should not have to bear the burden of Sacramento and San Francisco’s mismanagement. The common theme appears to be just sardine pack everyone into San Mateo and figure it out from there. There have been no plans to require the major tech companies to move some of their offices to neighboring cities in order to help alleviate traffic congestion in the Bay Area, given they are one of the leading causes of this traffic as the jobs are all concentrated in one area. It is easier for these trillion-dollar corporations to help the environment and shorten the commute times by spreading out their offices, instead of requiring the residents of San Mateo to accept lower environmental quality and thus lowering the quality of life. The city has failed to consider and advocate for this less harmful alternative and instead is assaulting our way of life and drastically changing the fabric of San Mateo.
During the 9/12/2023 Planning Commission meeting, one of the commissioners themselves said “I still have a lot of questions…air quality and noise impacts are being flagged as significant and unavoidable”. The Environmental Impact Report, has looked at things such as air quality, pollution, noise, etc. Another commissioner claims “the greenhouse gas emissions will be lower by adopting the General Plan update”, the public needs to verify these outrageous claims that contradict logic and common sense.
PUB20-2
PUB20-3
A consultant from ECORP Consulting confirms that “the updated plan does increase population and traffic, and that the plan allows for more population increase than the old plan”, and a commissioner confirms. In addition, the consultants struggled to explain the logical contradictions and admitted that without modeling the existing plan they can’t say whether the environmental impact would be the same as in the updated plan. Furthermore, the consultants admitted that “my assumption is that this (new) general plan is really looking to maximize the benefits of getting people out of cars”. Since this seems to be the core principle, the entire assumptions and math need to be revisited.
During the same 9/12/2023 Planning commission comment period after returning from break, a commissioner said “I don’t have any comments”. A 1,000-page document and a commissioner doesn’t comment at all on a plan that would fundamentally change the entire landscape of San Mateo? Then right after a commissioner says “I don’t consider myself an expert in EIR (environmental impact reports), so I wouldn’t, I don’t feel confident enough to get into too many weeds with things where I just don’t have much reason to disagree with what was written”. This is precisely why we need to place a beneficial pause on such plans, since even the commissioners do not have the proper knowledge to weigh the impacts to the residents of San Mateo.
Thus, again these are major drastic changes to the city and its residents. To not give the public more time to educate themselves coming out of a historic pandemic is a travesty and breach of public trust.
We are constantly told that the State of California has passed laws requiring densification of housing development. However, what we are not told and omitted from the conversation is this key sentence:
“The city or county is not required to waive or reduce development standards that would cause a public health or safety problem, cause an environmental problem, harm historical property, or would be contrary to law”, as stated in the California density bonus law.
PUB20-4
PUB20-5
PUB20-6
The city has been forced to try and pass an $8 increase to help fund and fix the crumbling infrastructure which led to major flooding recently. The city’s budget does not have the capacity to
816 of 922
help support such population increase. Will the city be forced to raise taxes to help fund emergency services on already burdened residents or risk creating dangerous conditions of public property? PUB20-6 cont.
Like Gulliver tied down by thousands of little strings, we lose our freedom one regulation at a time
817 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB21
Somer Smith
From:
Sent:
To:
Meg Spicer, DC, QME
Sunday, October 8, 2023 7:08 PM
City Council (San Mateo); General Plan
survey on building heightsSubject:
PUB
21-1 I am a resident of San Mateo. Own a storefront business in San Mateo I am discouraged (dismayed, troubled, etc) I couldn’t participate in the building heights survey. District 5 (our district) is far more impacted by taller buildings than other districts I support residential building heights of 2 stories.
PUB
21-2
I do not support buildings that are predominantly non-residential exceeding 5 stories or Measure Y limits in height.
I also advocate for the preservation of single-family home neighborhoods, along with small PUB 21-3businesses and retail.
PUB
21-4 I do not support additional housing units beyond what is required by the State The DEIR should have looked at a moderated option, not just the maximum development. PUB 21-5
I am concerned about how services and infrastructure for all the new development will be paid PUB
21-6for.
Thank you,
Margaret Spicer
1 818 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB22
Somer Smith
From:
Sent:
To:
(null) (null)
Monday, October 9, 2023 8:51 AM
General Plan
Subject: Survey on building heights
PUB
22-1 I am a resident of San Mateo.
I am discouraged (dismayed, troubled, etc) I couldn’t participate in the building heights survey District 5 (our district) is far more impacted by taller buildings than other districts I support residential building heights of __________ stories.
PUB
22-2
I do not support buildings that are predominantly non-residential exceeding 5 stories or Measure Y limits in height.
I also advocate for the preservation of single-family home neighborhoods, along with small businesses PUB 22-3and retail.
PUB
22-4 I do not support additional housing units beyond what is required by the State The DEIR should have looked at a moderated option, not just the maximum development. I am concerned about how services and infrastructure for all the new development will be paid for Sent from my iPhone
PUB
22-5
PUB
22-6
1 819 of 922
Comment Letter #PUB23
Somer Smith
From:
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 7:36 PM
City Council (San Mateo)
General PlanCc:
Subject: Building Heights and 2040 General Plan
Dear Councilmembers,
PUB23-
1I have the following comments regarding building heights and the 2040 General Plan:
Building heights and density:
District 5 is disproporonately affected by the growth proposed in the General Plan yet very few neighbors received the survey regarding building heights. I believe that the survey sampling will not reflect the views of residents. I favor increasing building heights over Measure Y limits only for residenal buildings (or Mixed use with over 80% residenal). I support a maximum of 8-stories for a residenal building (including any density bonus height) and only if required to meet RHNA housing numbers. The General Plan included over 21,410 new dwelling units and RHNA requirements are closer to 15,000 dwelling units. This is a 40% buffer and given the latest State populaon projecons the next cycle should be less than 8,000 dwelling units. I am inclined to only support a ballot measure to increase building heights that place a threshold on the dwelling units built, such as 15,000.
PUB23-
2 GP and DEIR
PUB23
-3
The DEIR evaluated only a maximum project or no project. Given that there are “Unavoidable” Significant Noise and Air quality impacts associated with greater health risks, it would have made sense to study a more moderate alternave. It also seems completely inconsistent that these significant impacts are caused by traffic, but traffic itself is not a significant impact. Policy LU 6.1 Rail Corridor Plan speaks of “maintaining and improving the quality of life for those who already live and work in the area” but the increase of noise and air quality impacts indicated by the DEIR are in complete contradicon to this statement. I suspect that future traffic congeson and inadequate parking will also reduce the quality of life among residents.
PUB23-
4 Sincerely,
Lisa Maley
1 820 of 922
Comment Letter #PH1
San Mateo Planning Commission Public Hearing (9/12/23)
. Maurine Killough asserts that San Mateo deserves the best objecve design standards since there are many disnct neighborhood zones and each neighborhood has its own visual and physical character and deserves respect. Killough also points out that, with regard to commercial development adjacent to residenal new infill building, designs need to respect exisng community character using established designs found in San Mateo. Killough requests the City encourage new developments to be compable and harmonious with building types and architecture styles prevalent in San Mateo especially with the surrounding residenal neighborhoods and downtown historic district. Killough also requests the City consider a project design review for proposed projects in the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods by a qualified historic preservaon architect consultant. Killough asserts that aesthecs of new illuminated contemporary glass buildings will have an impact on exisng older neighborhoods and the historic downtown and points out that a consultant could creavely bridge the design look between exisng historic architecture and new buildings. Killough expresses concerns regarding street lighng standards and asserts that more green street lamps are needed at dark residenal intersecons and longer residenal blocks, as this impacts safety for pedestrians and cyclists in the equity priority and underserved neighborhood areas in Central and North Central neighborhoods. Killough requests the City protect the character of older residenal neighborhoods and prohibit neon commercial signs on the new tall buildings facing towards surrounding residenal neighborhoods at night, as housing is at the upper level in these buildings, and prohibit older lighted outdoor billboards adversing alcohol and equity priority neighborhoods along 101 which generate blight. Killough also requests the City encourage drought tolerant green landscaping in residenal neighborhoods and commercial projects and expand the tree canopies and front yards and plant more street trees through Street Tree Plan especially in equity priority neighborhoods.
PH1-1
. David Light refers to the seismic hazard map in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Dra EIR that shows the risk of soil liquefacon during major earthquakes, which is broadly divided between a moderate risk region roughly from downtown to Highway 101 and a high-risk region east of 101 to the Bay. Light expresses concern that developers are going to prefer to locate their mul-story projects in low-risk areas rather than on historic landfill areas that are in the higher risk liquefacon areas. Light points out that there are many single-family and duplex home neighborhoods that are currently located in these desirable moderate risk areas and these neighborhoods should not be displaced by large developments. Light asserts that San Mateo needs to protect and preserve charming older homes in single-family and duplex neighborhoods that make San Mateo the desirable place that it is to live. Light refers to Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Dra EIR discusses the need to reduce carbon dioxide from cars and trucks.
Light notes that new developments located near Caltrain or SamTrans public transportaon stops are rounely allowed to provide less than adequate parking spaces in their plans; however, there's connued lack of cooperaon between Caltrain and BART with low ridership decreasing on SamTrans and Caltrain. Light asserts that city planners need to be realisc about the use of public transportaon and that new building projects should provide adequate parking spaces and include parking with chargers for electric cars as a more realisc soluon to greenhouse gas emissions. Light asserts that electric cars are much quieter than tradional internal combuson PH1-2
821 of 922
engine cars. Light also requests more neighborhood preservaon and protecon, updated surveys in Central and North Central neighborhoods and older neighborhoods as potenal historic districts, protecon of historic pre-war homes and small duplexes for middle and low- income families in the equity priority neighborhoods, avoidance of demolion of homes in older neighborhoods (especially on the east side of San Mateo), and preservaon of the street level exteriors of exisng Crasman Spanish and Tudor Revival and Victorian homes. Light asserts that new construcon should be compable with the exisng neighborhoods and respect exisng community character. Light requests the City encourage new developments to be compable and harmonious with building styles and Architectural Styles prevalent in San Mateo.
PH1-2
cont.
. Laurie Watanuki states that the impact of the buildout results in unacceptable cumulave traffic noise within the EIR study area and notes that no migaon measures are available, according to the EIR. Watanuki points out that temporary construcon noise can be reduced by staggering the projects and that taking the trucks out through the state highways (El Camino Real, 92, 101) would reduce the toxic dust polluon. Watanuki argues for reduced construcon impacts in the equity priority neighborhoods and reduced heights of three stories in the land use map along 4th and 5th Avenue and the west side of South Delaware in the central neighborhood, as well as reduced heights of Mixed Use High I and Mixed Use High II in Downtown. Watanuki notes that bicycle boulevards are described in the Dra EIR and it says to include traffic calming on low traffic volumes. Watanuki also notes that 5th Avenue as described as a traffic boulevard from Delaware to South Amphle. Watanuki requests the City keep 5th Avenue as a local street, versus having it reclassified as an arterial. Watanuki asserts that this conflict is in the General Plan and needs to be addressed. Watanuki points out that Central neighborhood has been an underserved neighborhood an equity priority boundary should be extended to 9th Avenue include streets from Amphle to Delaware. Watanuki points out that the General Plan policy states to implement traffic calming on residenal streets to reduce the cut through traffic and traffic noise. Watanuki requests the City install traffic circles on 9th Avenue and 5th Avenue from Delaware to South Amphle, to keep the four-way stop signs, to not reclassify these streets to arterials, to do not put a truck route on 5th Avenue from South Delaware to South Amphle on 5th Avenue (since it's going to be a proposed bike boulevard), and to not put a truck route on South Humboldt between 4th and 9th. Watanuki asserts that the City needs to make these streets safer for the bicyclists. Watanuki states that the neighborhood traffic management program is a living document and asserts that it needs to be updated to beer address the cut through traffic volumes and provide more flexibility to address traffic impacts on local streets collectors and arterials in residenal neighborhoods. Watanuki quesons the ADT volumes on Peninsula and Popular Avenues from Delaware to South Humboldt and whether this is included in the Dra EIR. Watanuki also quesons the percentage of Burlingame traffic that uses the Popular exit in San Mateo. Watanuki requests the City perform a separate study for the six grade separaons and quesons why there are so many grade separaons between 1st and 9th and why Peninsula Avenue doesn’t have grade separaons.
PH1-3
. Ken Abreu points out that there is a ballot measure next year to amend Measure Y and quesons whether the passing of this ballot measure would affect the City’s ability to meet the RHNA, the General Plan itself, or the Dra EIR.
PH1-4
822 of 922
. Michael Weinhauer expresses concerns about the accessibility of the Dra EIR and notes that it’s very technical and includes a lot of acronyms. Weinhauer asserts that the Dra EIR does not adequately address issues and makes unreasonable assumpons that people will not drive and alternave modes of transportaon would be readily available. Weinhauer also asserts that the General Plan and Dra EIR plans for extreme levels of growth (about 40 percent) that would worsen air quality, traffic, noise, and other key areas and quesons why the City is planning for absurd growth levels. Weinhauer also points out that the General Plan and EIR focused on per capita stascs and asserts that we should not lose sight of absolute numbers. Weinhauer notes that the General Plan and EIR claims to require balancing jobs and offices and asserts that given the massive imbalance, it should be focused on housing (not only luxury and rental-only housing, but also affordable housing) and exisng housing stocks should be preserved, as it gets gentrified and replaced with unaffordable housing, which there is no shortage of in San Mateo. Weinhauer asserts that the non-commial language used in the Dra EIR are meaningless without concrete legislaon, quanfiable targets that someone is accountable for, and funding to ensure aspiraonal plans are actually put into place and impacts are truly understood and migated.
Weinhauer points out that the Dra EIR calls for decarbonizing housing stock but there are serious doubts around PG&E's abilies to export to support the exisng demand, much less doubling that demand and the significant costs to property owners.
PH1-5
823 of 922
824 of 922
A P P E N D I X H
M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G
A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M
........................................................................................................................
825 of 922
........................................................................................................................
826 of 922
Mi ti gati on Moni tori ng and Reporting Program
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 and Climate Plan Update, herein referred to as the “proposed project” or “project.” The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures identified as part of the environmental review for the proposed project. The MMRP includes the following information:
.
.
.
.
.
The full text of the mitigation measures;
The party responsible for implementing the mitigation measures; The timing for implementation of the mitigation measures; The agency responsible for monitoring the implementation; and The monitoring action and frequency.
The City of San Mateo (City) must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it approves the proposed project with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval.
P L A C E W O R K S 1
827 of 922
S T R I V E S A N M A T E O G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 4 0 A N D C L I M A T E P L A N U P D A T E F I N A L E I R
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation Monitoring
FrequencyMitigation Measures
AIR QUALITY
Timing Monitoring Action
AQ-2: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts
identified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. If
construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD-adopted thresholds of significance, the City shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Measures shall require
Construction
Contractors/
Project Applicants
Prior to
Discretionary
Approval;
Appropriate
Implementation
during
City of San Mateo
Planning and
Building Divisions
Review Technical
Assessment and
Construction
Once with
Planning
Application;
Once prior to
Building Permit
Issuance
Documents
Construction
implementation of the BAAQMD Best Management Practices for construction-related fugitive dust emissions; examples of best management practices include:
. Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, grading areas, and unpaved access roads) at least twice daily or as often as needed to control dust emissions.
.
.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
.
.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seedling or soil binders are used.
2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 2 4
828 of 922
S T R I V E S A N M A T E O G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 4 0 A N D C L I M A T E P L A N U P D A T E F I N A L E I R
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
FrequencyMonitoring Action
. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
.
.
All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12- inch layer of compact layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. . Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Measures shall be incorporated into appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) and shall be verified by the City.
AQ-3: Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), future project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operational air quality impacts to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
methodology in assessing air quality impacts identified in BAAQMD’s current CEQA Air Quality Guidelines at the time that the project is considered.
Construction
Contractors/
Project Applicants
Prior to
Discretionary
Approval;
Appropriate
Implementation
during
City of San Mateo
Planning and
Building Divisions
Review Technical
Assessment and
Mitigation
Once
Measure(s)
Construction
If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD-adopted thresholds of
significance, the City shall require the project applicant(s) to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant P L A C E W O R K S 3
829 of 922
S T R I V E S A N M A T E O G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 4 0 A N D C L I M A T E P L A N U P D A T E F I N A L E I R
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation Monitoring
FrequencyMitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Action
emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval or a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan adopted for the project as part of the project CEQA review. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
. Implementing commute trip reduction programs.
Unbundling residential parking costs from property costs.
Expanding bikeway networks.
Expanding transit network coverage or hours.
Using cleaner-fueled vehicles.
.
.
.
.
. Exceeding the current Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards.
.
.
.
Establishing on-site renewable energy generation systems.
Requiring all-electric buildings.
Replacing gas-powered landscaping equipment with zero-
emission alternatives.
.
.
Implementing organics diversion programs.
Expanding urban tree planting.
AQ-4: Prior to discretionary approval by the City, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes) or Overburdened Community (as defined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD] Community Air Risk Evaluation Program), as
measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The HRA Project Applicant Prior to
Discretionary
Approval;
Appropriate
Implementation
of Mitigation
Measures and
Conditions of
Approval
City of San Mateo
Planning and
Building Divisions
Review Health
Risk Assessment,
Mitigation
Measures, and
Conditions of
Approval
Once
4 J A N U A R Y 2 0 2 4
830 of 922
S T R I V E S A N M A T E O G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 4 0 A N D C L I M A T E P L A N U P D A T E F I N A L E I R
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
FrequencyMitigation Measures Monitoring Action
shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD. If the HRA shows that the cumulative and project-level incremental cancer risk, noncancer hazard index, and/or PM2.5 exceeds the respective threshold, as established by BAAQMD (all areas of the City and Sphere of Influence) and project-level risk of
6.0 in Equity Priority Communities (as defined in the City of San Mateo General Plan) at the time a project is considered, the project applicant will be required to identify best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) and appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and demonstrate that they are
capable of reducing potential cancer, noncancer risks, and PM2.5 to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to:
. Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions
.
.
.
Electrifying warehousing docks
Requiring use of newer equipment
Requiring near-zero or zero-emission trucks for a portion of the vehicle fleet based on opening year.
.
.
Truck Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable trailer spaces.
Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.
T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be included as part of the conditions of approval or a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan adopted for the project as part of the project CEQA review.
AQ-6: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-4. See Mitigation Measures AQ-2, AG-3, and AQ-4.
P L A C E W O R K S 5
831 of 922
S T R I V E S A N M A T E O G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 4 0 A N D C L I M A T E P L A N U P D A T E F I N A L E I R
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This page intentionally left blank.
6 J A N U A R Y 2 0 2 4
832 of 922
833 of 922
O R A N G E C O U N T Y • B AY A R E A • S A C R A M E N T O • C E N T R A L C O A S T • L O S A N G E L E S • I N L A N D E M P I R E placeworks.com
834 of 922
MEMORANDUM
TOSan Mateo City Council
FROMJoanna Jansen and Carey Stone, PlaceWorks
SUBJECTSummary of Community Engagement on the Draft General Plan This memorandum provides a summary of the community outreach and engagement effort that supported the publication of the Draft Geneal Plan between July and early October 2023. The overarching goal of this outreach and engagement effort was to comprehensively promote awareness of the Draft General Plan, engage with all segments of the San Mateo community and provide many channels and opportunities for the community to provide input and feedback on the draft goals and policies. This Summary Memorandum include a list of all outreach events that occurred; Public input channels used to collect feedback and comments; Methods used to publicize and broadcast information; Outreach focused on the City’s Equity Priority Communities; and statistics on the demographics that were engaged with during this outreach phase.
Community Outreach Events
Table 1 includes a list of all outreach events that occurred during this phase of the General Plan Update effort, between July 17, 2023 and October 9, 2023.
TABLE 1 COMMUNITY OUTREACH EVENTS
Date Outreach Event # of Participants
Friday, July 17, 2023 to Sunday,
October 1, 2023 Draft General Plan Online Comment Tool 236 Comments Friday, July 17, 2023 to Monday,
October 9, 2023 Written Public Comments 52 Comments
Monday, June 12, 2023 Meeting with Neighborhood Group (25th Ave Speaks) 4 Wednesday, July 26, 2023 Sierra Club Land Use Subcommittee Staff Presentation 6 Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Video Loco (North B St) Pop-up 20 Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Canvassing and passing out flyers to local businesses in North B Street 25
Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Distribute flyers at La Huerta Market & El Ranchito
Market n/a
Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association Meeting
Staff Presentation 34
Wednesday, August 16, 2023 Virtual Workshop 30
Wednesday, August 16, 2023 Canvassing at Idaho & Poplar Neighborhoods 6 Wednesday, August 18, 2023
Flyers were left at local businesses at Kingston Street in North Shoreview n/a
Tuesday, August 22, 2023 Canvassing at Tilton/Delaware Food Distribution 20 Friday, August 25, 2023 Canvassing at Norfolk and 3rd Ave Shopping Center 10
835 of 922
TABLE 1 COMMUNITY OUTREACH EVENTS
Date Outreach Event # of Participants
Saturday, August 26, 2023 Firefighter’s Chili Cook-Off Pop-Up 85 Sunday, August 27, 2023 North B Street Fiesta Pop-up 115 Monday, August 28, 2023 Canvassing Rogell Street Food Distribution 35 Tuesday, August 29, 2023 Canvassing at North Shoreview Shopping Center 30 Thursday, August 31, 2023 District 5 Town Hall Meeting 125 Wednesday, September 6, 2023
Canvassing at Hacienda Market and commercial center
on North Amphlett 40
Wednesday, September 6, 2023 Canvassing at La Raza Family Market 40 Wednesday, September 6, 2023 District 1 Town Hall Meeting 120 Thursday, September 7, 2023 Canvassing at King Center/Soccer Fields 60 Thursday, September 7, 2023 September Nights on B Pop-Up 100 Friday, September 8, 2023 Movies in the Park Pop-Up 50
Wednesday, September 13, 2023 District 2 Town Hall Meeting 40 Thursday, September 14, 2023 September Nights on B Pop-Up 100 Friday, September 15, 2023 Movies in the Park Pop-Up 75 Sunday, September 17, 2023
Canvassing at Iglesia Pentecostal de San Mateo,
Second Baptist Church, Sturge Presbyterian Church,
Shoreview United Methodist Church, St. Timothy
Catholic Church
8 individuals + 300
total fliers left with
church staff
Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Canvassing at Chavez Market, North Shoreview
Shopping Center and along Cary Avenue 30
Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Phone call and email reminders to religious institutions and businesses 5
Wednesday, September 20, 2023 District 4 Town Hall Meeting 30 Thursday, September 21, 2023
Home Association of North Central San Mateo
(HANCSM) Meeting Staff Presentation 25
Friday, September 22, 2023 Movies in the Park Pop-Up 75 Friday, September 23, 2023
Autumn Moon Festival Pop-Up (materials provided in
simplified Chinese with bilingual staff) 75
Thursday, September 28, 2023 District 3 Town Hall Meeting 50 Saturday, September 30, 2023 Chamber of Commerce Downtown Festival Pop-Up 100
836 of 922
Public Input Channels
This section summarizes the public input channels that were used to collect feedback on Draft General Plan 2040. The City collected feedback via:
Draft General Plan Online Comment Tool. The online tool was available on www.strivesanmateo.org from July 17, 2023 through October 1, 2023 to allow community members an opportunity to share reactions and feedback on Draft General Plan 2040.
Respondents could add comments directly into a PDF of the Draft General Plan and share feedback on all components of the plan.
Pop-up Events. The City planned 10 pop-up events at locations throughout the city to ensure the outreach process was aimed at collecting input from the following groups per Council direction:
oNon-English speakers
oRenters
oResidents 44 and under
oLow-income and very low-income households
oUnder-represented neighborhoods: North Shoreview, Shoreview, North Central, Central, and East of 101.
At the pop-up events, City staff shared information about Draft General Plan 2040 and publicized the upcoming outreach event.
Virtual Workshop. The City hosted a virtual workshop on Wednesday, August 16, 2023. At this event, participants could ask questions and provide feedback on the Draft General Plan 2040. Town Hall Meetings. The City hosted five District Town Hall Meetings around the city to gather feedback on Draft General Plan 2040, with one town hall meeting held in each Council District. The meetings occurred in August and September 2023. The meetings included an open house format where the community could engage with staff and various General Plan topics, a presentation about the Draft General Plan 2040 with focused topics for each District and a follow-up question and answer session. City Staff were available to answer questions about the Draft General Plan 2040, as well as other projects related to roadway safety, transportation improvements and stormwater protection.
Staff Presentations. The City met with local neighborhood organizations and other interest groups to help spread the word about Draft General Plan 2040 and respond to questions. This included providing a presentation to the Sierra Club Land Use Subcommittee, Beresford Hillsdale Neighborhood Association, North Central Neighborhood Association, and meeting with a neighborhood group about 25th Avenue.
Written Comments. Throughout the General Plan Update process, the City has encouraged people to submit written comments to [email protected]. during the Draft General Plan outreach phase, from July 17, 2023 to Monday, October 9, 52 written comments were received. The written comments can be viewed at
www.StriveSanMateo.org/documents/publiccomments.
Getting the Word Out
To ensure the community was aware of the Draft Geneal Plan and the proposed goals and policies, and to spread the word about project updates and upcoming events, the City utilized a variety of outreach methods and tools:
837 of 922
StriveSanMateo.org Project Website. The project website provided background information, meeting dates, workshop materials, and other ways to get involved. Self-Guided Open House. The City distributed Draft General Plan 2040 self-guided open house stations throughout the city that included boards and materials with information about the General Plan. The stations were available at City Hall and Council Chambers, Downtown Library, Hillsdale Branch Library, Marina Branch Library, and King Community Center. Social Media. City staff made regular posts on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Nextdoor.com to update the public about the project, including a different Big Idea featured each week. A total of 53 posts were made to spread the word about the Draft General Plan. Citywide Newsletter. The City published a newsletter that announced the publication of the Draft General Plan which was mailed to every residence in San Mateo. The newsletter had information about the outreach events, a QR code to the project website, a description of the ten big ideas, in addition to other information.
Town Hall Postcard. A postcard was mailed to every residence in San Mateo advertising information about the five Town Hall meetings, including the time and location of each event. Sidewalk Decals. The City placed over 190 sidewalk decals around the city that included the Strive San Mateo logo and a QR code to the project website. Earned Media. Publication of the Draft Geneal Plan was prominently featured in a July 18, 2023 article in the San Mateo Daily Journal, as well as in multiple other articles and editorials in the Daily Journal between July and October.
Eblasts. PlaceWorks sent out eight emails to 897 people subscribed to the project mailing list prior to every Town Hall Meeting and workshop. Information about the Draft General Plan and outreach opportunities were also regularly featured in the City’s eNewsletter, which has approximately 13,000 subscribers.
Print Advertisement. Information about the Draft Geneal Plan was featured on the inside cover of the City’s Fall Recreation Activity Guide.
Canvassing and Flyer Distribution. Bilingual staff (English and Spanish) from the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (PCRC) and Good City Company distributed flyers to raise awareness of the Draft General Plan and upcoming outreach opportunities by visiting businesses, markets, religious institutions, and by walking or standing in key areas of the city. Draft General Plan 2040 User Guide. The City prepared a user guide for the Draft General Plan that explains what the General Plan is, identifies ten big ideas from the General Plan, and highlights where community members can find the issues they care about in the General Plan.
Ten Big Ideas in San Mateo’s Draft General Plan 2040. The City developed a list of ten big ideas that will guide the next 20 years of San Mateo for community members to use as a resource.
Outreach to Equity Priority Communities
North Central and North Shoreview/Shoreview are both identified as Equity Priority Communities and are located within Council Districts 2 and 4. Leading up to the District 2 and District 4 Town Hall meetings, PCRC and Good City conducted outreach to increase awareness of the Draft General Plan 2040 among residents of equity priority communities and also increase attendance at the District 2 and District 4 Town Hall meetings. This effort was guided by the following principles:
838 of 922
Meet community members where they already are. Proactively go to places where the target audience already is rather than creating new events.
Focus on Non-English speakers. Multilingual with a focus on Spanish speakers and lower- income households.
Use clear and concise language, avoid jargon and technical terms. The information provided should be relevant to the community.
Outreach locations were chosen because of their potential for high pedestrian traffic (parks, supermarkets, major thoroughfares, commercial centers), including community wide events such as the North B Street Fiesta, food distribution events, as well as nonprofit and religious institutions such as the San Mateo Adult School and St. Timothy’s Catholic Church. All activities were conducted by Spanish speaking volunteers from PCRC and Good City. Outreach was completed in many areas of District 2 and District 4 and were effective at reaching residents in the targeted audience that spoke Spanish.
The following is a summary of the outreach effort that focused on reaching community members from North Central and North Shoreview/Shoreview:
Staff/volunteers from PCRC and Good City conducted outreach on 12 separate dates in the afternoons, evenings, weekdays and weekends leading up to Town Hall meetings. Approximately 1,400 total flyers were distributed.
Visited five religious institutions and the Adult School of San Mateo and dropped off flyers. Distributed flyers at approximately 35 businesses located at 6 different commercial shopping centers/strips (El Video Loco and North B Street, Chavez Market, La Hacienda Market, Primas Market, La Raza Family Market, Mercado El Nayarita).
Attended and passed out information to attendees at 1 community wide event (North B Fiesta) and two food distribution events.
Canvassed at Martin Luther King Park twice (afternoon and evening). 1 pop-up event and tabling event on North B Street.
Outreach Demographics
This section summarizes the demographic characteristics of the outreach participants that provided voluntary demographic data. This includes participants from the outreach events listed in Table 1 and demographic data from participants at past outreach events that answered the same question. The summary below includes demographic data from January 2022 to October 2023. The demographic data below helps the project team determine if the outreach program is reaching the full range of San Mateo’s demographics. This data indicates that the outreach program should continue to be refined to increase involvement of renters, younger residents, and residents who identify as Asian, Hispanic, and Black/African American. A summary of the demographics of the outreach participants is presented below. Please note, the demographics summary below is not inclusive of all participants, since participants were not asked to provide voluntary demographic data during the pop-ups or canvassing events.
Is this your first time joining us for a General Plan event? Number of Respondents: 405
•44 percent of the workshop participants were new.
839 of 922
•56 percent had participated in a pervious General Plan meeting.
How are you affiliated with San Mateo?
Number of Respondents: 459
61%
7%
25%
6%
1% 0.2%
Live in San Mateo Work in San
Mateo
Live and work in
San Mateo
Visit San Mateo
to shop, dine, etc
I am not
connected to San
Mateo
Own property in
San Mateo
840 of 922
What kind of stakeholder are you?
Number of Respondents: 360
1%
10%
8%
6%
8%
11%
3%
10%
67%
I am a representative of a homeowners association
I...
I own a business here
I am a representative of another
organization/group
I am a renter
I work here
I am a visitor or patronize San Mateo businesses
I am a resident
I own property here
841 of 922
How did you hear about the event?
Number of Respondents: 294
How long have you lived in San Mateo?
Number of Respondents: 186
0.3%
4%
18%
22%
21%
11%
43%
News article
Sidewalk decal
Word of mouth
General Plan newsletter
Other
StriveSanMateo website
City email/Social media
7%
9%
6%
71%
7%
Less than 5 years
5-10 years
10-15 years
More than 15 years
Do not live in San Mateo
842 of 922
Which best describes your current housing situation?
Number of Respondents: 386
Own my home
75%
Pay rent for my
home
25%
Outreach Participants
Owner Occupied
54%
Renter Occupied
46%
City of San Mateo, 2019
843 of 922
What is your age group?
Number of Respondents: 434
27%
32%
25%
15%
0-25 years 25-44 years 45-64 years 65+ years
City of San Mateo, 2019
2.8%
24%
46%
28%
0-25 years 25-40 years 41-64 years 65+ years
Outreach Participants
844 of 922
What is your race or ethnicity? (Check all that apply).
Number of Respondents: 445
8%
0.4%
0.4%
0.2%
17%
7%
14%
52%
Other
Native American
Black/African American
Pacific Islander
Latino/Hispanic
Mixed or other
Asian
White
Outreach Participants
6%
0%
2%
25%
26%
41%
Other Race or Multiple
American Indian or Alaska Native
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latinx
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
City of San Mateo, 2019
845 of 922
Which best describes your household annual income?
Number of Respondents: 240
11%
13%
14%
63%
Less than $75,000
$75,000-$99,000
$100,000-$149,000
$150,000 or more
Outreach Participants
29%
5%
16%
50%
Less than $75,000
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000-$149,999
$150,000 or more
City of San Mateo, 2019
846 of 922
Name: Sharon DiPierro
Email:
Message: there shouldn’t be any zoning that is commercial only (restricts residential) unl
ess some hazard exists, like industrial use/waste
while I like the additions of speed bumps on the 28th ave bike corridor, I hate the city signs that point to local attractions. It detracts from the quaint neighborhood feel, instead looking more like a busy urban downtown area.
reducing speed limits to 20mph won’t work unless you actually narrow the streets
convert rolled sidewalks into regular ones, so people don’t park on the sidewalks. this would slow down traffic in neighborhoods.
I think you should eliminate parking meters/paid parking in the downtown area. time limits are good, but free parking changes my behavior as to where I shop and eat and play, creating a draw for businesses. consider a business fee to replace lost income.
It’s a bit insulting that San Mateo would have consultation with native tribes in the general plan, but with no other cultural communities. There is no need to specifically bow to indigenous peoples who no longer are in charge of this land, as there was no one tribe with rights to this land; multiple tribes constantly warred over it. Eventually American settlors won control, and nobody who lives here now was a part of that. Eventually San Mateo has become an immigrant haven. This land belongs to Americans, Californians, San Mateans - all of us, native or immigrant; no one has more right to it than the others based on the year that their ancestors arrived.
I absolutely love "Action COS 8.14 School Facility Access. Partner with local school districts to explore ways to expand public
access to school facilities, including gymnasiums and swimming pools." I have been trying to work with our neighborhood school for years to help the community have access to the schoolyard.
---
Date: February 21, 2024
Time: 6:32 pm
Page URL: https://strivesanmateo.org/participate-online/ User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.3 Safari/605.1.15
Remote IP: 135.180.184.48
Powered by: Elementor
847 of 922
From: Doris Nishimoto
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 6:50 PM
To:
Lisa Diaz Nash ; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Noel Nish ; City Mgr <[email protected]>
Cc: David Canepa ;
Subject: A Posting from social media on building height in City of San Mateo
Hi City Council and City Manager,
If you want to hear what your constituents think but are afraid to tell you, join a social media platform.
Your City of San Mateo Police Department is on one of these social media platforms.
Here is a copy and paste (without author) regarding the building heights proposed for City of San Mateo:
"A few months ago, I was sent a survey from the City of San Mateo regarding the housing shortage. I was asked multiple questions phrased differently about a preference for clusters of tall buildings closer to downtown with shopping. public transportation, etc, or buildings within neighborhoods built to house around four to six families. These would go on existing home lots.
There were renderings of what each would look like. I was not fond of the pictures. They showed a muti-story building filling a lot in a neighborhood of mainly one-story homes . Can you imagine having people nearby looking in your yard? What about the shadow it would cause, not to mention noise and parking? Would there be a motivation for people to sell their homes to accept an offer from a developer creating a negative impact on the neighborhood? If you drive south on Norfolk St. across from Bayside Building, there is a small development of two-story houses and apartment buildings. The unfortunate people on Norfolk St have this exact scenario. Their neighbors look down into their yards. Take a look next time you drive by. One way or another, the handwriting is on the wall. The City is pushing the building of these structures to comply with the ruling. I just wonder where they are going to find occupants."
This posting shares the CANDID sentiments of many people who ordinarily do not show up at your meetings because they most likely think what they say won't change the City's agenda.
Doris Nishimoto, D.D.S.
848 of 922
From: Shirley Melnicoe
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 3:59 PM
To:
City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan Comments
Dear Mayor Nash & City Council Members:
As a long-time San Mateo resident, I am concerned that the term contributors to historic districts was removed by staff. This is a policy decision, not a staff decision. Please reinstate this important term and add contributors to historic resources to the definition of historic resources in the General Plan Policy CD 5.3.
To plan for the future, I think we need to look at the current resources of our community and we need to ensure their protection so that they continue to exist and remain as a resource in our future. I moved to San Mateo because of its historic downtown and the lovely neighborhoods with classic and historic homes and gardens. Such resources need to be preserved as they contribute to San Mateo’s identity, character, and value. Please add language to acknowledge and strive to protect historical properties and contributors with distinct architectural traits for current and future generations.
Thank you.
Shirley Melnicoe
San Mateo Resident
849 of 922
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4109
415.434.9100 main
415.434.3947 fax
www.sheppardmullin.com
Jennifer E. Renk
415.774.3143 direct
[email protected]
March 1, 2024
File Number: 68FL-298947
VIA EMAIL
Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash
and Members of the City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: Bayshore Corporate Commons - 1720 South Amphlett Boulevard
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash, Deputy Mayor Newsom and Members of the City Council:
We are writing on behalf of B9 Sequoia Bayshore Owner LP (“Owner”), the owner of the property located at 1720 South Amphlett Boulevard in San Mateo, CA (“City”), known as Bayshore Corporate Commons (“Site”). The Owner appreciates the countless hours and hard work that has gone into this important General Plan Update effort over the past few years. We continue to be supportive of the City’s process and have actively participated since 2022. In anticipation of the City Council’s meeting on March 4, 2024, we submit the following letter requesting that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission’s unanimous January 30, 2024 recommendation for the Mixed-Use Medium I designation for the Site.
As a reminder, below is a chart outlining the major General Plan Update milestones regarding the Site:
Date Action Outcome
February
2022
Requested Mixed-Use Medium from
General Plan Subcommittee
Mixed-Use Medium
recommended to Planning
Commission
March
2022
Requested Mixed-Use Medium from
Planning Commission
Mixed-Use High recommended to
City Council
April 2022 Owner supported CEQA analysis of Mixed-
Use High
City Council approved CEQA
analysis of Mixed-Use High
2022 to
2023
GPU CEQA Evaluation GPU approvals in early 2024
January
2024
Reiterated original request of Mixed-Use
Medium I from Planning Commission
Mixed-Use Medium I
recommended to City Council
850 of 922
Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash
March 1, 2024
Based on our evaluation of current and projected economic and market conditions, a final designation of Mixed-Use Medium I will allow for the following anticipated outcomes:
• Provide the flexibility and certainty needed to accelerate the redevelopment of the Site with housing and community benefits that enhance the community around it.
• Allow for both lower density housing and opportunities for more dense housing, including Site planning sensitivity to existing single family homes to the west and north.
• Improve the site’s potential to support the City’s current Housing Element goals, including the possibility of ownership housing.
Ownership is fully committed to working with the City to develop housing at the Site as quickly as possible following the final adoption of the 2040 General Plan Update. Consequently, we respectfully request that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation to designate the Site Mixed-Use Medium I.
The Owner looks forward to continuing this dialogue with the City. In the meantime, please feel free to reach out should you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jennifer E. Renk
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
SMRH:4892-3689-3610.1
cc: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
Zachary Dahl, Interim Director of Community Development
851 of 922
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303
SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
March 1, 2024
City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Subject: Comments on San Mateo General Plan 2040
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash and Members of the San Mateo City Council, The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Thank you for providing the opportunity for SLU to provide input on the January 2024 San Mateo General Plan 2040 (GP), which is being considered for adoption in March 2024.
The GP has many very good features and, if fully implemented, would be a significant step forward to meeting the needs of San Mateo through 2040. Never the less, some final considerations and adjustments would further strengthen this important GP and fully meet the challenges through 2040.
SLU has two concerns that the GP could address further. They have been described in detail in the prior SLU letters (November 16, 2023, September 7, 2023, et al) but they are summarized once more, as you are now considering the final adoption of this GP.
The lack of housing, particularly affordable housing, is a continuing crisis and should be more strongly addressed , as well as the need for more urban greening and open space in the City for climate change and livability.
One important key to addressing the housing shortage is increasing housing density and supporting affordable housing, particularly near transit.
Greening of the City improves the quality of life for residents and has major environmental benefits as well. The greening of a City includes more open space, more park space, wider sidewalks to encourage safe pedestrian travel and more street trees, a safe slow network of Green Corridor/Green Streets1 for pedestrians and wider and safer bike lanes to encourage bike travel, among other benefits.
The Land Use Designations such as “High II” were developed to provide for higher density for more housing, including affordable housing, near transit, but it is no longer in the GP.
Allowing “High II”, along with limiting lot coverage, has the real potential to create more open space, parks, bike paths, pedestrian walkways and green streets in cunjunction with more housing. We believe
1 Master Planning for a Green Street Network, City of San Mateo, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Sustainable Land Use Committee
852 of 922
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303
that, linked with zoning mechanisms limiting lot coverage, it would be advantageous to include the “High II” designation in order to free land for urban greening and open space in the heart of the City. 4 We ask that you consider this issue as you finalize the General Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Gita Dev
Chair, Sustainable Land Use Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Cc James Eggers, Chapter Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
4 A good example of this was demonstrated in the scenarios put forward as part of the “Re -imagine Hillsdale” presentation of March 8, 2023. The scenario that stayed with the current 5 -story limit produced a design with very little open space and with the area facing the neighborhood on Edison Street being high and dense. However, the scenario that allowed heights as much as 10 to 12 stories for buildings near the railroad and along El Camino Real (ECR) produced a design with a large amount of open space, par ks, and a much more compatible neighborhood design along Edison Street. The higher height allowed, adjacent to the railroad and ECR, made it possible to lower heights near the existing neighborhood on Edison Street and to provide much more park and open sp ace for the entire community to enjoy in a central location.
853 of 922
From: Keith Weber <
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2024 4:46 PM
To:
Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Jon Mays <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan 2040/March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting
Mayor Diaz-Nash and Members of the City Council:
The San Mateo Draft General Plan 2040 appears untethered to both current and future reality. So why are we fast-tracking its approval? The plan proposes up-zoning to accommodate a 50% population increase when the CA Department of Finance forecasts the state’s population will remain flat for the next 40 years. GP2040’s bright idea is to add 55,000 new residents to San Mateo, equal to the combined populations — and traffic — of both Burlingame and San Carlos.
Office vacancies are at record highs throughout the Bay Area and San Francisco’s office vacancy rate is over 30%. Yet, in GP2040’s world, San Mateo would add 3.2 million more square feet of office space, the equivalent of 2.2 new Salesforce towers.
In a “soft” real estate market where landlords routinely give prospective tenants several month’s free rent, GP2040’s notion is to ‘reimagine’ 22,000 new apartments, the equivalent of 220 additional 11-12 story high-rises.
San Mateo residents have been reliably consistent in their community vision and desire for reasonable, responsible growth. The recent passage of Measure Y was a definitive repudiation of the extreme growth envisioned in GP2040. Nevertheless, GP2040, rife with arrogance and vastly out of tune with the electorate, ignores common sense and forges ahead, tone-deaf to reality and those it is obligated to serve.
Insatiable in its overreach, GP2040 is out of step in every respect -- send it back, it’s way out of whack.
Keith Weber
San Mateo
854 of 922
855 of 922
4 March 2024
Mayor Lisa Diaz-Nash [email protected]
Deputy Mayor Rob Newsom [email protected]
Council Member Rich Hedges [email protected]
Council Member Amourence Lee [email protected]
Council Member Adam Loraine <[email protected] City Council <[email protected]
San Mateo City Hall
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: General Plan 2040 & Climate Plan Update EIR
Lack of Impacts Analysis on Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District
Dear Mayor Diaz-Nash, Deputy Mayor Newsom, Council Member Hedges, Council Member Lee, and Council Member Loraine:
The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District at 1007 East 5 th Avenue was listed on
the National Register of Historic Places on 26 December 2023 (National Register Reference No. 100009653). The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House is listed on the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance under Criteria A and B in the areas of Ethnic Heritage: Asian (Japanese) and Social History: Women’s History for its association with Yoshiko Yamanouchi, a member of the pioneer Issei generation who was a leader in the San Mateo Japanese American community. Additionally, it meets the Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California, 1850-1970 National Register Multiple Property Submission Registration Requirements for Property Types Associated with Prominent Persons in Asian American History and for Property Types Associated with Community Serving Organizations.
The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District includes nine contributing resources:
the House, the Entrance Gateway and Fence, a Storage Room and Pumphouse, the Patio and Swimming Pool, the West Side Garden, a Japanese Style Hill-And-Pond Garden, the Katsura Building, the Katsura Walkway, and the Katsura Garden. Each of these resources contribute to the historical significance and integrity of the property. Please see the attached Sketch Plan from the National Register Nomination that identifies the location of each of these nine contributing resources.
Denise Bradley
Denise Bradley Cultural Landscapes
1388 Haight Street $ No. 79 $ San Francisco, CA $ 94117 (415) 751-2604 (phone) $ [email protected] (email) $ www.denisebradley.us
856 of 922
Mayor Diaz-Nash, Deputy Mayor Newsom, Council Member Hedges, Council Member Lee, and Council Member Loraine
4 March 2024
The National Register Nomination noted that Yoshiko Yamanouchi would recognize the property as largely unchanged from the years she lived there, and the feeling within the property continues to be one of a private residence with features that express the Japanese heritage of the owner. The property is enclosed by a combination of privacy fencing and a sound wall. This enclosure enhances the feelings of calmness and serenity associated with the property’s Japanese style designed landscape and architecture and helps to mitigate visual and sound intrusions into the property.
The analysis for the General Plan 2040 & Climate Plan Update EIR did not evaluate direct and indirect impacts from the proposed increased development in the surrounding area on the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District. For example, the impacts from proposed increased traffic, the closer proximity of traffic along S. Humboldt Street, and the related truck vibrations and disposition of particulates were not evaluated.
Additionally, the proposed change in traffic along S. Humboldt Street has the potential to increase noise within the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District. As the primary author of the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District National Register Nomination, I am concerned that all of these factors have the potential for direct and indirect impacts on the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District. These should be evaluated as part of the EIR process.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Denise Bradley
Attachment: Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Sketch Plan
cc: Alex Khojikian, City Manager [email protected]
Christina Horrisberger, Assistant City Manager [email protected] Zachary Dahl, Interim Director of Community Development [email protected] Patrice Olds, City Clerk [email protected]
857 of 922
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB Control No. 1024-0018
Yamanouchi, Yoshiko, House San Mateo, California
Name of Property County and State
Sections 9-end page 62
Sketch Map
Google Earth 2020 map annotated by Denise Bradley
A
E. 4thAvenue
S. HumboldtStreet
E. 5thAvenue
B
F
C
G
D
I
H
E
130ft
KeytoSiteFeatures
A-House
B-Entrance Gateway and Fence
C-Storage Room and Pumphouse
D-Swimming Pool and Patio
E-West Side Garden
F-Japanese Style Hill-and-Pond Garden
G-Katsura Building
H-KatsuraWalkway
I-Katsura Garden
Perimeter Fences
SoundWall
Buildings and Structures
858 of 922
From: Nancy Cussary
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 4:09 PM
To:
City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Health and Safety
The Safety Element of the General Plan of the city of San Mateo “sets forth the City’s goals and policies which are intended to minimize risk to people and property associated with natural and man-made hazards” (City of San Mateo General Plan). The small cell towers installed throughout the city are a hazard and in direct opposition to the intended goals and policies. Radiation emissions from cell towers are continuous and accumulated exposure over time can be serious, including cancer, headaches, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular problems (David O.
Carpenter, https://www.recorder.com/my-turn-Carpenter-Ashfield-MUST-TUESDAY- 39137782)
It is unfathomable to me that two hundred towers have been installed next to homes without consideration of the health and safety of the people in the homes and of the people who walk and play by these towers daily. It clearly shows that there is a blatant disregard for the people and the General plan to minimize risk associated with this man- made hazard. Why?! To what avail?
Assuming that you care about the health and well-being of the people in San Mateo, I implore you to do the right thing and protect us and not the interest of Crown Castle.
Sincerely,
Nancy Cussary
Shoreview resident
859 of 922
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:27 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Cc: Keith Weber Shirley Melnicoe < ; Lisa Vande
Voorde <
Subject: Comments on General Plan and EIR
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash and Council Members:
Please see my attached letter regarding:
• Including contributors to historic districts in the definition of historic resources in the General Plan, and
• Deficiencies in the EIR.
The protection of historic resources is in your hands tonight. Please follow through on your commitment to make historic preservation a priority in San Mateo before it is too late.
Once they are gone, it will change our city forever.
Thank you for your serious consideration.
Sincerely,
Laurie
860 of 922
P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
March 4, 2024
City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave
San Mateo, CA 94403
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash and City Council Members:
The City is at risk of challenges to the EIR and subsequent litigation. There are at least four key flaws in the General Plan EIR:
1. Inadequate mitigation. The General Plan policies and CEQA are not adequate to mitigate the loss of histo
ric resources because both allow for the demolition of historic resources. Additional mitigation must be defined or it must be identified as a significant unavoidable effect and requires findings.
2. Analysis of removing contributors. Removing contributors to historic districts from the definition of historic resources in the 2040 General Plan was a policy decision made by staff, not explained to the City Council, and reduces the protection of historic resources. This impact was not analyzed in the EIR.
3. Analysis of effects to new historic district. The EIR impact analysis did not evaluate the direct and indirect effects on the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Hist oric District from increased traffic and deposition of particulates.
4. Inadequate cumulative impact analysis. The cumulative impact analysis is not adequate because it did not address the effects on historic resources described above.
General Plan
“Contributors to historic districts” was removed from the General Plan Policy CD 5.3 Historic Resources Definition in the 2040 General Plan. Please return contributors to historic districts to the definition of historic resources in the General Plan Policy CD 5.3 and revise the EIR. The General Plan is like the constitution; important definitions need to be defined in the policies, not in a glossary, which is not enforceable.
I reviewed historic preservation ordinances for Peninsula cities from San Francisco to San Jose. Two cities do not have ordinances and one is being updated. Every city with a historic preservation ordinance included contributors to historic distri cts as historic resources.
The 2030 General Plan Policy C/OS 8.1 includes contributors:
d. Historic building shall mean buildings which are on or individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or Downtown Historic District contributor buildings as designated in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, or as determined to be eligible through documentation contained in a historic resources report.
861 of 922
City Council
March 4, 2024
2 Please add contributors (added language underlined) to General Plan Policy CD 5.3:
Policy CD 5.3: Historic Resources Definition. Define historic resources as buildings, structures, sites, and districts (including contributors to historic districts) that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources, designated resources in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, and resources found to be eligible through documentation in a historic resources report.
Similarly, adding contributors to Action CD 5.12: Historic Resources Design Standards is not adequate to ensure protection of contributors to historic districts, as is in the current General Plan.
Action CD 5.12: Historic Resources Design Standards. Create objective design standards for alterations to historic resources and contributors to a designated historic district, and new development adjacent to historic resources within historic districts. Use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as the basis for these objective design standards to ensu
re projects have a contextual relationship with land uses and patterns; spatial organization; visual relationships; cultural and historic values; and the height, massing, design, and materials of historic resources.
2030 General Plan Policy C/OS 8.2 defines historic districts as concentrations of buildings. The 204 0 General Plan changes the definition to “concentrations of historic resources.” This seemingly minor change actually raises the bar for defining a district to include “historic resources,” which by definition are individually eligible for listing on the State or National Register. The Registers do not require buildings to be individ
ually eligible for listing to qualify as a historic district. 2030 C/OS 8.2: Historic Districts. Consider the protection of concentrations of buildings which convey the flavor of local historical periods or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, after additional study.
2040 Policy CD 5.12: Historic Preservation. Actively identify and preserve historic resources and concentrations of historic resources buildings which convey the flavor of local historical periods, are culturally significant, or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, as feasible, when they meet national, State, or local criteria. Historic resources, includeing individual properties, districts, and sites to that maintain San Mateo’s sense of place and special identity, and to enrich our understanding of the city’s history and continuity with the past.
San Mateo Growth
The majority of voters have made it clear in multiple elections that we don’t want intense urbanization with high rises in San Mateo. San Mateo can meet its RNHA requirements through 2031, without repealing Measure Y, and especially in light of the decling population. Measure Y passed only 3 years ago and sunsets in 2030. It is not clear why the City needs to spend the money on consultants and a ballot initiative in 2024.
Please make these changes to implement your commitment to making historic preservation a priority.
Thank you.
862 of 922
City Council
March 4, 2024
3 Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
President
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
863 of 922
From: Maxine Terner
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:27 PM
To:
Lisa Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Richard Hedges <[email protected]>; Amourence Lee <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Jon Mays <[email protected]>
Subject: 2040 General Plan
March 3, 2024
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
San Mateans for Responsive Government (SMRG), as the proponents of Measure Y, the resident-led height and density standards measure, cannot support the proposed 2040 San Mateo General Plan as presented. SMRG respectfully requests that you do not approve it at this time. It overrides Measure Y and will displace many small businesses and service providers. We will actively work to oppose it if it goes on the 2024 ballot because it ignores the will of San Mateo voters.
No valid, public reason has been given for rushing a vote to overturn Measure Y in 2024, instead of keeping it in the General Plan until its legal expiration date of 2030.
1. There is no legal rush for higher heights and densities to meet state housing requirements. Development under Measure Y can meet the City’s cycle 6 Housing Element and state RHNA requirements, valid until 2031. The next housing cycle is likely to have reduced requirements since the State Department of Finance has released new population projections showing CA growth is flat through 2060.
2. There is no economic rush for higher heights and densities. Many already approved projects have asked for extensions and are not being constructed. There are high rates of office and retail vacancies throughout the Peninsula and Bay Area.
3. Measure Y expires in 2030 and is currently part of the existing 2030 General Plan. In 2031 a majority of the City Council can revise the 2040 General Plan height and density limits without a vote to comply with the next Housing Element cycle. This is how General Plan changes were always made prior to the Measures H, P and Y voter initiatives.
4. Measure Y’s zoning limits (55 foot height and 50 units per acre density) are but a small percentage of construction costs. Buildings exceeding 5-7 stories (50’-70’) are substantially more expensive to construct. The increased cost of land (directly related to increasing heights and densities) and the high cost of construction (labor, materials, financing, insurance) make construction of new buildings unaffordable, not Measure Y. Construction of new housing costs almost $1M per unit - increased zoning and taxpayer subsidies cannot build enough affordable housing to make a significant difference with these extreme development costs.
5. The General Plan study areas do not protect key community serving land uses that residents rely on, such as grocery stores, car repair, independent restaurants, small businesses and service providers. Most existing small businesses along El Camino Real and surrounding
864 of 922
Downtown will be displaced by allowing maximum development. The cost of new construction significantly raises rents.
6. The Council and the residents need to review a fiscal analysis PRIOR to General Plan adoption. The DEIR makes clear that the large increase in population and structures will require additional funding for services. There is no data about how much revenue will be lost or gained by the Project land use changes. How much sales tax revenue will be lost by upzoning downtown and El Camino Real small businesses for housing or office?
7. The DEIR does not provide the public nor decision-makers with the data they need to approve the Project. There is no information about how water will be provided, traffic impacts reduced, the jobs/housing balance maintained, and displacement of affordable housing and small businesses avoided. Voters and the Council deserve to know the truth BEFORE approving the General Plan.
The majority of San Mateans have consistently supported the construction of more housing, particularly affordable housing, continued job growth and economic development. But they don’t believe it is necessary, nor are they willing, to sacrifice their homes, neighborhoods, quality of life, or character of their historic downtown in the process.
Thank you,
Michael Weinhauer, Spokesperson
San Mateans for Responsive Government
865 of 922
From: Lisa Vande Voorde
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:54 PM
To:
City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment Regarding General Plan 2040 for 3/4/24 Meeting
Honorable Mayor Diaz-Nash and City Council Members,
I'm writing to provide my feedback about the General Plan 2040 under consideration tonight.
I'm very concerned about the Historic Resources Element, specifically about the deletion of the word "contributors" to Policy CD 5.3: Historic Resources Definition.
This important word was removed by City Staff from the
draft General Plan without approval of the City
Council. This has been pointed out to City Staff on
numerous occasions, and the answer is always "it's in the glossary". Being in the glossary is not enough! The
General Plan is like the Constitution, and City ordinances and guidelines are the implementation. And if the word is not in a provision of the Constitution, it doesn't exist! Not having the word "contributors" could have an adverse
impact on historic properties that comprise an historic district, including our Downtown Historic District, because historic districts are made up of listed, determined to be eligible, AND contributors.
Please update Policy CD 5.3 to include the underlined
words below:
866 of 922
Policy CD 5.3: Historic Resources Definition. Define
historic resources as buildings, structures, sites, and districts (including contributors to historic districts) that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California
Register of Historical Resources, designated resources in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, and resources found to be eligible
through documentation in a historic resources report.
Other cities include the word "contributors" in their historic resources definition, and San Mateo did as well in the
current General Plan. It's time that staff rectify this oversight and put that word BACK into the General Plan
BEFORE it is approved by the City Council.
Words have meaning. Words have impact. Our historic
resources ARE valuable. And one word can make a
difference to keeping them for generations to come. Thank you.
Lisa Vande Voorde
San Mateo Resident
867 of 922
March 4, 2024
Dear Mayor Diaz and Members of the City Council,
These are our comments on Final EIR 2040 General Plan.
1. Street classifications in the Circulation Element - In the Circulation Element a classification for Minor Collector is not included by appears to be lumped in with Major Collector. Both a Minor Collector and Major Collector have the same number of trips, 1100 to 2600 per day. However, a Major Collector has trips over a distance greater than 3/4 of a mile, while a Minor Collector has trips of a distance less than 3/4 of a mile. There are streets that fit this Minor Collector classification in San Mateo. The NTMP needs to add Minor and Major Collectors, Minor Arterials and Emergency Routes for traffic calming. We do not want Truck Routes in the Central Neighborhood that will bring more pollution impacts for residents.
2. Air quality and construction impacts - There will be a significant number of construction trucks passing through 3rd, 4th, and 5th Avenues because of inadequate signage and the current ‘NO TRUCK’ sign at 5th and Delaware is hidden from view.
These are residential streets and the many trucks that haul toxic soils to waste sites need to be directed away from our homes. There could be up to 100 trucks a day passing through. We need more mitigation measures to reduce the traffic and air pollution impacts for our residents due to cut-through trucks and construction parking. a. A San Mateo City contact person should be identified who will monitor air pollution, noise and construction impacts. Today residents need to call a Project Manager for each project in order to discuss these construction impacts such as with the new Kiku Crossing Garage and Housing Project. Will the construction businesses cover window washing for residents with all the construction dust impacts? Our residents are unable to control the large speeding trucks from construction sites and their dust impacts. The EIR is deficient in the analysis of more construction protections for the surrounding residents is needed.
b. Construction workers continue to park on residential streets along South Delaware and 7th Avenue. The on-site parking for construction workers is insufficient and workers park their personal vehicles along residential streets. This is a significant impact on the neighborhood and construction worker parking is underestimated in the Conditions of Approval when projects get approved at the Planning Commission. c. New Construction Projects on the west side of the railroad should be required to utilize state highways, El Camino Real, Interstate 92 to Interstate 101 in order to reduce the pollution impacts to Priority Equity Neighborhoods. The mitigation measures in the project’s Conditions of Approvals further impact the Equity Priority Neighborhoods.
1 868 of 922
3. Policy LU3.10 - Service Commercial/ Light Manufacturing - The EIR fails to recognize the current and future diesel truck traffic impacts from Service Commercial and Light Manufacturing zoning on South Amphlett from 5th Avenue to Folkstone to residential streets. This Service Commercial / Light Manufacturing land-use is incompatible with Central and Sunnybrae. The 2040 General Plan EIR does not analyze these environmental impacts associated this land-use change and the difficulty of access from 101. These truck impacts have been experienced by residents over the last 50 years and this land-use change in 2040 General Plan will increase these adverse impacts. The EIR does not provide any alternatives to Service Commercial to reduce the significant impacts to the neighborhood, but instead adds Light Manufacturing which will bring more adverse impacts to our neighborhood that have not been addressed. The EIR went as far as discouraging uses that are allowed elsewhere in the city from locating in Service Commercial and Light Industrial areas.
Amphlett and the surrounding neighborhoods cannot improve with the addition of Service Commercial and Light Industrial zoning.
a. The health risks and quality of life impacts from more diesel trucks servicing these businesses have not been measured. What mitigation will be provided to reduce the air pollution and cancer risks associated with new industrial businesses and more diesel trucks with Light Manufacturing added to Service Commercial? How will noise and vibration issues be mitigated from trucks with trailers carrying landscaping and heavy construction equipment?
b. The on-site parking requirements is inadequate for these car and boat repair businesses, construction and food preparation businesses in the Service Commercial zoning. In addition, the EIR does not recognize employee parking overflow issues impacting South Idaho Street residents. The South Amphlett area is beyond the 1/2 mile distance from the Transit Center so workers on South Amphlett will continue to drive to work and park in the residential neighborhood. These increased commercial parking impacts that will increase with increased Light Manufacturing should be identified in the EIR and mitigation measures should be defined in the EIR so the neighborhood is not impacted.
c. Service Commercial land-use generates Code Enforcement issues such as on-going dumping and bad seafood odors from food processing businesses. The EIR does not identify these existing issues, the likely increase of these impacts, and does not adequately address how to mitigate these impacts associated along South Amphlett with this zoning classification.
e. The trucks servicing Service Commercial businesses strike our street trees breaking tree branches on 5th Avenue, South Humboldt Street, 4th Avenue, and South Idaho Street. These trucks have damaged side mirrors on vehicles and generate 2 869 of 922
heavy diesel soot on properties. Our residential streets are not designed for large trucks over 5 tons. These significant impacts will increase and require mitigation f. This EIR did not provide mitigation for a taller sound wall along South Amphlett businesses with plantings and street trees to absorb the freeway carbons to make the environment healthier and less toxic for residents. New housing will be built at the former Fish Market, the Concar Passages, and at 1650 - 1730 South Amphlett along 101 and 92. New housing developments can be built with specialized windows for noise reduction and air filtration systems for health protections. Why is South Amphlett from 5th Avenue to Folkstone excluded from R2 housing options with the same specialized building options? Adaptive re-use of warehouse businesses to non- industrial businesses will help transition this area to reduce the adverse impacts of toxic diesel trucks fumes with 5 ton load limits to reduce noise impacts. South Amphlett needs further analysis and mitigation to identify and reduce the significant environmental impacts in the 2040 General Plan EIR.
4. Historic Resources - The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House is listed as a state and federal historic district on the National Register of Historic Places. It is also listed on the Asian American and Pan Pacific site. The 2040 General Plan EIR does not analyze the increased traffic and truck traffic impacts from all new construction proposed combined with the impacts from the trucks from the Service Commercial businesses along South Amphlett. Recently, seven residential parking were removed on the west side of South Humboldt, and more parking was removed next to the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House to accommodate more vehicular traffic in the right turn lane to 101 South and to install the new Humboldt Street Bike Lane between 4th and 5th Avenue.
Over the years, the interior bamboo Katsura fences along Humboldt Street have been significantly damaged by truck vibrations and diesel soot. These interior Katsura fences along South Humboldt Street were rebuilt to match the original fence design from Japan. Increased traffic and pollutant deposition caused by the General Plan changes will result in additional significant effects on this historic resource. Street classifications on 5th Avenue, S. Humboldt Street, and 9th Avenue are now Minor Arterials in the 2040 General Plan and need to be reclassified to non-arterials to reduce traffic and truck impacts. Mitigation with traffic calming should be provided to reduce these effects. The sound wall currently on South Humboldt Street should be extended with more plantings to allow protection of the 9 contributing resources comprising the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House which includes 3 buildings, 3 sites and 3 structures.
Best,
Francie Souza David Light Michael Weinhauer
Maurine Killough Laurie Watanuki
3 870 of 922
City Council
General Plan 2040 Public Hearing
March 4, 2024
871 of 922
2 StriveSanMateo.org
Tonight’s Agenda Discussion
» Presentation
» Clarifying Questions
» Public Comment
» City Council Discussion
872 of 922
3 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan Team
» City of San Mateo
• Zachary Dahl, Interim Director
• Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
• Somer Smith, Associate Planner
• Bethany Lopez, Senior Engineer
• Mary Way, Administrative Assistant
» Technical Advisory Committee
• Over 40 staff members from all City
departments and SMCFD
» Consultants
• Joanna Jansen, PlaceWorks
• Carey Stone, PlaceWorks
• Angelica Garcia, PlaceWorks
• Evelia Chairez, PCRC
• Sabina Mora, Good City Co
• Nelson\Nygaard
• Kittelson Associates, Inc.
• Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)
• BKF Engineers
• ECORP
• Forget Me Not History
873 of 922
4 StriveSanMateo.org
Objectives for Tonight
» Receive an overview of General Plan 2040,
CAP Technical Update and the Final EIR
» Receive public comments
» City Council discussion and direction on any
remaining updates or revisions
874 of 922
Project Overview
875 of 922
6 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan: Vision Statement
876 of 922
7 StriveSanMateo.org
Past General Plan Milestones
Timeframe Task
Fall - Winter 2018 Establish communitywide vision for 2040 Spring - Summer 2019 Identify study areas
Fall 2019 Create a range of land use alternatives
Winter 2019 - Summer 2021 Finalize draft land use alternatives Fall 2021 - Summer 2022 Select a preferred land use and circulation scenario Spring 2022 - Fall 2022 Prepare draft goals, policies, and actions (GoPAs) Winter 2023 – Fall 2023 Prepare Draft General Plan
877 of 922
8 StriveSanMateo.org
Where Are We Now and What’s Next?
We are here
City Council adoption
hearings:
» March 4, 7:00 PM
» March 18, 7:00 PM
878 of 922
9 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan 2040 Online Resources
» StriveSanMateo.org has information to
assist with the community’s review:
• General Plan
• User Guide
• Ten Big Ideas
• Interactive General Plan 2040 Land Use Map
• Measure Y FAQ
• And much more!
879 of 922
10 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan 2040 Community Outreach
» Community input shaped General
Plan 2040 at every step in the process
» From 2018 to end of 2023 the City
hosted or held:
• 80+ events, a combination of workshops,
staff presentations, and pop-up events
• 7 online activities
• 13 General Plan Subcommittee meetings
• 7 Planning Commission meetings
• 16 City Council meetings
880 of 922
General Plan 2040
881 of 922
12 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan Elements
2. Land Use
3. Circulation
4. Housing (adopted separately)
5. Community Design and Historic Resources
6. Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Recreation
7. Public Services and Facilities
8. Safety
9. Noise
882 of 922
13 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan – Other Components
1. Introduction
[Elements – 2 through 9]
10. Glossary
11. Implementation Plan (separate from General Plan)
• Explains how actions will be implemented
Who is responsible
Timing
• Tracks progress
• Finalized after completion of the General Plan
883 of 922
14 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan 2040 Key Themes
» General Plan embodies three key themes which are woven throughout the document:
• Sustainability. Help ensure that San Mateo can meet its current needs and leave viable resources for future generations.
• Environmental Justice. Reduce the unique or compounded health risks in San Mateo’s equity priority communities.
• Community Engagement. Increase community participation in the planning and development processes
884 of 922
15 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan 2040 Land Use Map
» Designations identify
where specific types of land
uses may occur.
» Allowed uses are broad
enough to give the City
flexibility, but also provide
clear enough direction to
achieve the General Plan
Vision.
885 of 922
16 StriveSanMateo.org
10 Study Areas from Land Use Alternatives
» Greatest potential to experience
and accommodate land use changes over the
next 20 years
» Areas near transit, services, and jobs
» Areas where current buildings are aging, vacant,
or not maintained
» Areas where property owners have expressed
interest in considering redevelopment
886 of 922
17 StriveSanMateo.org
Draft General Plan 2040 Review Process
» Draft General Plan published July 17, 2023
» Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) published Aug. 11, 2023 • Public comment period: August 11 – Sept. 25, 2023
» Community Engagement July through October 2023
• Including five (5) Town Hall meetings in August and September » General Plan Subcommittee meeting in August 2023
» Planning Commission meetings (2) in September 2023
» City Council meetings (4) in October and November 2023 » Public Comments posted at:
• https://strivesanmateo.org/documents/publiccomments/
887 of 922
18 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan Updates and Revisions
» The Final General Plan reflects updates and revisions provided by the community and directed by City Council
» Some of the more substantiative updates include:
• Consolidate and enhance support for senior issues and aging population • Mitigate outdoor air quality in residential areas close to pollutant sources • Strengthen flooding and sea level rise policies and actions, including action to evaluate sea level rise/flooding overlay zone
• Study feasibility of new restrooms in City parks
• Conduct a comprehensive park accessibility analysis
• Highlight safety as a cornerstone of Circulation Element » Attachment 4 of Agenda Report lists all updates and revisions to goals, policies and actions made per Council direction since Draft General Plan publication last July
888 of 922
19 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan 2040 Land Use Map Changes
» Incorporate Council direction to remove Residential High II and Mixed- Use High II designations
» Reduce the height limits and intensities for the Office designations » Reduce the heights and density limits along some study area edges to support transitions between high- and low-density areas » Six parcel specific recommended land use changes proposed to better align with existing land use and per owner request
• Attachment 5 in the Council Agenda Report
889 of 922
20 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan 2040 Net New Buildout
Category
Draft General Plan 2040
Total Net Change
(2019–2040)
Final General Plan 2040
Total Net Change
(2019–2040)
Housing Units 21,410 19,760
Total Population 52,020 48,040
Jobs 16,920 15,000
890 of 922
Climate Action Plan
Technical Update
891 of 922
22 StriveSanMateo.org
San Mateo Climate Action Plan Technical Update
» City’s comprehensive strategy to
reduce GHG emissions.
• Implementation program of the 2030
General Plan.
» First prepared in 2015, based on
earlier plans from 2007-2010.
» Updated in 2020.
» Serves as a “CEQA Qualified” GHG
Reduction Strategy.
892 of 922
23 StriveSanMateo.org
» Aligns CAP with new State laws and best practices since 2020 » New State target of carbon neutral by 2045
» Revised emission reduction calculations to reflect buildout of General Plan 2040
» Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission reviewed the CAP Technical Update in August 2022 and recommended
approval
San Mateo Climate Action Plan Technical Update
893 of 922
Final Environmental
Impact Report
894 of 922
25 StriveSanMateo.org
CEQA Overview
» The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the State’s primary environmental protection law.
» An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is an informational document:
• Discloses the potential physical environmental impacts of projects • Identifies mitigation measures
• Describes feasible project alternatives
» The EIR is the highest-level environmental review document under CEQA.
» CEQA does not dictate project approval or denial.
895 of 922
26 StriveSanMateo.org
EIR Process
» This chart summarizes the EIR process
mandated by State Law
» Comment period on the Draft EIR was
August 11 to September 25, 2023
» Final EIR published on January 19, 2024
= current phase
= opportunities for public input
896 of 922
27 StriveSanMateo.org
EIR Project Description
The Project Description consists of two main project
components:
» General Plan 2040
• Land use map
• Projected buildout
• Goals, policies, and actions
» Technical update to the Climate Action Plan
897 of 922
28 StriveSanMateo.org
Environmental Topics Evaluated in the EIR
Aesthetics *
Air Quality
Biological Resources *
Cultural Resources *
Energy *
Geology and Soils *
Greenhouse Gas Emissions *
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials *
Hydrology and Water Quality *
Land Use and Planning *
Noise
Parks and Recreation *
Population and Housing *
Public Services *
Transportation *
Tribal Cultural Resources *
Utilities and Service Systems *
Wildfire
Cumulative Impacts from: Air
Quality, Noise, and Wildfire
* Impacts found to be less than significant
because General Plan policies avoid or lessen.
898 of 922
29 StriveSanMateo.org
Final EIR
» Includes these additions:
• Status of the Baywood and Yoshiko Yamanouchi House historic designation requests
• California Geological Survey Earthquake Required Zones of Investigation • Measure Y consistency
• Updated references to goals, policies, and actions
• Updated Figures:
4.9-2 Potential Flood Hazards
4.15-1 Existing Street Classification
4.18-5 Potential Evacuation Routes
» Changes do not constitute “significant new information”; recirculation is not required
899 of 922
30 StriveSanMateo.org
Statement of Overriding Considerations
» Identifies how the project's benefits outweigh the potential impacts, e.g.:
• Supporting local businesses and services
• Providing a legally adequate General Plan
• Supporting multimodal transportation that emphasizes safety and access • Directing City investments in public improvements to equity priority communities
• Protecting open spaces and natural habitats
• Prioritizing the development of a climate change adaptation plan • Establishing clear actions to protect the community from flooding, wildfires and earthquakes and plan ahead for disaster recovery
900 of 922
General Plan Fiscal Analysis
901 of 922
32 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan 2040 Fiscal Analysis
» Fiscal analysis is based on most current General Plan Land Use Map and projected buildout.
» Assumed buildout of General Plan 2040 would generate annual General Fund revenues of $15.8 million (in 2024 dollars) in the future buildout year.
» Economic development policy objectives, such as focusing development along El Camino Real corridor and near transit, could be accomplished.
902 of 922
Implementing the
General Plan
903 of 922
34 StriveSanMateo.org
How the General Plan Will Be Implemented
» After adoption, City staff will work to implement
the General Plan’s to-do list, or “Actions”
» Level of effort for each action varies: some are
ongoing, some are one-time tasks
» Example actions:
• Prepare a comprehensive adaptation plan to reduce
climate change risks
• Establish and maintain an inventory of historic resources • Coordinate with Caltrain and SamTrans on transit
improvements
904 of 922
35 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan Implementation + City Budget Prioritization » General Plan Implementation Plan will identify general timeframe for implementation of each action
» Process to fund General Plan actions:
• Each City Department recommends a list of actions and estimated budget for each action for Council consideration to fund prior to start of each fiscal year
• Many of the recommendations originate from the General Plan • City Council prioritizes what initiatives will be funded based on available budget
905 of 922
General Plan 2040
& Measure Y
906 of 922
37 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan 2040 and Measure Y
» San Mateo voters approved Measure Y in November 2020, which set limits on new building heights and densities. » In 2019 and 2020, community input guided the
establishment of ten General Plan study areas to
accommodate future housing and jobs.
» General Plan 2040 only proposes heights and densities that exceed Measure Y limits within these ten study areas. » Height and density increases would help ensure the City can meet State-mandated housing requirements while
maintaining lower heights and densities outside of the
study areas.
» Voters would need to approve any change to Measure Y.
907 of 922
38 StriveSanMateo.org
How General Plan 2040 Reflects Measure Y
» General Plan 2040 Land Use Map aligns with
Measure Y with these exceptions:
• Medium II, 4 to 6 stories, 51 to 99 units per acre
• High, 5 to 8 stories, 100 to 130 units per acre
» Draft General Plan Policy LU 1.9, “Voter
Approved Growth Limits,” would allow for all
portions of the General Plan 2040 aligned with
Measure Y to take effect.
» Where there are conflicts with Measure Y,
General Plan 2040 will defer to the Measure
Y limits until it is updated by the voters or
sunsets in 2030.
908 of 922
39 StriveSanMateo.org
Measure Y and Next Steps
» General Plan Adoption
• Policy LU 1.9 - Voter-Approved Growth Limits.
As required by law, for the duration that Measure Y is in effect, any inconsistency between the measure and other provisions of the General Plan’s Land Use Element shall default to the provisions specified in Measure Y. » Explore potential ballot initiative language to amend Measure Y
» Place initiative on November 2024 ballot
909 of 922
Planning Commission
Recommendation
910 of 922
41 StriveSanMateo.org
Planning Commission Recommendation
Unanimous recommendation that the City Council certify the General Plan’s Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt General Plan 2040. » Remove definition of “story” that references 11 feet average per story to avoid confusion during implementation and allow the Zoning Code to establish specific height limits based on the range of stories specified in the General Plan.
» Clarify that the density range in the Land Use Element, specifically Table LU-1, sets the maximum allowed density, but does not set a minimum required density. » Change the land use designation for the Bayshore Corporate Commons site (1650-1730 S.
Amphlett Blvd) from Mixed-Use High to Mixed-Use Medium I per the owner’s request. » Change the land use designation for the office sites on Borel Ave, between Shafter St and Bovet Rd, from Office Medium to Office High to align with the height of the existing buildings (5-7 stories) to avoid creating a non-conforming situation.
911 of 922
Next Steps and City Council
Discussion
912 of 922
43 StriveSanMateo.org
Public Comments
Since Final General Plan Publication, 21 written public comments received (as of 2pm today) » Multiple comments/concerns about amount and intensity of new development allowed » A comment asking for more focus on cleaning up downtown and attracting new businesses » Owner of Hillsdale Mall sites raising concern about the story definition being tied to 11-ft and potentially limiting office/commercial development
» Housing Leadership Council recommending that the High II land use designation with increased heights/densities be reinstituted » Sierra Club supporting the High II land use designation and more urban greening and open space for climate change and livability » Owner of Bayshore Corporate Commons (1720 S. Amphlett Blvd) requesting their site be redesignated as Mixed-Use Medium I (currently Mixed-Use High)
» Heritage Alliance requesting that historic district contributors be identified as historic resources and increase protectionsfor homes over 50 years old
» Multiple comments related to historic preservation and including contributors as historic resources » A comment supporting nature-based solutions to things like storm water management and sea level rise. » Multiple comments about the Caltrans street classification of 5th Avenue » A letter requesting consider upzoning additional residential lots in the area between Hacienda Street and El Camino Real from 25th to 31st Avenues to Low and/or Medium densities.
» Comments/questions about pending closure of Marriott at1770 S. Amphlett Blvd
913 of 922
44 StriveSanMateo.org
Historic Policies
CD 5.1 Comprehensive Approach to Historic Preservation. Implement a comprehensive approach to historic preservation based on community input and best practices from State and federal agencies, to find an appropriate balance between preservation with other important priorities, such as affordable housing production and supporting local businesses.
CD 5.2 Historic Preservation. Actively identify and preserve historic resources and concentrations of historic resources which convey the flavor of local historical periods, are culturally significant, or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, as feasible, when they meet national, State, or local criteria. Historic resources include individual properties, districts, and sites that maintain San Mateo’s sense of place and special identity, and enrich our understanding of the city’s history and continuity with the past.
CD 5.3 Historic Resources Definition. Define historic resources as buildings, structures, sites, and districts that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources, designated resources in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, and resources found to be eligible through documentation in a historic resources report.
914 of 922
45 StriveSanMateo.org
Historic Resources Environmental Analysis
» General Plan EIR is a programmatic analysis
» State regulation and General Plan policy mitigate potential impacts to historic resources
» Potential impacts from Air Quality, Noise, and Transportation are evaluated in separate chapters
» Future projects in vicinity of historic properties would be subject to additional environmental analysis
915 of 922
46 StriveSanMateo.org
Roadway Classifications
» Caltrans Functional Classification data is basis of Road Classification Map
» Functional classification based on existing conditions:
• Average daily traffic
• Number of access points
• Speed limits
• Number of travel lanes
» Changing a Caltrans roadway classification:
• Would not change the amount of traffic
• Could result in reduced maintenance funds Caltrans allocates to the City
» New Action C 6.9 Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program
• Evaluate whether updates are needed to the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to determine if the program should be expanded to include collectors and minor arterials.
» New Action C 6.13 Street Classification Update
• Request Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration update roadway classifications based on Complete Streets Plan
916 of 922
47 StriveSanMateo.org
Land Use Map Request
917 of 922
48 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan Lodging Policies
» Policy LU 3.7 Hotels. Encourage development of hotels in commercial areas and allow small hotels in mixed-use districts where they are consistent with the density of adjacent uses.
» Policy LU 3.8 Visitor Economy. Collaborate with other Peninsula cities and the San Mateo County/ Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau to support the continued development of the visitor economy of both the city and the region, including lodging, entertainment, cultural, recreation, retail, and local events; encourage uses that attract visitors. Incentivize through fee reduction and visitor perks, sustainable modes of travel to and from the city to reduce both the use of air travel and gas-powered vehicles.
» Policy LU 11.1 Economic Development. Prioritize the retention and expansion of existing businesses and attract new businesses that strengthen and diversify the City’s economic base.
» Policy LU 12.1 Revenue Generators. Retain and grow existing businesses and attract new businesses that can generate and diversify the City’s tax revenue and increase job opportunities to ensure the City has adequate resources for infrastructure improvements and essential City services, such as police, fire, parks, recreation, and libraries.
918 of 922
49 StriveSanMateo.org
Given (e) building height (16 stories)
– updated staff recommendation is
for Residential High designation
Land Use Map Clean-ups
Include the following additional sites that have
5-7 story buildings along south side of Borel Ave:
• 1611 Borel Place
• 1650 Borel Place
• 1777 Borel Place
• 411 Borel Avenue
919 of 922
50 StriveSanMateo.org
Next Steps: Council Adoption Hearings
» March 4, 2024 at 7 pm (tonight)
• Receive an overview of General Plan 2040 and the Final Environmental Impact Report
• Take public comments
• Provide direction on any remaining updates or revisions Support Planning Commission and staff recommendations? • General Plan Team technical consultants available to answer questions Historic, Transportation/Traffic, Noise, Air Quality, Economic » March 18, 2024 at 7 pm
• Certification of Final EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Adoption of General Plan 2040
• Adoption includes rescinding General Plan 2030
920 of 922
51 StriveSanMateo.org
Next Steps: Post-Adoption
» Summer 2024
• General Plan 2040 Implementation Plan presented to Council • Explore Measure Y ballot language and adopt election resolution » November 2024
• Voters consider Measure Y Ballot Initiative
» Winter 2025
• Initiate comprehensive Zoning Code Update to align with General Plan
921 of 922
52 StriveSanMateo.org
Recommendation
» Receive an overview of General Plan 2040 and the
Final Environmental Impact Report, take public
comments, and provide direction on any remaining
updates or revisions.
» Does Council support the Planning Commission and
staff recommendations?
922 of 922