San Mateo City Council
March 18, 2024

Housing, of this Draft EIR, the expected buildout 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?
The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted. Please see Response PUB7-2 regarding planned growth and Response PUB7-9 regarding regional
growth projections.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-64 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
PUB7-24 Page 12 - Community benefits - in addition to design standards, quantify and enumerate "community benefit"
and get input from community as to what qualifies. "Give to get" from developers.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB7-25 Page 13 - Goal LU-13

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.

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.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB7-26 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.

As concluded in Chapter 4.13, Population and Housing, page

4.13-13, of the Draft EIR, future development under the proposed project is anticipated to result in a net increase in density and utilization of infill or underutilized sites in existing urban areas, primarily in the ten General Plan Land Use Study Areas. Therefore, displacement of people or housing would be temporary as redevelopment occurs. While the proposed
project focuses on infill development that may occur as redevelopment, it does not call for any large-scale
development that would be considered to result in substantial displacement of existing housing. The scale of temporary removal of housing would be typical for urban development projects. Furthermore, small levels of displacement that may occur would be addressed through compliance with proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-65
Comment # Comment Response
PUB7-27 It's critical we get this right. Thank you for your consideration, and for considering the needs and desires of ALL San Mateans.

The comment serves as a conclusion to the preceding
comments. Please see Responses PUB7-1 through PUB7-26.

PUB8 9/18/2023 Lisa Taner
PUB8-1 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.

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.

Please see Master Response 3, Lower Growth Alternative.

PUB9 9/19/2023 Keith Weber
PUB9-1 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.

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB9-2 through PUB9-5.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-66 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR.

Keith Weber
PUB9-2 The Draft EIR (DEIR) for the 2040 Draft General Plan is inadequate and incomplete because it fails to evaluate a “reasonable range” of alternatives as required by CEQA.

Please see Master Response 3, Lower Growth Alternative.

PUB9-3 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 General Plan Update process included the creation and evaluation of three land use and transportation alternatives, Alternatives A, B, and C. All three alternatives had similar amounts of job growth. Alternative A allowed the least
amount of residential growth and the lowest densities and heights. Alternative A was projected not to meet anticipated future RHNA cycles beyond 2031 and to result in fewer
residents within close proximity to transit. Alternatives B and C were projected to be likely to meet and exceed,
respectively, anticipated future RHNA cycles. The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB9-4 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.”

CEQA considers alternatives to involve changes to the
project’s “scope, design, extent,” and “intensity.” But, the Please see Master Response 3, Lower Growth Alternative.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-67
Comment # Comment Response
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.

PUB9-5 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.

Please see Master Response 3, Lower Growth Alternative. A lower growth alternative was considered but rejected because it was infeasible and would not meet project objectives nor reduce the significant effects of the proposed project. Please also see Response ORG1-18 regarding recirculation.

PUB10 9/22/2023 Lisa Maley
PUB10-1 Dear Manira,
Please find my comments on the DEIR below.

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB10-2 through PUB10-5.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-68 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
Thank you.

Lisa
PUB10-2 Response to Draft EIR
The Noise Element in the DEIR does not address the harmful effects of low frequency noise or discuss the mitigation of such. Besides traffic as a source, HVAC heatpump units are a common source of low frequency noise pollution. San
Mateo’s Climate Acton Plan (CAP) requires the installation 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 properties.

Stationary sources of noise, including HVACs and other
mechanical equipment, are addressed in Chapter 4.11, Noise, pages 4.11-35 and 4.11-36, of the Draft EIR. As described, SMMC Chapter 7.30 establishes regulations to protect the inhabitants of the city against all forms of nuisances, including stationary sources noise such as HVAC equipment and heat pump units. Stationary sources of noise that are identified as exceeding the noise standards established by SMMC Chapter

7.30 are required to implement noise-reduction measures in order to reduce their noise to acceptable levels.

PUB10-3 The potential noise problem from the humming of multiples 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 publication 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"
Please see Response PUB10-2 regarding the analysis related to noise sources and compliance with the City’s noise standards.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-69
Comment # Comment Response
"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.

PUB10-4 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 Cities and the latest medical studies. The ordinance specifically states the regulations apply to a “reasonable person of normal sensitivities” which excludes
those with misophonia or hypercusis, both considered a
disability by the ADA. The potential liability of this bias should be reason enough for San Mateo to update their
noise ordinance.

The current ordinance does not account for low
frequency/tonal noise or the cumulative impacts from
The comment is noted. Additionally, it is noted that proposed General Plan Policy N 1.2, Interior Noise Level Standard, states that the maximum interior noise level within any sensitive receptor shall not be exposed to 45 dBA (Ldn) by new
development in any habitable rooms, as established by the California Building Code.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-70 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
multiple heat pumps. If the EIR contemplates the noise
ordinance as a mitigation measure to protect the 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.

PUB10-5 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.

The comment references a section of Chapter 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR that discusses community noise. As stated in Chapter 4.11, pages 4.11-1 and 4.11-2, of the Draft EIR, community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the
community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the
individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic and atmospheric conditions.

What makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual receptor. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment vary the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts.

As stated in Chapter 4.11, page 4.11-4, of the Draft EIR, "Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well-being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-71
Comment # Comment Response
effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels." A review of the Internal Journal of Preventive Medicine article, "Is Enough Attention Paid to the Health Effects of Low-Frequency Noise in Today's Society" identifies a discussion of the potential negative effects of noise exposure that does not necessarily contradict the Draft EIR. Additionally, the article notes that, "more studies are needed to examine how ILFN [Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise] affects body tissues from a
biological and pathobiological point of view" and that, "it should be noted that not many studies have been done on the relationship between LFN [Low Frequency Noise] exposure and hearing loss." Currently, there is a lack of consensus within the scientific community regarding the potential health effects of low-frequency noise. Some studies report
associations between infrasound exposure and certain
symptoms, while others find no significant effects. The variability in study designs, methodologies, and sources of infrasound contributes to the complexity of the issue.

Due to
the uncertainties surrounding the effects of low-frequency noise, the proposed General Plan does not set standards for exposure limits. Due to the still speculative inquiry related to the potential negative effects of low-frequency noise, it is overly speculative and inappropriate to analyze as an impact of the proposed project impact.

PUB11 9/23/2023 Erika Gomez
PUB11-1 We recognize this can sometimes be a thankless job. So let me first say Thank You for considering our neighborhood concerns.

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB11-2 through PUB11-4.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-72 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
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?
Please see Master Response 2, Roadway Classifications.

PUB11-3 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.

Please see Master Response 2, Roadway Classifications,
regarding roadway classification mapping.

To determine cancer and noncancer health risks, the location, velocity of emissions, meteorology and topography of the area, and locations of receptors should be known to quantify toxic air contaminant (TAC) concentrations and subsequent health effects. Since individual development timelines and locations are unknown at this time, a health risk assessment (HRA) was not required nor feasible.

The white paper prepared by the Association of
Environmental Professionals’ Climate Change Committee, We Can Model Regional Emissions, But Are the Results Meaningful for CEQA, describes several of the challenges of quantifying local effects—particularly health risks—for large-scale, regional projects, and these are applicable to both criteria air pollutants and TACs. Similarly, the two amicus briefs filed by STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-73
Comment # Comment Response
the air districts on the Friant Ranch case describe two positions regarding CEQA requirements, modeling feasibility, variables, and reliability of results for determining specific health risks associated with criteria air pollutants (refer to Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of the Draft EIR).

The carcinogenic TACs that constitute the majority of the known health risks are from motor vehicle traffic. BAAQMD's Planning Health Places provides a list of recommendations for lead agencies to use for projects that introduce new sensitive receptors near areas with high levels of air pollution or near local sources of air pollution. These best practices include tactical practices and technologies that reduce local traffic emissions, increase site buffering between receptors and emission sources, or alter the design of proposed projects to remove receptors from locations expected to experience the highest pollutant concentrations. Moreover, the proposed General Plan Policy COS 4.4, Activity Near Sensitive Receptors, and Policy COS 4.8, Truck Facilities, would aid in reducing the exposure of sensitive receptors specifically in Equity Priority Communities and Overburdened Communities to TACs and
PM

2.5. These proposed policies aim to limit truck idling within the EIR Study Area and overall support the BAAQMD rules to reduce emissions from mobile sources.

Although mobile sources of air toxics (e.g., truck idling) are not regulated directly by BAAQMD, CARB has rules to limit vehicle idling and the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes enough to generate CO hotspots (refer to Chapter

4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR). Furthermore, individual development projects that have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-74 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
equipped with transport refrigeration units and are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use would be required under Mitigation Measure AQ-4 to prepare a site-specific health risk assessment to determine and mitigate potential health risk effects generated by an individual projects.

PUB11-4 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.

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.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-75
Comment # Comment Response

PUB12 9/23/2023 Rowan Paul
PUB12-1 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.

The 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.

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB12-2 through PUB12-5.

Regarding roadway classifications, please see Master
Response 2, Roadway Classifications.

PUB12-2 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 Please see Master Response 2, Roadway Classifications.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-76 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
reclassify as an arterial would be devastating, contradictory and a move in the wrong direction.

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.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB12-4 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.

I 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.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB12-5 Needless to say, we are sufficiently energized to fight this proposal.

Please do the right thing for the invested locals.

The comment serves as a conclusion to the preceding
comments. Please see Responses PUB12-1 through PUB12-4.

PUB13 9/23/2023 Evan Powell
PUB13-1 Thank you for your public service. The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-77
Comment # Comment Response

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?

in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

Regarding roadway classifications, please see Master
Response 2, Roadway Classifications.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-78 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
PUB14 9/24/2023 Chris and Wayne Rango
PUB14-1 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!
The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB14-2 through PUB14-4.

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.

Please see Master Response 2, Roadway Classifications.

PUB14-3 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.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB14-4 Please do not allow this damage to happen. The comment serves as a conclusion to the preceding comments. Please see Responses PUB14-1 and PUB14-3.

PUB15 9/24/2023 Dave Santos
PUB15-1 The EIR is a tremendous amount of information to digest. The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB15-2 through PUB15-4.

PUB15-2 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?

Why hasn't a moderate growth option been explored? I
believe that is what Measure Y is all about, moderate
growth.

Please see Master Response 3, Lower Growth Alternative.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-79
Comment # Comment Response
PUB15-3 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.

The San Mateo Foster-City School District (SMFCSD) was
contacted but there was no reply. Therefore, as cited in Chapter 4.14, Public Services, of the Draft EIR, information was obtained from the SMFCSD website and documents such as
the SMFCSD Facilities Master Plan and the SMFCSD Strategic Plan 2022-2027. As discussed in impact discussion PS-5 in Chapter 4.14 of the Draft EIR, the projected increase in students across the EIR Study Area would be gradual and proposed Policy PSF 5.1, Equitable Facilities, Policy PSF 5.7, Incentives for Public Facilities, Policy PSF 6.1, School Assistance, and Policy PSF 6.6, School District Collaboration, in combination with the mandatory payment of developer
impact fees would work to ensure that there are adequate school facilities during the buildout horizon of the proposed General Plan. Future construction of new or renovated school facilities to accommodate growth under the proposed project would be subject to separate project-level environmental review pursuant to CEQA, as required, to identify potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures as needed to reduce potential environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

PUB15-4 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.

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 [sic] input.

Please see Master Response 3, Lower Growth Alternative.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-80 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
PUB16 9/25/2023 Karen Herrel
PUB16-1 As a former San Mateo Planning Commissioner (14 years total, 1970's and 1990's) I am familiar with large El R's. I've reviewed them by the inch and the pound! This current one for the proposed General Plan (over 1000 pages) is well beyond what most everyone - me included - will want to
review and comment on, page by page. Instead I am
focusing on two issues.

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB16-2 through PUB16-5.

PUB16-2 Noise is a significant issue in San Mateo.Much [sic] of the noise we experience is related to traffic (another significant issue). I reviewed the noise studies and am puzzled that a better range of locations and a better choice of duration and times of day and days of the week were not used. It is
usually most helpful to start "at home", with what we know best, so I looked very closely at the noise study on the upper part of West Hillsdale Blvd. The proposed General Plan will allow for greatly intensified development in the W. Hillsdale Blvd/Campus Drive area. Any such increase will certainly funnel much larger volumes of traffic onto Hillsdale Blvd (and likely 31st Ave.) toward the east of the area, especially since the alternative, State Route 92, is so frequently congested. So what evaluation does the DEIR give us?
Fifteen minutes on a late Friday morning in mid November on the flat (therefore quieter) part at 931 W. Hillsdale. May I point out that this timing avoids the morning and afternoon commutes - both for CSM, other local schools and the
regular workforce. Using a Friday, in a time when work from home was common, especially toward the end of the week, also creates an understatement of the existing conditions. and using a flat spot, when much of Hillsdale has steep roadway (in excess of 14%) also avoids revealing the effect of increased engine noise going uphill and the combined The comment questions the methodology of the noise
monitoring survey conducted for the Draft EIR, suggesting it is not robust enough to provide a reasonable sense of the
ambient noise environment influencing San Mateo. The noise monitoring survey is intended to provide a representative snapshot of typical community noise experienced at several points throughout the EIR Study Area. The baseline noise measurement conducted at 931 W Hillsdale Boulevard
identified a typical noise level of 61.6 decibels. However, the noise monitoring survey is not intended to provide a
representation of the typical ambient noise environment on its own. In order to augment the results of the noise
monitoring survey, existing traffic noise on W Hillsdale Boulevard between Alameda de las Pulgas and Campus Drive (along with many other roadway segments throughout the
city) was calculated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD- 77-108) (see Appendix D2, Traffic Noise Calculations, of the Draft EIR) and traffic volumes from Kittleson Transportation Consultants that were measured prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The predicted noise levels from this segment of roadway, which encapsulates 931 W Hillsdale
Boulevard, generally verified the baseline noise survey with a calculation of 62.1 decibels. Thus, it is important to examine STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-81
Comment # Comment Response
engine/tire noise from increased speed going both uphill and downhill. The measurement did manage to capture one of the buses that now use this route every 20 minutes - from 6AM to 11 PM!, but missed the common noisy situation of 2 buses passing each other. All in all, a pretty useless baseline evaluation for this location. I can only wonder what people who live near the other areas the DEIR evaluated would
think of where/when/how those measurements were taken.
both the noise monitoring survey and the modeled traffic noise in order to formulate a general understanding of the ambient noise environment influencing San Mateo.

PUB16-3 Project Alternatives are very poorly chosen for a project this all encompassing. The community has been discussing a
range of alternative development intensities (often called A, Band C for land use) which would result in a range of
impacts. Those impacts are not necessarily a smooth
continuum as development increases. In many community
situations there is an as of now unidentified "tipping point" where impacts become much greater and require much
stronger alternate mitigations, as opposed to "more of the same". Ignoring the community understanding of the
proposed General Plan in favor of a less than adequate
"alternative" of reduced noise (largely through reduced traffic) is not responsive to the CEQA guidelines for
requirements in the DEIR. This "alternative" suggests
"enhanced" TOM mitigations like subsidies for transit
passes, e-bikes, ride 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.

Please see Master Response 3, Lower Growth Alternative.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-82 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
PUB16-4 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.

Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection be disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative to the proposed project that would be expected to generate the least number of significant impacts. As described in Chapter 5, Alternatives, page 5-27, of the Draft EIR, identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure. Please see Master Response 3, Lower Growth
Alternative.

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.

The comment serves as a conclusion to the preceding
comments. Please see Responses PUB16-1 through PUB16-4.

PUB17 9/25/2023 Maxine Terner
PUB17-1 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.

Please see Response PUB7-4.

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
This EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines to determine if approval of the identified discretionary actions and related subsequent development could have any significant impacts on the
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-83
Comment # Comment Response
impacts is unconscionable. This adds to the mistrust of government and threatens our fragile democracy. This DEIR must be rewritten and recirculated.
environment. The comment expresses concern regarding the conclusions in the Draft EIR but does not state a specific concern regarding the analysis in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a more detailed response cannot be provided. Please also see Response ORG1-18 regarding recirculation.

PUB17-3 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.

As described in Chapter 2, Introduction, page 2-2, of the Draft EIR, later activities that are within the scope of the effects examined in the program EIR may qualify for a streamlined environmental review process or may be exempt from
environmental review. When a program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the
program EIR into the subsequent activities. If a subsequent activity would have effects that are not within the scope of the program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR, unless the activity qualifies for an exemption.

Regarding the comment's assertion that the Draft EIR does not provide supporting data for the "no significant impact" conclusions related to land use and zoning, traffic, air quality, noise, infrastructure capacity, water availability, public services, and hydrology, the impact analyses of these topics can be found in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, Chapter

4.15, Transportation, Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, Chapter 4.11, Noise, Chapter 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Chapter 4.14, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, respectively. These chapters reference appendices with supporting data as appropriate. The
comment does not specify what supporting data is missing; therefore, no further response is warranted. Please also see Response ORG1-18 regarding recirculation.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-84 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
PUB17-4 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.

Please see Master Response 3, Lower Growth Alternative.

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.

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- As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, the paragraph on Measure Y in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, has been revised to be completed and impact discussion LU-2 has been revised to include a consistency analysis between the proposed project and Measure Y.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-85
Comment # Comment Response
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.

PUB17-6 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.

As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, impact discussion LU-2 in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, has been revised to include a consistency analysis between the proposed project and Measure Y.

PUB17-7 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.

A consistency analysis of the proposed project and pedestrian circulation is provided in Chapter 4.15, Transportation, pages

4.15-19 through 4.15-22, of the Draft EIR and concluded that implementation of proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions would improve the pedestrian network and support programs to pedestrian travel. As discussed in Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, pages 4.4-10 through 4.4-16, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project was concluded to have less-than- significant impacts on historical and archaeological resources and human remains due to mandatory regulatory procedures, as well as compliance with the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-86 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response

The comment also claims that the Draft EIR fails to compare the wind and shadow impacts of developments under the
proposed project. The analysis presented in the Draft EIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Environmental Checklist, which does not identify creating wind and shadow impacts as environmental impacts. The
proposed General Plan however includes Policy CD 11.12, Sustainable Design, encouraging the integration of sustainable design features and elements into the design of new buildings which can minimize environmental impacts such as flooding, wind, shadows, etc.

PUB17-8 6 - Identify the true potential heights with the density bonus increases in heights. Maximum height potential MUST
include the density bonus heights.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB17-9 7 - 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 The comment requests identification of what increased
service needs will be required and how funding will be
provided. Please see Master Response 1, Standards for
Responses to Comments, regarding additional analysis. As discussed in Chapter 4.14, Public Services, of the Draft EIR, individual project plan review by SMC Fire, payment of
development impact fees, consistency with the proposed
General Plan goals, policies, and actions, and compliance with the existing regulations would ensure that SMC Fire and SMPD are involved as future development is allowed under the proposed project. Furthermore, as shown in Chapter 3,
Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, Chapter 4.14, of the Draft EIR has been revised to include proposed General Plan Action PSF 1.8, Police and Fire Cover Assessments, which requires complete standard of cover assessments or staffing studies periodically for police and fire services to ensure that appropriate response times, staffing, and levels of service are STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-87
Comment # Comment Response
added as a mitigation.

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 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. available to meet community needs as the City’s population grows. Please see Response PUB17-3 regarding further CEQA review and streamlining.

The comment also points out that the Draft EIR only analyzes the impacts of constructing new facilities, not the lack of services which would impact the community. Under the
provisions of CEQA (Public Resources Code 21002.1[a]), the purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. Existing impacts to the community that are not caused by the project are not within the scope of this EIR.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-88 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
PUB17-10 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.

Fiscal impacts are outside the scope of this EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted. The General Plan staff is conducting additional fiscal analysis with consultant support that will be considered by the City Council as part of the General Plan adoption process.

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.

As discussed in Chapter 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, pages 4.17-20 through 4.17-29, of the Draft EIR, water
services in the City of San Mateo are provided by California Water Service Company, Mid-Peninsula District (Cal Water - MPD) and Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) with water purchased from San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC). While there is expected to be a shortage of water supplies to meet the demand with the proposed
buildout for normal years and single and multiple dry years in the Cal Water - MPS service area and single and multiple dry years in the EMID service area, the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to minimize impacts of future development to water supplies. The City will continue to coordinate with Cal Water - MPD and EMID regarding
conservation efforts, demand management measures
promoted by the water districts, and implementation of water use restrictions as per the Water Shortage Contingency Plans.

Additionally, future development under the proposed project would be required to obtain will-serve letters, implement water efficient requirements, and prepare a Water Supply Assessment that demonstrates that the project water
demands would not exceed water supplies, as applicable.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-89
Comment # Comment Response
Existing developments can be expected to decrease their water demands in the future as a result of the implementation of water conservation practices. Furthermore, Cal Water, EMID, and SFPUC plan to have implemented alternative water supply programs by 2040. As the City of San Mateo is not a water provider for the EIR Study Area and has limited capacity to directly control water use and water supply planning, the measures described above represent the best water
conservation and water supply measures available and the impact would be less than significant.

Proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions that would serve to reduce traffic impacts are identified in Chapter 4.15, Transportation, pages 4.15-13 through 4.15-27, of the Draft EIR. It is concluded that the proposed project would not conflict with existing programs and policies. Through
implementation of the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions, the proposed project supports public transit, improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It would also promote and direct the City to expand the pedestrian and bicycle network, close gaps in the transportation network, and coordinate with regional agencies to improve the transit network. Buildout of the proposed project is anticipated to generate per capita VMT below the City's established impact thresholds, as the implementation of the proposed General Plan 2040 would support VMT reduction, and result in
reducing VMT per capita and VMT per employee. The
proposed project was also found to promote the design of improvements to the transportation network that are safe for all modes of travel and address emergency access by
considering access routes, developing and updating
emergency response plans, and incorporating emergency
access considerations in the design of future street
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-90 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
improvements. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant transportation impacts.

Analysis of the job/housing balance maintenance of the
proposed project is not required under CEQA; however,
housing growth is considered in Chapter 4.13, Population and Housing, pages 4.13-9 and 4.13-10, of the Draft EIR. The proposed project estimates an overall increase of 21,410 housing units in the EIR Study Area by 2040, of which 33 percent would come from the City's 2023-2031 RHNA
allocation of 7,015 units, which is housing capacity that the City must accommodate as required under State law. The
proposed General Plan 2040 includes goals, policies, and actions that strive to attract business and employment
opportunity, while maintaining a reasonable balance between income levels, housing types, and housing costs within the City.

Please see Response PUB7-26 regarding displacement of
affordable housing as a result of implementation of the proposed project. CEQA considers the displacement of people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Displacement of small businesses would be a market analysis outside of the scope of this EIR.

Please see Response ORG1-18 regarding recirculation.

PUB18 9/25/2023 Naomi Ture
PUB18-1 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 The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB18-2 through PUB18-10.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-91
Comment # Comment Response
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.

PUB18-2 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.

Please see Response PUB6-31 regarding equity priority
community boundaries and Master Response 2, Roadway
Classifications.

PUB18-3 • 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
Please see Master Response 2, Roadway Classifications.

PUB18-4 • Install the proposed class III Bike Boulevard on 5th Avenue Bike improvement projects within the City are considered capital improvements and considered by City Council through the Capital Improvement Program, which is updated every five years. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

PUB18-5 • 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.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-92 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
PUB18-6 • 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.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB18-7 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.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

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.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB18-9 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.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB18-10 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.

The comment serves as a conclusion to the preceding
comments. Please see Responses PUB18-1 through PUB18-9.

PUB19 9/25/2023 Naomi Ture
PUB19-1 I just took this photo yesterday, of a dad riding his 2 kids along our tree-lined 5th Avenue. Please protect our
neighborhood.

Picture removed
The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB19-2 through PUB19-3.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-93
Comment # Comment Response
PUB19-2 In order to assure us that you have no intention of altering 5th and 9th, do not reclassifify [sic] 5th and 9th Avenues as arterials.

Please see Master Response 2, Roadway Classifications.

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.

The comment requests assurance that the City will slow down development to prevent environmental impacts. The
comment has been noted. Impacts from the General Plan
Update to air quality, noise, traffic and safety, and wildfires have been fully disclosed within the Draft and Final EIR. The comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB20 10/1/2023 Mavridis
PUB20-1 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.

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.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a), the public review period for a Draft EIR submitted to State Clearinghouse for State review shall not be less than 45 days. The public review period for the Draft EIR was from August 11, 2023, to September 25, 2023, satisfying the 45-day requirement.

PUB20-2 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 The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-94 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
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.

PUB20-3 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.

The comment expresses concerns regarding the impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions in the Draft EIR. The analysis in the Draft EIR includes substantial evidence to support the conclusions relating to air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions. Since the comment does not
provide any specific concerns on the analysis in the Draft EIR, a more detailed response cannot be provided.

PUB20-4 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.

In compliance with CEQA requirements, Chapter 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR, evaluates potential impacts associated with buildout of the proposed project as compared against baseline conditions, not what is presented in the existing General Plan.

Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR evaluates a No Project Alternative, which would maintain the current adopted
General Plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(e)(1), the no project alternative analysis
is not the
baseline for determining whether the proposed project’s environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline.

As stated in Chapter 4.11, pages 4.11-28 and 4.11-29, of the Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan does not propose
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-95
Comment # Comment Response
specific development projects; however, for the purposes of environmental review, the EIR discloses and evaluates
potential buildout in the EIR Study Area under the proposed project. This represents a level of development that the City has projected can reasonably be expected to occur through the buildout horizon of 2040. To capture the potential impact of future development under the proposed project, the Draft EIR utilizes the baseline existing conditions and analyzes the impacts of urban development through the projection period ending in 2040. Roadside noise levels were calculated for the same roadways analyzed for the transportation analysis in Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. The street segments selected for analysis are those forecast to
experience the greatest percentage increase in traffic
generated by future development under the proposed project and are therefore expected to be most directly impacted.

As the lead agency, the City has discretion on the
methodology and approach utilized to evaluate the impacts based on substantial evidence to support its conclusions. The Draft EIR and Final EIR provide a detailed analysis to justify the conclusions in the document.

PUB20-5 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 comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-96 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
the commissioners do not have the proper knowledge to
weigh the impacts to the residents of San Mateo.

PUB20-6 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.

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 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?

Like Gulliver tied down by thousands of little strings, we lose our freedom one regulation at a time.

Fiscal impacts are outside the scope of this EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted. The General Plan staff is conducting additional fiscal analysis with consultant support that will be considered by the City Council as part of the General Plan adoption process.

PUB21 10/8/2023 Meg Spicer
PUB21-1  I am a resident of San Mateo. Own a storefront business in San Mateo
The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB21-2 through PUB21-6.

PUB21-2  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.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-97
Comment # Comment Response
 I do not support buildings that are predominantly non- residential exceeding 5 stories or Measure Y limits in height.

PUB21-3  I also advocate for the preservation of single-family home neighborhoods, along with small businesses and retail.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB21-4  I do not support additional housing units beyond what is required by the State
The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB21-5  The DEIR should have looked at a moderated option, not just the maximum development.

Please see Master Response 3, Lower Growth Alternative.

PUB21-6  I am concerned about how services and infrastructure for all the new development will be paid for.

Fiscal impacts are outside the scope of this EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted. The General Plan staff is conducting additional fiscal analysis with consultant support that will be considered by the City Council as part of the General Plan adoption process.

PUB22 10/9/2023 No Name
PUB22-1  I am a resident of San Mateo. The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB22-2 through PUB22-6.

PUB22-2  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.
 I do not support buildings that are predominantly non- residential exceeding 5 stories or Measure Y limits in height.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB22-3  I also advocate for the preservation of single-family home neighborhoods, along with small businesses and
retail.

The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-98 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
PUB22-4  I do not support additional housing units beyond what is required by the State
The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

PUB22-5  The DEIR should have looked at a moderated option, not just the maximum development.

Please see Master Response 3, Lower Growth Alternative.

PUB22-6  I am concerned about how services and infrastructure for all the new development will be paid for
Fiscal impacts are outside the scope of this EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted. The General Plan staff is conducting additional fiscal analysis with consultant support that will be considered by the City Council as part of the General Plan adoption process.

PUB23 10/12/2023 Lisa Maley
PUB23-1 Dear Councilmembers,
I have the following comments regarding building heights and the 2040 General Plan:

The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB23-2 through PUB23-4.

PUB23-2 Building heights and density:

District 5 is disproportionately 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 residential buildings (or Mixed use with over 80%
residential). I support a maximum of 8-stories for a
residential 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 population
projections the next cycle should be less than 8,000 dwelling units. I am inclined to only support a ballot measure to The comment is noted. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is warranted.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-99
Comment # Comment Response
increase building heights that place a threshold on the dwelling units built, such as 15,000.

PUB23-3 GP and DEIR
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 alternative.

Please see Master Response 3, Lower Growth Alternative.

PUB23-4 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 contradiction to this statement. I suspect that future traffic congestion and inadequate parking will also reduce the
quality of life among residents.

The comment questions why air quality and noise impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable due to traffic, but transportation impacts were found to be less than significant.

It is possible to have significant air quality and noise impacts with less-than-significant transportation impacts. The Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts because construction and operation of future development under the proposed project would exceed the BAAQMD’s regional
significance thresholds and contribute to the nonattainment designations and health risk in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. As detailed in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, pages 4.2-35 and

4.2-36, of the Draft EIR, transportation is not the only factor that contributes to air quality impacts. While the air quality modeling utilizes trip generation and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the EIR Study Area's criteria air pollutant emissions inventory also considers energy, off-road equipment, and area sources. The Draft EIR also concluded that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable noise impacts due to an increase of more than 5.0 dBA Ldn over existing conditions along one roadway segment (1st Avenue west of B Street) within the EIR Study Area. Similar to air quality modeling, the noise model includes factors other than trip generation, such as average speeds, roadway geometry, STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-100 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
and environmental site conditions (see Chapter 4.11, Noise, page 4.11-37, of the Draft EIR).

Senate Bill 743 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) have revised the methodology for assessing transportation impacts, shifting the focus to the VMT, which considers the number of daily trips and the distance traveled by those trips to their destinations. The provision of mixed-use and transit-oriented development reduces user travel distances, leading to a lower VMT. For Draft EIR, the VMT impacts were evaluated using VMT per capita and VMT per employee consistent with the guidance provided by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research.

Public Hearing Oral Comments
PH1 9/12/2023 San Mateo Planning Commission
PH1-1 Maurine Killough asserts that San Mateo deserves the best objective design standards since there are many distinct 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 residential new infill building, designs need to respect existing community character using established designs found in San Mateo. Killough requests the City encourage new developments to be compatible and harmonious with building types and architecture
styles
prevalent in San Mateo especially with the surrounding
residential 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
preservation architect consultant. Killough asserts that aesthetics of new illuminated contemporary glass buildings Regarding the commenter’s concerns about aesthetics, please see Responses PUB6-1 and PUB6-2. Regarding the
commenter’s concerns about historic resources, lighting, signage, and landscaping, please see Responses PUB6-3.

PUB6-4, PUB6-5, and PUB6-6, respectively.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-101
Comment # Comment Response
will have an impact on existing older neighborhoods and the historic downtown and points out that a consultant could creatively bridge the design look between existing historic architecture and new buildings. Killough expresses concerns regarding street lighting standards and asserts that more green street lamps are needed at dark residential
intersections and longer residential 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 residential neighborhoods and
prohibit neon commercial signs on the new tall buildings facing towards surrounding residential neighborhoods at night, as housing is at the upper level in these buildings, and prohibit older lighted outdoor billboards advertising alcohol and equity priority neighborhoods along 101 which generate blight. Killough also requests the City encourage drought tolerant green landscaping in residential 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.

PH1-2 David Light refers to the seismic hazard map in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR that shows the risk of soil liquefaction 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 multi-story projects in low-risk areas rather than on historic landfill areas that are in the higher risk liquefaction 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
Regarding the commenter’s concerns about geologic and
seismic hazards, please see Response PUB5-2. Regarding the commenter’s concerns about greenhouse gas emissions,
please see Response PUB5-3. Regarding the commenter’s
concerns about historic resources, please see Responses PUB6-7 through PUB6-11.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-102 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
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 Draft EIR discusses
the
need to reduce carbon dioxide from cars and trucks. Light notes that new developments located near Caltrain or
SamTrans public transportation stops are routinely allowed to provide less than adequate parking spaces in their plans; however, there's continued lack of cooperation between
Caltrain and BART with low ridership decreasing on
SamTrans and Caltrain. Light asserts that city planners need to be realistic about the use of public transportation and that new building projects should provide adequate parking spaces and include parking with chargers for electric cars as a more realistic solution to greenhouse gas emissions. Light asserts that electric cars are much quieter than traditional internal combustion engine cars. Light also requests more neighborhood preservation and protection, updated surveys in Central and North Central neighborhoods and older
neighborhoods as potential historic districts, protection of historic pre-war homes and small duplexes for middle and low-income families in the equity priority neighborhoods, avoidance of demolition of homes in older neighborhoods (especially on the east side of San Mateo), and preservation of the street level exteriors of existing Craftsman Spanish and Tudor Revival and Victorian homes. Light asserts that new construction should be compatible with the existing neighborhoods and respect existing community character.

Light requests the City encourage new developments to be compatible and harmonious with building styles and
Architectural Styles prevalent in San Mateo.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-103
Comment # Comment Response
PH1-3 Laurie Watanuki states that the impact of the buildout results in unacceptable cumulative traffic noise within the EIR study area and notes that no mitigation measures are available, according to the EIR. Watanuki points out that temporary construction 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 pollution. Watanuki argues for reduced construction 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 Draft 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 Amphlett.

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 Amphlett to Delaware. Watanuki points out that the General Plan policy states to implement traffic calming on residential 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 Amphlett, 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
Amphlett on 5th Avenue (since it's going to be a proposed bike boulevard), and to not put a truck route on South
Regarding the commenter’s concerns about noise and
construction impacts, please see Responses PUB6-12, PUB6- 14, and PUB6-16. Regarding the commenter’s concerns about traffic calming, truck routes, traffic management, and grade separations, please see Responses PUB6-21, PUB6-22, PUB6- 23, and PUB6-30, as well as Master Response 2, Roadway
Classifications. Regarding Equity Priority Communities, please see Response PUB6-31.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-104 JANUARY 2024
Comment # Comment Response
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 better address the cut through traffic volumes and provide more flexibility to address traffic impacts on local streets collectors and arterials in residential
neighborhoods. Watanuki questions the ADT volumes on
Peninsula and Popular Avenues from Delaware to South
Humboldt and whether this is included in the Draft EIR.

Watanuki also questions 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 separations and questions why there are so many grade
separations between 1st and 9th and why Peninsula Avenue doesn’t have grade separations.

PH1-4 Ken Abreu points out that there is a ballot measure next year to amend Measure Y and questions whether the
passing of this ballot measure would affect the City’s ability to meet the RHNA, the General Plan itself, or the Draft EIR.

The passing of a ballot measure would not affect the City’s ability to meet the RHNA, the General Plan itself, or the Draft EIR. As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, impact discussion LU-2 in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, has been revised to include a consistency analysis between the proposed project and Measure Y. Any components in the proposed General Plan that are
inconsistent with Measure Y would require voter approval before they can take effect. Proposed General Plan Policy LU

1.9, Voter-Approved Growth Limits, requires that, 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.

PH1-5 Michael Weinhauer expresses concerns about the
accessibility of the Draft EIR and notes that it’s very Please see Responses PUB 7-2 though PUB7-5 regarding the commenter’s concerns about the impacts of growth and the STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PLACEWORKS 5-105
Comment # Comment Response
technical and includes a lot of acronyms. Weinhauer asserts that the Draft EIR does not adequately address issues and makes unreasonable assumptions that people will not drive and alternative modes of transportation would be readily available. Weinhauer also asserts that the General Plan and Draft EIR plans for extreme levels of growth (about 40
percent) that would worsen air quality, traffic, noise, and other key areas and questions why the City is planning for absurd growth levels. Weinhauer also points out that the General Plan and EIR focused on per capita statistics 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 existing 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-committal language used in the Draft EIR are meaningless without concrete legislation,
quantifiable targets that someone is accountable for, and funding to ensure aspirational plans are actually put into place and impacts are truly understood and mitigated.

Weinhauer points out that the Draft EIR calls for
decarbonizing housing stock but there are serious doubts around PG&E's abilities to export to support the existing demand, much less doubling that demand and the
significant costs to property owners.
language used in the Draft EIR. Please also see Master
Response 3, Lower Growth Alternative.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
5-106 JANUARY 2024

This page intentionally left blank.

........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX B

REVISED P ROJECTS I NCLUDED

IN B UILDOUT P ROJECTIONS
........................................................................................................................

APN Project/Site Name Address Existing Land Use
Proposed General Plan Land
Use Designation
Proposed
Housing Units
Proposed Retail
Square Footage
Proposed Office
Square Footage
033163050 222 S Fremont 717 E 3rd Ave Single Family Residential Residential Medium Density 40 -- -- 033171040 Monte Diablo and North Kingston 145 Kingston Multi-Family Residential Residential Low/Medium Density -- -- -- 033171050 Monte Diablo and North Kingston 139 Kingston Multi-Family Residential Residential Low Density -- -- -- 033171060 Monte Diablo and North Kingston 131 Kingston Single Family Residential Residential Low/Medium Density -- -- -- 033171180 Monte Diablo and North Kingston 1218 Monte Diablo Commercial Residential Medium Density 34 -- -- 033281130 477 9th Ave Mixed Use Development 477 9th Ave Office Mixed-Use Medium 120 5,645 28,100 034144240 Essex at Central Park E 5th Ave/San Mateo Dr Commercial Mixed-Use High 80 7,000 12,960 034176050 222 E. 4th Ave – Draeger’s 222 E 4th Ave Commercial Mixed-Use High 10 17,658 104,722 034176070 222 E. 4th Ave – Draeger’s 400 S B st Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 619 1,238 034176080 222 E. 4th Ave – Draeger’s 410 S B St Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 688 1,375 034176090 222 E. 4th Ave – Draeger’s Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 3,575 7,150 034179010 445 S B St Bespoke 302 E 4th Ave Commercial Mixed-Use High 60 89,415 66,585 034179020 445 S B St Bespoke 407 S B St Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 693 1,385 034179030 445 S B St Bespoke 415 S B St Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 680 1,361 034179040 445 S B St Bespoke 445 S B St Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 2,192 4,383 034179050 445 S B St Bespoke 4th/Railroad Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 1,383 2,766 034179060 445 S B St Bespoke 4th/Railroad Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 680 1,360 034181160 435 E. 3rd Ave. 435 E 3rd Ave Commercial Mixed-Use High 5 1,381 34,000 034183060 KIKU CROSSING 480 E 4th Ave Commercial Residential High Density 225 -- -- 034185030 Block 21 500 E. 3rd Ave 312 Delaware St Single Family Residential Mixed-Use High -- 682 1,363 034185040 Block 21 500 E. 3rd Ave 318 Delaware St Single Family Residential Mixed-Use High -- 682 1,363 034185050 Block 21 500 E. 3rd Ave 320 Delaware St Quasi Public Mixed-Use High -- 696 1,392 034185110 Block 21 500 E. 3rd Ave 307 Claremont St Industrial Mixed-Use High -- 726 1,452 034185120 Block 21 500 E. 3rd Ave 512 3rd Ave Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 686 1,373 034185140 Block 21 500 E. 3rd Ave 373 Claremont St Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 517 1,035 034185150 Block 21 500 E. 3rd Ave 507 4th Ave Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 877 1,753 034185160 Block 21 500 E. 3rd Ave 300 Delaware St Commercial Mixed-Use High 111 1,380 179,560 034185170 Block 21 500 E. 3rd Ave 525 4th Ave Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 687 1,374 034185190 Block 21 500 E. 3rd Ave 311 Claremont St Multi-Family Residential Mixed-Use High -- 637 1,275 034185200 Block 21 500 E. 3rd Ave 315 Claremont St Vacant Mixed-Use High -- 679 1,358 034194030 616 S. B Street Nazareth Vista Mixed Use Development 616 S B St Commercial Residential Medium Density 48 6,919 -- 034194140 616 S. B Street Nazareth Vista Mixed Use Development 600 S B St Commercial Residential Medium Density -- -- -- 034200220 Central Park South (Residential) 885 S El Camino Real Public Park Mixed-Use Medium 60 2,760 33,500 034275130 1 Hayward Avenue 5 Hayward Ave Office Mixed-Use Medium 18 1,098 4,495 034302140 1495 S. El Camino Real 1495 El Camino Real Office Mixed-Use Low/Medium 35 2,000 20,910 034413080 1600-1620 S. El Camino Real & 1541-1543 Jasmine Street 1600 El Camino Real Commercial Mixed-Use Medium 44 404 1,617 034413090 1600-1620 S. El Camino Real & 1541-1543 Jasmine Street 1604 El Camino Real Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 302 1,208 034413100 1600-1620 S. El Camino Real & 1541-1543 Jasmine Street 1610 El Camino Real Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 349 1,394 034413110 1600-1620 S. El Camino Real & 1541-1543 Jasmine Street 1620 El Camino Real Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 350 1,402 035215050 Hayward Park Station 1701 Leslie St Industrial Mixed-Use Medium -- 3,654 14,618 035215060 Hayward Park Station 1731 Leslie St Industrial Mixed-Use Medium 30 1,075 4,301 035221010 Hayward Park Station 1741 Leslie St Industrial Mixed-Use Medium -- 574 2,296 035221020 Hayward Park Station 1753 Leslie St Industrial Mixed-Use Medium -- 516 2,064 035242090 Concar Passage 678 Concar Dr Commercial Mixed-Use Medium 961 32,000 3,403 035242140 Concar Passage 666 Concar Dr Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 19,413 77,653 035242160 Concar Passage 1855 Delaware St Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 1,413 5,654 035242170 Concar Passage 1880 Grant St Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 18,182 72,727 035242190 Concar Passage 690 Concar Dr Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 1,479 5,917 035242200 Concar Passage 1820 Grant St Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 1,480 5,919 035242210 Concar Passage 640 Concar Dr Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 7,558 30,230 035242220 Concar Passage Concar Dr/S Delaware St Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 2,021 8,083 035383200 Fish Market 1855 S. Norfolk St 1863 S Norfolk St Commercial Mixed-Use Medium 239 12,595 50,381 039030340 1919 O'Farrell Street 1919 O'Farrell St Office Mixed-Use Medium 49 2,421 9,682 039352060 Hillsdale Terraces 2700 El Camino Real Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 2,025 4,051 039352070 Hillsdale Terraces 2750 El Camino Real Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 1,625 3,250 039352090 Hillsdale Terraces 2790 El Camino Real Commercial Mixed-Use Medium 68 13,078 4,670 039353060 2850 El Camino Real 2850 El Camino Real Office Mixed-Use Medium 18 7,458 1,340 Source: City of San Mateo, 2023
APN Project/Site Name Address Existing Land Use
Proposed General Plan Land
Use Designation
Proposed
Housing Units
Proposed Retail
Square Footage
Proposed Office
Square Footage
039490170 Hillsdale Shopping Cente r 41 Hillsdale Blvd Commercial Mixed-Use Medium 1998 297,423 1,189,691 040031040 Bay Meadows Modification, PA20-033 3069 Kyne St (BMSP - Residential Block 6) Residential Medium Density 108 -- -- 040031230 Bay Meadows Modification, PA20-020 2600 S Delaware St Mixed-Use Medium 114 10,244 241,756 040031240 Bay Meadows Modification, PA20-020 2600 S Delaware St Mixed-Use Medium -- 2,474 9,898 040102580 477 E. Hillsdale Blvd (Hillsdale Inn) 341 Hillsdale Blvd Commercial Residential Medium Density 230 -- -- 040102620 477 E. Hillsdale Blvd (Hillsdale Inn) 477 Hillsdale Blvd Commercial Residential Medium Density -- -- -- 040102630 477 E. Hillsdale Blvd (Hillsdale Inn) 477 Hillsdale Blvd Commercial Residential Medium Density -- -- -- 041521010 Peninsula Heights 2988 Campus Dr Office Residential Low Density 290 -- -- 041521020 Peninsula Heights 2800 Campus Dr Single Family Residential Residential Low Density -- -- -- 041522010 Peninsula Heights 2655 Campus Dr Residential Low Density -- -- -- 041522020 Peninsula Heights 2755 Campus Dr Office Residential Low Density -- -- -- 032197150 115 Monte Diablo Single Family Residential Quasi-Public -- -- -- 032311140-50 77 N San Mateo Dr Office -- -- --
032322130 303 Baldwin Avenue (Trag's Market) Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 2,458 9,832 032322200 303 Baldwin Avenue (Trag's Market) Commercial Mixed-Use Medium 64 19,952 60,664 032323340 Mi Rancho Market (80 N B St) 80 N B St Commercial Mixed-Use Low/Medium -- 9,200 5,375 033163010 200 S. Fremont Street (Fremont Terrace) Vacant Residential Medium Density -- -- -- 033163020 200 S. Fremont Street (Fremont Terrace) Single Family Residential Residential Medium Density 15 -- -- 033163150 222 S Fremont Vacant Residential Medium Density -- -- -- 033281140 KIKU CROSSING - City-Owned Downtown Affordable Housing a n400 E 5th Ave Office Public Facilities -- -- 32,684 033441260 Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade (2050 Detroit Drive) 2075 Detroit Dr Public Facility -- -- -- 034093050 2 W. 3rd Avenue 2 W 3rd Ave Single Family Residential Mixed-Use Medium -- 946 18,743 034122020 520 S. El Camino Real Office Office High -- -- 6,379 034122450 520 S. El Camino Real 520 S El Camino Real Office Office High -- -- 120,064 034122460 520 S. El Camino Real 500 S El Camino Real Office Office High -- -- 236,441 034143280 44 E. 3rd Avenue Commercial Mixed-Use Medium 66 5,549 5,989 034143290 44 E. 3rd Avenue Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 932 3,728 034154030 31 - 57 S. B St. (Donut Delite) Multi-Family Residential Mixed-Use High -- 5,120 36,535 034172080 180 E. Third Avenue Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 3,380 19,608 034178130 333-345 S. B Street Facade & Office SPAR Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 402 7,034 034178140 333-345 S. B Street Facade & Office SPAR Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 673 2,693 034182120 406 E 3rd Avenue Commercial Mixed-Use Medium 25 1,799 103,731 034182130 406 E 3rd Avenue Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- -- -- 034182140 406 E 3rd Avenue Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- -- -- 034182150 406 E 3rd Avenue Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- -- -- 034182160 405 E. 4th Avenue Commercial Mixed-Use Medium 15 1,821 65,514 034186060 500 E. 4th Ave Multi-Family Residential Mixed-Use High -- 751 1,502 034186070 500 E. 4th Ave Office Mixed-Use High -- 395 789 034186080 500 E. 4th Ave Commercial Mixed-Use High 86 1,379 142,000 034186090 500 E. 4th Ave Office Mixed-Use High -- 1,333 2,666 034186110 500 E. 4th Ave Commercial Mixed-Use High -- 2,437 4,874 034188140 668 E 3rd Ave Commercial -- -- --
035200120 1650 S. Delaware Street (Azara Apt - former AAA Office Building) Office Mixed-Use High 73 5,814 11,628 035200200 Station Park Green Vacant Mixed-Use Medium 599 60,000 45,000 035200210 Station Park Green Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 11,119 44,478 035200220 Station Park Green Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 9,553 38,214 035200230 Station Park Green Commercial Mixed-Use Medium -- 11,949 47,797 035200999 Hayward Park Project Vacant Mixed-Use High 191 16,874 33,748 035202010 400-450 Concar Dr. (Hines) Office Building Office Office Medium -- -- 276,467 035321080 Public Storage -2222 S. Delaware St Industrial Mixed-Use Medium -- 8,313 33,253 039060870 21 Lodato Multi-Family Residential Residential Low/Medium Density 3 -- -- 039073510 2164 Palm Ave. Vacant Mixed-Use Medium -- 1,227 4,908 039081030 2333 Palm Ave Public Facility -- -- --
039590170 60 31st Ave Commercial -- -- --
040030180 Saratoga Drive and Yates Way (Medical Office) Vacant Office Medium -- -- 86,000 040030220 2495 S Delaware Street (Underground Flow Equalization System) Public Facility Public Facilities -- -- 1,250,438 040030870 131 E 28th Ave Public Facility -- -- --
Source: City of San Mateo, 2023
APN Project/Site Name Address Existing Land Use
Proposed General Plan Land
Use Designation
Proposed
Housing Units
Proposed Retail
Square Footage
Proposed Office
Square Footage
040031210 Bay Meadows Modification Vacant Mixed-Use Medium -- 9,820 382,888 040031220 Bay Meadows Modification Vacant Mixed-Use Medium -- 2,855 11,421 040031250 Bay Meadows II SPAR #1 STA 1 & 5 Modification Office Medium -- -- 184,205 040031320 Bay Meadows II SPAR #1 STA 1 & 5 Modification Office Medium -- -- 130,953 040031330 Bay Meadows II SPAR #1 STA 1 & 5 Modification Office Medium -- 4,756 367,322 040150090 Atria Hillsdale Renovation Quasi Public Residential Low/Medium Density -- -- -- 040161110 2940 S. Norfolk St. (Hampton Inn and Suites) Commercial Commercial Regional -- 59,331 -- 040231020 29 Vista Ave Commercial -- -- --
041362280 1400 W Hillsdale Blvd Commercial -- -- --
Total 6,132 852,887 6,108,355
Source: City of San Mateo, 2023

........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX G

C OMMENTS R ECEIVED ON THE

D RAFT EIR
........................................................................................................................

From: Olson, Brian@DOC
To: [email protected]
Cc: OLRA@DOC; OPR State Clearinghouse; Gomez, DarylAnne@DOC Subject: Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 and Climate Plan Update Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 11:42:41 AM
Attachments: Outlook-z4z5qswd.png
Outlook-dw5ghtmf.png
Outlook-xol112ri.png
Outlook-Banner rea
SCH Number
2022010160
Lead Agency
City of San Mateo
Document Title
Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 and Climate Plan Update Document Type
EIR - Draft EIR
Received
8/11/2023
Hello, Manira—
Thank you for providing the City’s Draft EIR for the 2040 General Plan for our review. This email conveys the following recommendations from CGS concerning geologic issues within the General Plan documents:

1. Liquefaction and Landside Hazards
The Draft EIR discusses liquefaction and landsliding as potential hazards and provides a map of "Liquefaction Potential" and "Slope Failure Potential" based on the ABAG Hazard Viewer Map (Figure 4.6-4). CGS notes the slope failure potential depicted in Figure 4.6-4 represents "rainfall- induced" landsliding, not "earthquake-induced" landsliding, which is a related, but unique seismic hazard. The City should consider providing an additional discussion of this hazard.

The City should supplement these sections with a discussion of official CGS Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (EZRI) for both liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslides, and consider providing a map of these official zones, which are more extensive than those provided by ABAG.

CGS maps and data are available here:
https://maps-cnra-cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismic-hazards-program- liquefaction-zones-1/about
https://maps-cnra-cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismic-hazards-program- landslide-zones-doc-hosted/about
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
Cities and counties affected by EZRI must regulate certain development projects within them. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990) also requires sellers of real property (and their agents) within a mapped hazard zone to disclose at the time of sale that the property lies within such a zone.

2. Radon Hazards
The Draft EIR does not address indoor radon gas hazards; however, part of the City is within an area mapped by CGS with "High Radon Potential".

The City should provide a discussion of both the health hazards and geologic sources of radon GOV1-1
GOV1-2
GOV1-3
GOV1-4
GOV1-5
GOV1-6
GOV1-7
Comment Letter #GOV1
gas, and consider including a map of CGS radon potential zones within the proposed project from CGS Special Report 226, entitled "Radon Potential in San Mateo County, California".

CGS maps and data are available here:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/radon/app/
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/cadoc::cgs-mineral-hazards-indoor-radon-potential-zones/about https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mineral-hazards/radon <!--[if !vml]-->
<!--
[endif]-->
<!--[endif]--> <!--[if !vml]-->
<!--[endif]-->
@CAgeosurvey
FOLLOW US!
Brian Olson, CEG
Senior Engineering Geologist
Seismic Hazards Program
<!--[if !vml]-->
<!--[endif]--
>
California Geological Survey
320 W. 4th Street, Suite 850, Los Angeles, CA 90013
M: (213) 507-1080
E: Brian.Olson
@conservation.ca.gov
“A team is not a group of people who work together.

A team is a group of people who trust each other.” – Simon Sinek ONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use, or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

GOV1-7
cont.

GOV1-8
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
September 25, 2023 SCH #: 2022010160
GTS #: 04-SM-2022-00533
GTS ID: 25265
Co/Rt/Pm: SM/82/11.696
Manira S
andhir, Planning Manager
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 and Climate Plan Update – Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Ma
nira Sandhir:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040 and Climate Plan Update. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system.

The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the August 2023 DEIR.

Project Understanding
The proposed project would build off the existing General Plan 2030 to provide a framework for land use, transportation, conservation decisions through the horizon year of 2040. It would also update the buildout projects used in the City’s Climate Action Plan to be consistent with the updated General Plan 2040.

Travel Demand Analysis
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Transportation Impact Studies, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide (link).

GOV2-1
GOV2-2
GOV2-3
Comment Letter #GOV2
Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
September 25, 2023

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

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.

Caltr
ans 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
- U nbundled parking requirement from housing developments 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.

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.

Integrated Transportation and Land Use Planning
Pleas
e review and include the reference to the current California Transportation Plan (CTP) in the DEIR.

GOV2-4
GOV2-5
GOV2-6
GOV2-7
GOV2-8
GOV2-9
Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
September 25, 2023

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

Equitable Access
If a
ny 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.

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].

For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please contact LDR- [email protected].

Sincer
ely,
YUNS

HENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse
GOV2-9
Cont.

GOV2-10
GOV2-11
P.O. Box 146 San Mate
o, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
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.

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.

4. General Plan policies are not reliable mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the significant adverse impacts that ma
y 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.

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.

2. The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District is at 1007 East 5t h 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

ORG1-1
ORG1-2
ORG1-3
ORG1-4
ORG1-5
ORG1-6
ORG1-7
Comment Letter #ORG1
Ms. Manira Sandhir
September 25, 2023

2 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.

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 Bu ilding Survey, the Baywood Historic District, and the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District.

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 buil
ding 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 statemen
t 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. 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.

The City curr
ently 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.

ORG1-7
cont.

ORG1-8
ORG1-9
ORG1-10
ORG1-11
Ms. Manira Sandhir
September 25, 2023

3 (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?
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 co
uld 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.

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.

Ge
neral 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 requi
res 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.
 The City has failed to comply with current General Plan policy C/OS 8.4 Inventory Maintenance. This policy directs the City to “Est
ablish 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 1 989 Historic Building Survey resulting in the continual and unabated loss of historic resources.

ORG1-11
cont.

ORG1-12
ORG1-13
Ms. Manira Sandhir
September 25, 2023

4 Policy CD 5.7: Demolition Alternatives
Please add the requirement to identify demolition alternatives for contributors to a historic district.

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 surr ounding sites.”  “Potential impacts from future development on, or adjacent to, historical resources could lead to demolition…inappropriate modification…inappropriate new construction… incompatible new buildings.”
 “Development activities under the proposed project therefore have the potential to be incompatible with historical resources, which could be a significant impact.”  “If new develo
pment 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 potent ial 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 ab
le 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.”
This stateme
nt 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.

ORG1-14
ORG1-15
ORG1-16
ORG1-17
Ms. Manira Sandhir
September 25, 2023

5 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.

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.

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.

Sincerely,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
ORG1-18
ORG1-19
ORG1-20
ORG2-1
ORG2-2
Comment Letter #ORG2
ORG2-2
cont.

ORG2-2
cont.

ORG2-2
cont.

ORG2-3
ORG2-3
cont.

ORG2-4
ORG2-5
P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA
94402
www.smheritage.org
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)
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 hi storic 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
Comment Letter #ORG3
ORG3-1
November 1, 2023 2

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 Histor
ic 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.

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 con tributor 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 resour ces 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 resourc
es 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.

ORG3-2
November 1, 2023 3
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.

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 Hi storic 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 concentrati ons 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.
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 determin
ed 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.  Determin
ed 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 ORG3-2
cont.

ORG3-3
November 1, 2023 4
Downtown Specific Plan area, and all structures located in the Downtown Historic District, as adopted by resoluƟon of the City Council.
(b) The City Council by resoluƟon may add to the provisions of this chapter any building which it finds meets the criteria of contribuƟng to the historic importance of downtown and the City. Such an acƟon shall be based on NaƟonal 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 Contribut or Buildings. For the purposes of this chapter, the terms "individually eligible building" shall mean those buildings as idenƟfied in the City of San Mateo General Plan. "Contributor building" shall mean those buildings idenƟfied as such and located within the Downtown Historic District as adopted by resoluƟon of the City Council and idenƟfied 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 idenƟfied as such by resoluƟon of the City Council or idenƟfied 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).

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 as pects 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.

ORG3-3
cont.

November 1, 2023 5
What is the definition of demolition for this policy? Leaving one wall is nea r 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.

From: Rowan Paul <
Sent
: Thursday, August 17, 2023 7:33 AM
To: Manira Sand
hir <[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.

Alr
eady 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.

Pleas
e keep the buildings below five floors, preferably one to three floors.

I a
m welcome to discussion.

Tha
nk you
Row
an 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.

PUB1-2
PUB1-1
PUB1-3
Comment Letter #PUB1
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.

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
Comment Letter #PUB2
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.

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
PUB3-1
Comment Letter #PUB3
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:

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.

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 5
th 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. 5 th 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.

PUB4-1
PUB4-2
PUB4-3
Comment Letter #PUB4
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.

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 9 th Avenues to Arterials.

Thank you for considering,
Frances Souza
PUB4-3
cont.

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 S
an Mateo Planning Commission,
I wo
uld 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.

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.

Tha
nk you for considering my comments!
- David
Light
PUB5-1
PUB5-2
PUB5-3
Comment Letter #PUB5
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)

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.

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)

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 PUB6-1
PUB6-4
PUB6-3
PUB6-5
PUB6-6
Comment Letter #PUB6
PUB6-2

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.

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

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.

5. 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.

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 PUB6-7
PUB6-8
PUB6-9
PUB6-10
PUB6-11
PUB6-12
PUB6-13

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

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.

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.

4.15 TRANSPORTATION

1. What does the reconstruction of the 3rd/4th Avenue Interchange consist of? 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.

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

4. The proposed project increases the use of roadway facilities in the EIR study study. This increases cut-through traffic volumes, GHG emissions, VMT and noise levels. Why are the current TDM strategies not working well? 3 PUB6-
15 PUB6-
16 PUB6-
17 PUB6-
18 PUB6-
19 PUB6-
20 PUB6-14

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

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.

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 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 Avenues. 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- through 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.

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.

12. What is the percentage of Burlingame traffic that use the Poplar Exit in San Mateo?
4 PUB6-
21 PUB6-
22 PUB6-
23 PUB6-
24 PUB6-
25 PUB6-
26 PUB6-
27 PUB6
-28

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

Thank you.

Best,
Laurie Watanuki
5 PUB6
-29
PUB6-
30 PUB6-
31 PUB6
-32
PUB6
-33
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 Commis
sioners - 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.

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.

Furthe
rmore, 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.

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).

Rough
ly 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.

PUB7-1
PUB7-3
PUB7-4
PUB7-5
PUB7-2
PUB7-6
Comment Letter #PUB7
Specif
ically with regard to 4-2 Air Quality:

Placeme
nt 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.

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) Page
39 - mentions the expected buildout 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 aren't we scaling this back given population decreases in CA and the Bay Area, coupled with the significant impacts on our neighborhoods?
Page
43 - calls for human scale design, active use facilities, GD-6: develop and maintain an active urban fabric that reflects San Mateo's unique visual and architectural character.

We ne
ed high quality, community-accepted, objective design standards and other mechanisms to ensure this happens beyond lip service.

6 CD-3 - Protect heritage trees, street trees, street tree equity. We specifically asked that some 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.

Page
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 p
roposed 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.

AQ-3-6
are all "significant and unavoidable" impacts. Any way you slice this, air quality gets worse! Specif
ically with regard to 4-3 Biological Resources:

Again t
rees are highlighted - preservation, planting, replacement, street tree equity, etc. As per above, we need to do better.

Specif
ically with regard to 4-5 Energy:

The E
IR claims decreased usage per capita - but absolute usage will increase dramatically - upwards of 40%.

PUB7-7
PUB7-8
PUB7-10
PUB7-9
PUB7-11
PUB7-12
PUB7-13
PUB7-14
PUB7-15
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.

MTA/ABA
G/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 2
6) 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.

The abo
ve is very aspirational. Again w the "supporting" verbiage - need concrete commitments/requirements
Specifi
cally with regard to 4-10 Land Use and Planning:

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.

Propose
d 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.

Balance (P
age 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.

Specifi
cally with regard to 4-13 Population and Housing:

9 - As discussed in Chapter 4.13, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, the expected buildout 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?
PUB7-16
PUB7-17
PUB7-18
PUB7-19
PUB7-20
PUB7-21
PUB7-22
PUB7-23
Page
12 - Community benefits - in addition to design standards, quantify and enumerate "community benefit" and get input from community as to what qualifies. "Give to get" from developers.

Page
13 - Goal LU-13
Goal LU-1
3: 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.

With reg
ard 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 EI
R 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.

It's
critical we get this right. Thank you for your consideration, and for considering the needs and desires of ALL San Mateans.

Sincere
ly, Michael Weinhauer
PUB7-24
PUB7-25
PUB7-26
PUB7-27
From: Lisa Taner
Sent
: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:10 PM
To: Manira Sand
hir <[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.

The res
idents 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.

Sinc
erely,
Lisa T
aner
PUB8-1
Comment Letter #PUB8
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 Man
ira,
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.

Alt
hough 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.

Tha
nk you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR.

Keith Weber
San Mateo
PUB9-1
Comment Letter #PUB9
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 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.” 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.

PUB9-2
PUB9-3
PUB9-4
PUB9-5
From: <
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 2:15 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject: DEIR Comments
Dear M
anira,
Please find my comments on the DEIR below.

Thank you.

Lisa
Resp
onse to Dra� EIR
The Noise Element in the DEIR does not address the harmful effects of low frequency noise or discuss the mi�ga�on of such. Besides traffic as a source, HVAC heatpump units are a common source of low frequency noise pollu�on. San Mateo’s Climate Ac�on Plan (CAP) requires the installa�on 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 proper�es.

The poten�al noise problem from the humming of mul�ples 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 publica�on 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"
"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 Ci�es and the latest medical studies. The ordinance specifically states the regula�ons apply to a “reasonable person of normal sensi�vi�es” which excludes those with misophonia or hypercusis, both considered a disability by the ADA. The poten�al liability of this bias should be reason enough for San Mateo to update their noise ordinance.

The current ordinance does not account for low frequency/tonal noise or the cumula�ve impacts from mul�ple heat pumps. If the EIR contemplates the noise ordinance as a mi�ga�on measure to protect the PUB10-1
PUB10-2
PUB10-3
PUB10-4
Comment Letter #PUB10
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.

PUB10-4
cont.

PUB10-5
From: Erika Gomez <
Sent
: Monday, September 25, 2023 2:25 PM
To: msandir@
cityofsanmateo.org; 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 rec
ognize this can sometimes be a thankless job. So let me first say Thank You for considering our neighborhood concerns.

We lo
oked at the GP2040 and it appears that 9th. Ave and 5th Ave are being proposed as “Arterials”.

In a c
ity 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 H
ealth 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.

This
type of drastic change goes against the City’s Vision, Safety and Noise GP goals.

Pleas
e let’s stop letting the “car centric” mentality we fought so hard to get away from drive decisions for our community’s future.

I wi
sh 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.

I wo
uld 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.

Tha
nk you,
PUB11-1
PUB11-2
PUB11-3
PUB11-4
Comment Letter #PUB11
Erika Powell
PUB11-4
cont.

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.

The 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.

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.

I 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.

PUB12-1
PUB12-2
PUB12-3
PUB12-4
PUB12-5
Comment Letter #PUB12
Thank you.

Rowan Paul, MD
From: Evan Powell <
Sent
: Saturday, September 23, 2023 3:33 PM
To: msandir@
cityofsanmateo.org
Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <akhojikian @cityofsanmateo.org>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; lnash@city ofsanmateo.org; 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
Comment Letter #PUB13

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

From: Chris & Wayne Rango <
Sent
: Sunday, September 24, 2023 3:16 PM
To: Manira S
andhir <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Draft EIR Comments
I hav
e 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! Spe
cifically, 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.

Thi
s 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.

Ple
ase do not allow this damage to happen.

Res
pectfully,
Wayne Rango
PUB14-1
PUB14-2
PUB14-3
PUB14-4
Comment Letter #PUB14
From: Dave Santos <d
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 6:02 PM
To: Manira Sandhir <[email protected]>
Subject: San Mateo General Plan Draft EIR
The EIR is a tremendous amount of information to digest.

I wan
t 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? Why
hasn't a moderate growth option been explored? I believe that is what Measure Y is all about, moderate growth.

I a
lso 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 thi
nk it is wishful thinking to believe that the addition of 26,000 will not have more effect on the environment.

In rev
iewing the document, input of residents (stakeholders) needs to be considered.

I w
ould 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.

Sin
cerely,
Dave
Santos
PUB15-1
PUB15-2
PUB15-3
PUB15-4
Comment Letter #PUB15
PUB16-1
PUB16-2
PUB16-3
Comment Letter #PUB16
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.

Of c
ourse 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.

The bot
tom 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 H
errel
West Hillsdale Blvd.

San Mateo
PUB16-3
cont.

PUB16-4
PUB16-5
From: Maxine Terner <
Sent
: Monday, September 25, 2023 4:14 PM
To: Manira Sand
hir <[email protected]>
Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]> Subject: DEIR comments
Dear M
s. 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.

Staf
f 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 D
EIR IS INADEQUATE AND INCOMPLETE BECAUSE IT FAILS TO:
1 - Iden
tify 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.
2 - Ev
aluate 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. 3 - Not
e 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.

PUB17-1
PUB17-2
PUB17-3
PUB17-4
PUB17-5
Comment Letter #PUB17
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.
4- Jus
tify 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.
5 - Iden
tify 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.
6 - Ide
ntify the true potential heights with the density bonus increases in heights. Maximum height potential MUST include the density bonus heights. 6 - I
dentify 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.

For exa
mple, 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 PUB17-5
cont.

PUB17-6
PUB17-7
PUB17-8
PUB17-9
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.

Curr
ent 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.

The DEI
R 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,
M
axine Terner
PUB17-9
cont.

PUB17-10
PUB17-11
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: msandir@
cityofsanmateo.org; lnash@city ofsanmateo.org; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Kho jikian <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Richar d 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 wr
ite with high hopes that our planning manager and city council will listen to the neighborhood voices, over the developer voices.

I wr
ite 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.

Thi
s 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.

The p
lanning 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.

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.

PUB18-4
PUB18-3
PUB18-6
PUB18-5
PUB18-2
PUB18-1
PUB18-7
PUB18-8
Comment Letter #PUB18
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.

Ple
ase 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.

Thank y
ou,
Naomi
Ture
************
Naomi Ture
Filmmaker @ Fanny | Pick of the Litter | Batkid Begins
PUB18-9
PUB18-10
From: Naomi Ture <
Sent
: Monday, September 25, 2023 11:29 PM
To: msandir@
cityofsanmateo.org; [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 j
ust took this photo yesterday, of a dad riding his 2 kids along our tree-lined 5th Avenue. Please protect our neighborhood.

Pic
ture removed
In or
der to assure us that you have no intention of altering 5th and 9th, do not reclassifify 5th and 9th Avenues as arterials.

In addit
ion, 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,
N
aomi Ture
PUB19-1
PUB19-2
PUB19-3
Comment Letter #PUB19
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.

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.

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.

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 PUB20-1
PUB20-2
PUB20-3
PUB20-4
PUB20-5
PUB20-6
Comment Letter #PUB20
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? Like Gulliver tied down by thousands of little strings, we lose our freedom one regulation at a time PUB20-6
cont.
1 Somer Smith
From: Meg Spicer, DC, QME
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 7:08 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); General Plan
Subject: survey on building heights
 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.
 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 and retail.
 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.

Thank you,
Margaret Spicer
PUB
21-1
PUB
21-2
PUB
21-3
PUB
21-4
PUB
21-5
PUB
21-6
Comment Letter #PUB21
1 Somer Smith
From: (null) (null)
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 8:51 AM
To: General Plan
Subject: Survey on building heights
 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.  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 and retail.
 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
22-1
PUB
22-2
PUB
22-3
PUB
22-4
PUB
22-5
PUB
22-6
Comment Letter #PUB22
1 Somer Smith
From:

Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 7:36 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: General Plan
Subject: Building Heights and 2040 General Plan
Dear Councilmembers,
I have the following comments regarding building heights and the 2040 General Plan:

Building heights and density:

District 5 is disproporƟonately 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 residenƟal buildings (or Mixed use with over 80% residenƟal). I support a maximum of 8-stories for a residenƟal 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 populaƟon projecƟons 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.

GP and DEIR
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 alternaƟve. 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 contradicƟon to this statement. I suspect that future traffic congesƟon and inadequate parking will also reduce the quality of life among residents.

Sincerely,
Lisa Maley
PUB23-
1 PUB23-
2 PUB23
-3
PUB23-
4 Comment Letter #PUB23
San Mateo Planning Commission Public Hearing (9/12/23)
 Maurine Killough asserts that San Mateo deserves the best objective design standards since there are many distinct 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 residential new infill building, designs need to respect existing community character using established designs found in San Mateo. Killough requests the City encourage new developments to be compatible and harmonious with building types and architecture styles prevalent in San Mateo especially with the surrounding residential 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 preservation architect consultant. Killough asserts that aesthetics of new illuminated contemporary glass buildings will have an impact on existing older neighborhoods and the historic downtown and points out that a consultant could creatively bridge the design look between existing historic architecture and new buildings. Killough expresses concerns regarding street lighting standards and asserts that more green street lamps are needed at dark residential intersections and longer residential 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 residential neighborhoods and prohibit neon commercial signs on the new tall buildings facing towards surrounding residential neighborhoods at night, as housing is at the upper level in these buildings, and prohibit older lighted outdoor billboards advertising alcohol and equity priority neighborhoods along 101 which generate blight. Killough also requests the City encourage drought tolerant green landscaping in residential 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.
 David Light refers to the seismic hazard map in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR that shows the risk of soil liquefaction 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 multi-story projects in low-risk areas rather than on historic landfill areas that are in the higher risk liquefaction 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 Draft EIR discusses the need to reduce carbon dioxide from cars and trucks.

Light notes that new developments located near Caltrain or SamTrans public transportation stops are routinely allowed to provide less than adequate parking spaces in their plans; however, there's continued lack of cooperation between Caltrain and BART with low ridership decreasing on SamTrans and Caltrain. Light asserts that city planners need to be realistic about the use of public transportation and that new building projects should provide adequate parking spaces and include parking with chargers for electric cars as a more realistic solution to greenhouse gas emissions. Light asserts that electric cars are much quieter than traditional internal combustion Comment Letter #PH1
PH1-1
PH1-2
engine cars. Light also requests more neighborhood preservation and protection, updated surveys in Central and North Central neighborhoods and older neighborhoods as potential historic districts, protection of historic pre-war homes and small duplexes for middle and low- income families in the equity priority neighborhoods, avoidance of demolition of homes in older neighborhoods (especially on the east side of San Mateo), and preservation of the street level exteriors of existing Craftsman Spanish and Tudor Revival and Victorian homes. Light asserts that new construction should be compatible with the existing neighborhoods and respect existing community character. Light requests the City encourage new developments to be compatible and harmonious with building styles and Architectural Styles prevalent in San Mateo.  Laurie Watanuki states that the impact of the buildout results in unacceptable cumulative traffic noise within the EIR study area and notes that no mitigation measures are available, according to the EIR. Watanuki points out that temporary construction 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 pollution. Watanuki argues for reduced construction 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 Draft 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 Amphlett. 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 Amphlett to Delaware. Watanuki points out that the General Plan policy states to implement traffic calming on residential 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 Amphlett, 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 Amphlett 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 better address the cut through traffic volumes and provide more flexibility to address traffic impacts on local streets collectors and arterials in residential neighborhoods. Watanuki questions the ADT volumes on Peninsula and Popular Avenues from Delaware to South Humboldt and whether this is included in the Draft EIR. Watanuki also questions 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 separations and questions why there are so many grade separations between 1st and 9th and why Peninsula Avenue doesn’t have grade separations.
 Ken Abreu points out that there is a ballot measure next year to amend Measure Y and questions whether the passing of this ballot measure would affect the City’s ability to meet the RHNA, the General Plan itself, or the Draft EIR.

PH1-2
cont.

PH1-3
PH1-4
 Michael Weinhauer expresses concerns about the accessibility of the Draft EIR and notes that it’s very technical and includes a lot of acronyms. Weinhauer asserts that the Draft EIR does not adequately address issues and makes unreasonable assumptions that people will not drive and alternative modes of transportation would be readily available. Weinhauer also asserts that the General Plan and Draft EIR plans for extreme levels of growth (about 40 percent) that would worsen air quality, traffic, noise, and other key areas and questions why the City is planning for absurd growth levels. Weinhauer also points out that the General Plan and EIR focused on per capita statistics 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 existing 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-committal language used in the Draft EIR are meaningless without concrete legislation, quantifiable targets that someone is accountable for, and funding to ensure aspirational plans are actually put into place and impacts are truly understood and mitigated.

Weinhauer points out that the Draft EIR calls for decarbonizing housing stock but there are serious doubts around PG&E's abilities to export to support the existing demand, much less doubling that demand and the significant costs to property owners.

PH1-5

........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX H

M ITIGATION M ONITORING

AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
........................................................................................................................

PLACEWORKS 1
Mitigation Monitoring 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.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
2 JANUARY 2024

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency

AIR QUALITY
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
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.

Construction
Contractors/
Project Applicants
Prior to
Discretionary
Approval;
Appropriate
Implementation
during
Construction
City of San Mateo
Planning and
Building Divisions
Review Technical
Assessment and
Construction
Documents
Once with
Planning
Application;
Once prior to
Building Permit
Issuance
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 3

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
 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.

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 Construction
Contractors/
Project Applicants
Prior to
Discretionary
Approval;
Appropriate
Implementation
during
Construction
City of San Mateo
Planning and
Building Divisions
Review Technical
Assessment and
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Once
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
4 JANUARY 2024

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
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
STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 5

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
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 PM

2.5 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.

STRIVE SAN MATEO GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR

CITY OF SAN MATEO

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6 JANUARY 2024

This page intentionally left blank.

ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE placeworks.com